6.1. Tājika Works and Authorities Cited

Although Balabhadra’s exposition of Tājika makes use of more than three dozen earlier works on the subject, these are by no means treated equally. Two authors stand out by being regarded as absolute authorities, never to be disagreed with: these are Samarasiṃha, ‘anointed to the rank of a sage among Tājika authors’, and Nīlakaṇṭha, brother of Balabhadra’s guru. No difference of opinion is admitted to exist between these two authors; in other words, Balabhadra is careful always to interpret Samarasiṃha so as to agree with Nīlakaṇṭha. Of the remaining authors, some are quoted frequently and with general approval; others seem to be brought up chiefly to be argued with.

Balabhadra’s acquaintance with the extant literature on Tājika appears to have been extensive: of the original (non-commentarial) works on the subject listed by Pingree as authored before 1649, only three are not quoted in the Hāyanaratna, or at least not under the same names. These are Mahīdhara’s Tājikamaṇi (1585), Śaṃkara’s Tājikacandrikā (before 1607), and ʿAbd ar-Raḥīm’s macaronic Kheṭakautuka (late 1500s, in mixed Sanskrit and Persian verse), only the last of which has come within my purview.^[1] Although Balabhadra makes a case for the permissibility of Brahmans studying Yavana works on the astral sciences, he draws the line at Yavana poetry,^[3] and the Kheṭakautuka may have seemed to him a grey zone. More to the point, it is doubtful whether this short composition should be classified as a Tājika work at all: for all its Perso-Arabic vocabulary, it contains no procedures or technical terms specific to Tājika, and would perhaps be better described as a poetic exercise on the subject of Indian genethlialogy.^[5]

Govardhana’s Tājikapadmakośa, quoted regularly by Balabhadra, includes little or no material on theoretical topics, focusing instead on the prediction of concrete outcomes related to various horoscopic factors. Two other works stand out by containing doctrines not found in the larger Tājika corpus: Hemaprabhasūri’s early Trailokyaprakāśa and the later Praśnavaiṣṇava by Nārāyaṇadāsa Siddha. All these are discussed in the following overview, which presents the Tājika works and authors cited in the Hāyanaratna, beginning with authors known by name (given as nearly as possible in chronological order), followed by pseudepigraphic and anonymous or unidentified works. For information on dates and manuscripts I have relied to a great extent, though not exclusively, on Pingree’s Census of the Exact Sciences in Sanskrit (CESS, ‘Series A’, 1970–1994), to which I have occasionally been able to offer a few corrections. Regrettably, the CESS never reached the completion of the series with the planned volume A6, so that authors beginning with the letters Ś, S or H are not included. The available information on these authors is thus somewhat less extensive.

1. Hemaprabhasūri (fl. 1248?)

Hemaprabhasūri’s Trailokyaprakāśa –also known under several alternative titles, including the intriguing Navyatājika (‘Modern Tājika’)–has already been mentioned as possibly being the earliest preserved Sanskrit Tājika work. As the text is not dated, the 1248 CE date given by Pingree presumably rests on the authority of H.D. Velankar, who did not discuss his sources.^[2] Of the author himself nothing definite is known except that his guru, named several times in the text, was one Devendrasūri; but it is fairly safe to assume that he lived in or near the present state of Gujarat in western India, where Jains were numerous and interactions with Muslims frequent. The suffix sūri in this context probably indicates leadership of a lineage (gaccha) within the Śvetāmbara sect. The benedictory invocation of the Trailokyaprakāśa being addressed to the Jina Pārśvanātha could possibly suggest this to be the now defunct Upakeśagaccha, referred to above in connection with varṣaphala or annual predictions, as that lineage was unique in tracing its origin to Pārśvanātha.^[4]

The work is a large one, comprising between 1100 and 1300 stanzas, with considerable variation across text witnesses. It contains a significant amount of material not derived from Perso-Arabic sources or incorporated into later Tājika tradition, including prognostications based on elements of the Indian calendar. Balabhadra quotes five passages of varying length from the Trailokyaprakāśa in a non-committal way, without mentioning either the name or the non-Brahman status of its author, but I have been able to identify only two of these in the witnesses available to me: two manuscripts (one incomplete and undated, the other dating to 1712 CE) and two printed editions. My verse numbering follows the 1946 edition.

2. Samarasiṃha (fl. 1274?)^[6]

As discussed above, Samarasiṃha seems to have lived in the coastal area of Gujarat; unlike the majority of later Tājika authors, he was not a Brahman but belonged to the mercantile Prāgvāṭa community. He states that his greatgreat-grandfather was counsellor to a Caulukya king, which, if taken literally, would indicate a date somewhere in the span 940–1245 CE for that ancestor–an estimate that agrees with Pingree’s reported (but unspecified) evidence of a date of 1274 for the composition of the Karmaprakāśa.^[7] Prior to this, Samarasiṃha had apparently authored three books known collectively as the Tājikaśāstra (with variants), which became the foundational work of the Tājika school but is, as far as can be ascertained, no longer extant. Balabhadra, in his approximately eighty references to it, never mentions a title but only Samarasiṃha’s name. By contrast, his single quotation from the Karmaprakāśa (by its alternative designation Manuṣyajātaka) conscientiously includes both title and author, suggesting that he expected his readers to be less familiar with it. This latter text is available to me in ten manuscripts (four incomplete) and two printed editions; my identification of Balabhadra’s quotation conforms to the numbering of the 1886 edition.

On two occasions, Balabhadra follows a quotation from ‘Samarasiṃha’ with the word vyākhyā ‘explanation, commentary’, on the latter occasion repeating parts of the information from the vyākhyā immediately afterwards. I therefore take this word to signal a verbatim quotation from an earlier, unspecified commentary on the Tājikaśāstra. Possible authors of this commentary include Tejaḥsiṃha, Tuka and ‘Jīrṇa’, all discussed below.

3. Tejaḥsiṃha (fl. 1337)^[8]

Like Samarasiṃha, Tejaḥsiṃha belonged to the Prāgvāṭa kinship group. While describing himself unassumingly as being of low birth, he also states that his father Vijayasiṃha was counsellor or minister (mantrin) to a Prāgvāṭa official named Vikrama. This Vikrama in his turn enjoyed the favour of King Śāraṅgadeva, who is mentioned in connection with the ‘Cālukya’ (properly Caulukya) dynasty in a way that just falls short of an actual claim that he belonged to it (Śāraṅgadeva was actually a Vāghelā, ruling Gujarat ca. 1274–1296).^[9] Tejaḥsiṃha’s Daivajñālaṃkṛti, completed in early 1337, is a medium-length work of around 300 stanzas, comprising fundamental Tājika doctrines and annual revolutions (not nativities or interrogations). It seems to be based wholly or partly on Samarasiṃha’s Tājikaśāstra, on which, according to Balabhadra, Tejaḥsiṃha had also written a gloss (ṭīkā).^[10] Despite this, it appears that Tejaḥsiṃha had no contact either with Samarasiṃha or with any students of his, since–as discussed above–he claims to have mastered the subject from books, without a teacher. A notable difference between the two authors is that Tejaḥsiṃha does not treat the sixteen Tājika configurations in detail, but confines himself to itthaśāla, īsarāpha and kambūla. Balabhadra quotes from the Daivajñālaṃkṛti nearly fifty times and on many different matters, almost never disagreeing with it. The text is available to me in four manuscripts (two incomplete), and I have identified quotations with reference to the earliest of these (Daivajñālaṃkṛti (Tejaḥsiṃha)1). However, some text passages attributed by Balabhadra to the Daivajñālaṃkṛti are absent from the independent text witnesses.

4. Haribhaṭṭa (fl. 1388)

Of Haribhaṭṭa (sometimes referred to simply as Hari or as Hariharabhaṭṭa, though not by Balabhadra) we know very little, but Pingree’s hypothesis that he, too, lived in the Saurāṣṭra area of Gujarat appears plausible. Depending on which era he is presumed to have used, the year 1444 mentioned in his Tājikasāra may be equated either with 1388 CE or with 1523 CE, but manuscript evidence appears to support the earlier date.^[11] Balabhadra, too, is of the opinion that ‘Haribhaṭṭa […] is much earlier than Keśava Daivajña and Gaṇeśa Daivajña’.^[12] Like the Daivajñālaṃkṛti, the Tājikasāra focuses on Tājika fundamentals and annual revolutions, and it includes only the same three planetary configurations, but the work is longer (some 400 stanzas), with a greater emphasis on calculation and a few topics that may derive from Samarasiṃha’s Praśnatantra (and thus ultimately from Sahl ibn Bishr’s work on interrogations). Balabhadra quotes from the Tājikasāra about sixty times, mostly with approval, but is not afraid to criticize its author in an outspoken manner, as seen above. It is primarily on these occasions that he mentions Haribhaṭṭa by name. The text is available to me in twelve manuscripts (seven incomplete) and one printed edition. The numbering of the edition has been used in identifying quotations.

5. Vaidyanātha (fl. before 1500?)

A single quotation on the planet ruling the year is attributed by Balabhadra to a Vaidyanātha, of whom nothing further is known. Although Pingree does not explicitly discuss any Tājika author by that name, the teacher of Keśava Daivajña (see below) was in fact named Vaidyanātha, and may have written a work on Tājika, perhaps no longer extant. Another possible candidate is the Vaidyanātha who was the father of Kṛṣṇa (also discussed below), and whose likely floruit falls a few decades later.

6. Keśava (fl. ca. 1500)

The Varṣa[phala]paddhati in just 26 stanzas, also known as the Keśavapaddhati or Tājikakeśavī, was authored by Keśava Daivajña of Nandigrāma (identified by Pingree as present-day Nandod in Gujarat), probably in the early sixteenth century. This work, still studied today as an authoritative work on Tājika despite–or perhaps because of–its brevity, is available to me in seven manuscripts (three incomplete).^[13] Balabhadra, however, mentions Keśava only a handful of times (with a single brief quotation), chiefly to contradict him.

7. Rāma (fl. 1510)

Balabhadra quotes a work called Grahajñābharaṇa with approval five times without mentioning the author’s name. This is probably the work of that title listed by Pingree as written by Rāma, son of Balirāja, in 1510, although Pingree does not label it a Tājika work or discuss its contents at all.^[14] From the fact that it is quoted each time on a different topic (all peculiar to Tājika), it seems to be fairly comprehensive in scope, which agrees with the most extensive manuscript listed by Pingree comprising 47 folios.

8. Vāmana (fl. before 1517)

Another authority quoted by Balabhadra about as frequently as Haribhaṭṭa, and often at greater length–mostly with approval, but once or twice to disagree with him–is Vāmana. According to Pingree, the work in question, referred to by Balabhadra simply as the Vāmanatājika, is also known as Tājikasāroddhāra and Varṣatantra. While the precise date and scope of the text are unknown, the earliest identified manuscript was copied in 1517, and the most extensive manuscript comprises 29 folios.^[15] Although no information on Vāmana’s place of origin or residence is available, the fact that some passages quoted by Balabhadra from the Vāmanatājika contain borrowings from Hemaprabhasūri’s Trailokyaprakāśa may suggest an origin in the western parts of India.

Balabhadra wants to make Vāmana an early authority, claiming that he predates Haribhaṭṭa, but also quotes (with disapproval) a statement by Tuka Jyotirvid–discussed below–which contrasts Vāmana with the Tājika ‘teachers of old’, thus implicitly depicting him as a modern.^[16] Tuka associates Vāmana with the twelve-dignity system (dvādaśavargī ) mentioned above and seems to imply that he invented it. If this should be true, Vāmana must have written before ‘Maṇittha’ in the latter half of the fifteenth century (discussed among pseudepigraphic works below) and would thus at least be earlier than Keśava, if not Haribhaṭṭa. Given the syncretic tendency of the Vāmanatājika, however, this appears somewhat unlikely.^[17]

9. Nārāyaṇadāsa Siddha (fl. ca. 1525?)

The Praśnavaiṣṇava or Praśnārṇavaplava is an unconventional, explicitly syncretic text on interrogations, based on ‘the schools of Varāha[mihira], Tājika and Mukunda’.^[18] Although text witnesses differ greatly in scope, all versions of the work comprise several hundred stanzas. Pingree with some hesitation puts the floruit of its author Nārāyaṇadāsa Siddha at ca. 1525.^[19] Balabhadra, who never mentions Nārāyaṇadāsa by name, cites his work on four occasions. The text is available to me in four incomplete manuscripts and two editions. I have identified quotations with reference to the fuller 1997 edition.

10. Sūryasūri/Sūryadāsa (fl. ca. 1540)^[20]

References to the Tājikālaṃkāra, whose author is called Sūryasūri by Balabhadra (who mentions him by name only once) and Sūryadāsa or simply Sūrya by Pingree, occur about a dozen times in the Hāyanaratna. Sūrya belonged to a family of productive authors on the astral sciences in Pārthapura (identified by Pingree with Pathri in present-day Maharashtra).^[21] Pingree dates two of his astronomical works to 1538 and 1541, respectively, and the Tājikālaṃkāra, on unclear grounds, to ‘about 1550’.^[22] Balabhadra generally but not always agrees with this source, which I have not had the opportunity of examining myself; it is quoted in several different chapters of the Hāyanaratna, suggesting a fairly wide scope of Tājika doctrines.

11. Kṛṣṇa (fl. before 1544)

Also quoted about a dozen times is the Tājikatilaka, which is presumably the work by that title attributed by Pingree to a Kṛṣṇa, son of Vaijanātha (Vaidyanātha), though Balabhadra himself never mentions the author by name. The earliest known manuscript was copied in 1544, and the most extensive manuscript comprises 25 folios.^[23] Although I have not seen the Tājikatilaka, the fact that quotations from it are interspersed throughout the chapters of the Hāyanaratna suggests that it covers a broad range of Tājika doctrines.

12. Govardhana (fl. before 1544?)

The Tājikapadmakośa is a non-theoretical work containing predictions for the placements of the planets in the twelve horoscopic houses. Its author, not named by Balabhadra, is the Brahman Govardhana, dated by Pingree with some hesitation to 1544 on the basis of an early manuscript.^[24] Versions of the text appear to vary a great deal, but the format of one stanza per house and planet (sometimes including Ketu and/or the munthahā) gives a scope of approximately 100–120 stanzas. The entire text–excluding the stanzas on Ketu and the munthahā, presumably not present in the version available to Balabhadra–is quoted in Chapter 6, though differently organized: while Govardhana’s text is ordered according to the planets, Balabhadra’s structure is based on the sequence of houses. The title, meaning The Pericarp of the Lotus of Tājika, may allude to Samarasiṃha’s Karmaprakāśa, which ends with this word (tājikapadmakośāt). The text is available to me in six manuscripts and a single edition. I have identified quotations with reference to the latter.

13. Tuka (fl. 1549/1550)^[25]

Although quoted more than fifty times in the Hāyanaratna and referred to by name half a dozen times, as well as being mentioned by Weber, Tuka Jyotirvid is not discussed in any of Pingree’s works.^[26] His work, the Tājikamuktāvali, was completed in the Śaka year 1471, corresponding to 1549 or early 1550 CE. Its opening and closing sections state that Tuka was the son of one Śiva, who had authored a number of astronomical and astrological works (though not, judging from their titles, on Tājika), and the student of his own elder brother Mahādeva. He gives his place of residence as Pippalagrāma, which he connects with the ruling Nikumbha clan; this clan name, along with Tuka’s personal name, suggests a connection with Maharashtra, where there are still several locations called Pipal-or Pimpalgaon. The Tājikamuktāvali as available to me consists of 102 stanzas in varying metres, dealing with the fundamentals of Tājika and, in particular, annual revolutions. There is also a metrical Tājikamuktāvaliṭippaṇī of uncertain authorship, possibly an autocommentary, described in the colophon as a ‘book of corrections (śodhakapustaka) to the Tājakamuktāvali composed by Tuka Jyotirvid, son of the illustrious Śiva Daivavid’.

Balabhadra does not distinguish between the original text and the commentary but quotes from both under the single title [Tājika]muktāvali, nearly always with approval (but cf. the comments on Vāmana above); he describes it as ‘embodying the understanding of the Tājika science’,^[27] and also references Tuka’s commentary on Samarasiṃha’s Tājikaśāstra, quoting it verbatim once.^[28] Each text is available to me in two undated manuscripts, and I have identified quotations with reference to the more legible ones (Tājikamuktāvali (Tuka)1, Tājikamuktāvaliṭippaṇī (Tuka?)1).

14. Gaṇeśa (fl. ca. 1550/1600)

The first cousin once removed of the Sūryasūri/Sūryadāsa mentioned above was Gaṇeśa Daivajña of Pārthapura, whose popular Tājikabhūṣaṇa in more than 400 stanzas is dated by Pingree to the latter half of the sixteenth century.^[29] Balabhadra appears to have appreciated Gaṇeśa’s work more than Sūryasūri’s, as he quotes it twice as often–once more with general but not universal approval. The text is available to me in eight manuscripts (three incomplete) and a single edition, of which the last has been used for identifying quotations. (For a possible reference to another of Gaṇeśa’s works, the Ratnāvalīpaddhati, see the discussion of anonymous and unidentified works below.)

15. Padmasundara (fl. ca. 1575)

The author of the Hāyanasundara, not named by Balabhadra, was the Jain

Padmasundara, identified by Pingree as ‘a pupil of Padmameru of the Nāgapurī Tapāgaccha’; he was active at the court of Akbar, and Pingree puts his floruit at 1575.^[30] The work, available to me in a single manuscript, comprises some 300 verses, nearly half of which are quoted by Balabhadra, primarily in connection with the results of the ruler of the year (section 5.11). The remainder of the work appears to be heavily influenced by ‘Maṇittha’, discussed below, with many stanzas found in both works (some even occurring twice in the Hāyanasundara).

16. Nṛsiṃha (b. 1548)

Although quoted only a few times, and never under the name of its author, the Hillājadīpikā by Nṛsiṃha–grandson of the Keśava mentioned above, also of Nandigrāma157–may be said to be of significance in the Hāyanaratna precisely because Balabhadra associates it not with Nṛsiṃha but with the mythical authority Hillāja (cf. the discussion of pseudepigraphic works below). If Balabhadra was ignorant of its actual authorship, his version of the text must have lacked the metrical colophons recurring at the end of each chapter in some witnesses. Two manuscripts are available to me, one incomplete, the other damaged but sufficiently legible to identify the three quotations from it. The work itself is fairly short, comprising about 135 stanzas.

17. Nīlakaṇṭha (fl. 1587)^[31]

The unique position of authority accorded Nīlakaṇṭha Daivajña by Balabhadra, who calls him ‘the crown jewel in the circle of astrologers’,^[32] has already been mentioned. The same attitude is reflected in the enormous influence exerted by Nīlakaṇṭha’s magnum opus, the Tājikanīlakaṇṭhī, on the subsequent development of the Tājika tradition. Pingree calls the work ‘wildly popular’, with some 800 extant manuscripts and dozens of printed editions;160 and a visit to any Indian bookselling establishment specializing in Sanskrit or astrological literature will demonstrate the extent to which Tājika astrology is, even today, synonymous with the Tājikanīlakaṇṭhī. This unrivalled influence probably had less to do with the intrinsic didactic or literary value of the work than with Nīlakaṇṭha’s standing at Akbar’s court.^[33]

The work itself consists of two volumes: the Saṃjñātantra, an introduction to the subject dealing with its fundamental principles and terminology in some 220 stanzas, and the Varṣatantra, a compendium of techniques for annual prognostication comprising about 320 stanzas; the latter was completed in Kāśī (Varanasi) in 1587. From a certain amount of overlapping, including passages repeated verbatim, they appear to have been composed as semi-independent works. The Tājikanīlakaṇṭhī is the work most frequently quoted in the Hāyanaratna, with several hundred stanzas in all, from both tantras; there is also a single quotation from Nīlakaṇṭha’s astrological section of the Sanskrit encyclopedia Ṭoḍarānanda.^[34] Given the wide availability of the Tājikanīlakaṇṭhī, I have not consulted any manuscripts. References follow the numbering of the Jośī 2008 edition.

18. Padmanābha (fl. before 1608?)

Balabhadra attributes a single quotation on the calculation of planetary strength to a Padmanābha, who may be identical with the author of the very short Hillājāyurdāya on longevity procedures (in 27 stanzas). The quotation is, however, not from that text and may conceivably derive from a work no longer extant. No other Tājika author by the name Padmanābha is known. Pingree gives no date for the Hillājāyurdāya or its author, but does date Rāmeśvara Kṣīrasāgara’s Cūḍāmaṇi commentary on that work to 1608.^[35]

19. Viśvanātha (b. 1579?)

A single quotation on the topic of lots or sahamas is attributed by Balabhadra to a Viśvanāthatājika, almost certainly named after its author. This is very likely his own senior contemporary and fellow resident of Kāśī, who composed the Prakāśikā commentary on the Tājikanīlakaṇṭhī. Pingree does not mention the Viśvanāthatājika, and his list of Viśvanātha’s astrological writings includes no independent works, perhaps indicating that the text is no longer extant.^[36]

20. Yādavasūri (fl. 1616?)^[37]

After Samarasiṃha and Nīlakaṇṭha, the author on whom Balabhadra most relies is Yādavasūri, the author of a fairly large work (some 550 stanzas) entitled Tājikayogasudhānidhi. Balabhadra quotes from this nearly a hundred times, often at length, and with general approval–the major exception being the calculation of planetary periods. Pingree states that its date is ‘apparently’ 1616, and that Yādavasūri wrote an autocommentary (vivaraṇa) on it; perhaps this date is stated or implied in the commentary, as I have not been able to find it in the original text.^[38]

Pingree further claims that Yādavasūri ‘belonged to a family dwelling at Prakāśa in Gujarat’ and was a resident of ‘Vāī on the Kṛṣṇā River’.^[39] Both these claims are spurious, the first being based on the misidentification of Yādavasūri with one Yādavabhaṭṭa, father of the Tājika author Bālakṛṣṇa (for whom see below). Pingree’s second claim is based on a metrically and syntactically corrupt reading of a stanza from the Tājikayogasudhānidhi which, read correctly, provides information not on the author’s place of residence but rather on his parents. Yādavasūri gives his father’s name as Śrīvatsa (while Bālakṛṣṇa’s grandfather’s name was Rāmakṛṣṇa) and his mother’s as Śrī Bhāyi (or Bhāi). The latter is of particular interest, as the metrical colophon at the end of each of the sixteen chapters of the Tājikayogasudhānidhi states that Yādavasūri ‘received his knowledge by the grace of the lotus feet of Śrī Bhāyi’, suggesting that he considered his mother to have been his first guru in the field of Tājika. Unfortunately we have no further information on this possible woman astrologer. The text is available to me in four manuscripts (two incomplete, one complete but undated). I have identified quotations with reference to the most legible of these (Tājikayogasudhānidhi (Yādavasūri)1).

21. Divākara (b. 1606)

The Paddhatibhūṣaṇa is a short work of some 70 verses, nine of which are quoted by Balabhadra–all with approval, and all but one dealing with calculation procedures. Only once does Balabhadra mention the name of the author, who was the son of a Nṛsiṃha (though not the one discussed above) and greatnephew of the Viśvanātha just mentioned, and when he does so it is with harsh censure, charging him with ‘mental aberration’ (as criticism of a statement found not in the Paddhatibhūṣaṇa itself but in Divākara’s autocommentary on it). In that context Balabhadra uses the alternative title Varṣapaddhati; the work is also known as Varṣagaṇitapaddhati or Varṣagaṇitabhūṣaṇa. As noted above, Pingree put its date first at ca. 1630, later revised to ca. 1640.^[40] The text is available to me in a single manuscript.

22. Bālakṛṣṇa (fl. before 1649)

A single quotation on the ruler of the year is attributed by Balabhadra to the Tājikakaustubha, which is almost certainly the work of that name authored by Bālakṛṣṇa[bhaṭṭa].^[41] As already noted, Pingree mistakenly identifies Bālakṛṣṇa’s father Yādavabhaṭṭa (son of Rāmakṛṣṇa) with the Tājika author Yādavasūri (son of Śrīvatsa). He puts Bālakṛṣṇa’s floruit at ca. 1625/1650 without giving any sources; the earlier date may possibly be due to Pingree’s belief that the Hāyanaratna was written in 1629, making this a terminus ante quem. Having revised this dating by two decades, we can only say with certainty that the Tājikakaustubha was authored before 1649. It is apparently a large work: the most extensive manuscript listed by Pingree runs to 75 folios. Pingree believes it may have been written at Jambūsaras (Jambusar in present-day Gujarat), seemingly on the basis of the earliest identified manuscript; Prakāśā, the ancestral home mentioned by Bālakṛṣṇa in his closing stanzas, is said to be somewhat further south, on the northern bank of the river Tapi.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

See Pingree 1981: 98 f.; 1997: 84; 1970–1994 A4: 390b ff., A2: 79b f.

[2]:

Pingree (1981: 112) says that Hemaprabhasūri ‘is generally alleged to have written the Trailokyaprakāśa in 1248’. Velankar (1944: 165) merely states that the work was ‘composed in Saṃ. 1305’ (≈ 1248 CE), while R.S. Sharma in his edition of the text (1946: xvi) vaguely suggests that Velankar’s dating was based ‘perhaps on the authority of some manuscript’.

[3]:

See section 1.2. Karttunen (2015: 401) mistakenly states that the prima facie authority cited by Balabhadra as prohibiting the use of Yavana language is Vasiṣṭhadharmasūtra 6.⁴¹ (na mlecchabhāṣāṃ śikṣet[a]). The actual reference (na vaded yāvanīṃ bhāṣāṃ prāṇaiḥ kaṇṭhagatair api) is only to smṛti or ‘Tradition’, with no specific authority mentioned. This half-stanza is found in Bhaviṣyapurāṇa 3.28.53, the second half of which warns against entering a Jain temple ‘even when being trampled by elephants’ (gajair āpīḍyamāno’pi na gacchej jainamandiram). The juxtaposition of Jains and Yavanas (Muslims) is probably not coincidental. Considering Balabhadra’s explicit position on the permissible uses of Yavana language and learning, not to mention the fact of his Hāyanaratna being perhaps the most ambitious and comprehensive introduction to Tājika ever written, Karttunen’s conclusion (loc. cit.) that ‘the great popularity of Tājika or Islamic astrology’ amounted to ‘[d]efying Balabhadra’ is surprising to say the least.

[4]:

Dundas 2002: 284 n. 46. Cf. note 41. The name Samarasiṃha also recurs in the history of the Upakeśagaccha; cf. note 21.

[5]:

The main topic of the Kheṭakautuka is the results of the seven planets and Rāhu in the twelve horoscopic houses (not, as stated by Minkowski [2004: 332], ‘the influences of the houses in the signs of the zodiac’). For the complex figure of ʿAbd ar-Raḥīm (Khāni-Khānān), one of the ‘nine gems’ at the court of Akbar, see Orthmann 1996.

[6]:

For a more detailed study of Samarasiṃha and his works, see Gansten 2019.

[7]:

Pingree 1997: 81 (using the alternative title Tājikatantrasāra); but cf. Tejaḥsiṃha’s use of the term Cālukya (for Caulukya, though properly speaking these are two unrelated Indian dynasties) as discussed below. Although Pingree (1981: 97) first somewhat rashly put a name to the Caulukya ruler alluded to by Samarasiṃha, his later treatment of the matter was more cautious.

[8]:

For further details on Tejaḥsiṃha, see Gansten 2017, 2019.

[9]:

Pingree’s summaries (1970–1994 A3: 89a; 1981: 130; 1997: 82) of Tejaḥsiṃha’s biographical sketch are incorrect; once more I suspect that he had not fully grasped the meaning of the passages in question.

[10]:

See section 5.1.

[11]:

See Pingree 1981: 98, corrected in 1997: 82.

[12]:

See section 4.2.

[13]:

For Keśava and his works, see Pingree 1970–1994 A2: 65a–74a; A4: 64a–66a; A5 56a–59b; 1981: 126 et passim; 1997: 83.

[14]:

Pingree 1970–1994 A5: 426b.

[15]:

Pingree 1970–1994 A5: 616a, correcting his previous (1981: 98), later dating. Only six manuscripts are listed, and no editions. It is not known whether any of the manuscripts is complete.

[16]:

See section 2.8.

[17]:

See section 4.2. Syntheses of Tājika and classical Indian astrology are found in some late works such as the Praśnavaiṣṇava (see below) and the Praśnatantra spuriously attributed to Nīlakaṇṭha (see Gansten 2014).

[18]:

Praśnavaiṣṇava 1.2. Another possible meaning is ‘the schools of Varāha[mihira] and the Tājika Mukunda’. In either case, the identity of this Mukunda is currently unknown.

[19]:

Pingree 1970–1994 A3: 168b ff. Nārāyaṇadāsa refers to himself as a ruler of the gusāmyis (reSanskritized from an eastern vernacular form of gosvāmin), most likely to be taken here as a caste designation: Pingree’s assumption that Nārāyaṇadāsa was ‘probably a follower of Caitanya’ appears theologically unlikely in light of his benedictory invocation addressed to Nārāyaṇa, somewhat abstractly described, rather than to Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa or to Caitanya himself.

[20]:

For more information on Sūryasūri/Sūryadāsa (chiefly pertaining to his non-astrological works), see Minkowski 2004.

[21]:

Pingree 1970–1994 A2: 107a.

[22]:

Pingree 1981 passim; 1997: 83 f.

[23]:

Pingree 1970–1994 A2: 51a; A5: 46. Only three manuscripts are listed, and no editions. It is not known whether any of the manuscripts is complete.

[24]:

Pingree 1970–1994 A2: 134b f. Govardhana’s Brahman status is mentioned in a stanza often omitted but reproduced by Pingree from an early manuscript (dvijo dhārmiko rāmo […] tatputro […] govardhano). Pingree, while equating the apparent date of this manuscript with the author’s floruit, does not elaborate on his reasons for doing so, but does follow the latter with a question mark. The translation of the Śaka date (’ṅgāṅgendre) as 1466 is sound in itself; however, the colophon in which it is found appears to be a corrupt śloka, of which pādas b and c remain intact but not, unfortunately, pāda d containing the date. The original version may have read ’ṅgāṅgendravatsare or similar, making no change in the date, but we cannot be sure.

[25]:

The following overview is a summary of the information on Tuka Jyotirvid found in Gansten 2017.

[26]:

See Weber 1853: 251. There is, however, a mention in Pingree 1970–1994 A1: 47b of an Ātuka/Āṭuka (clearly a mistake for Tuka) as the author of the Tājikamuktāvali, citing a single manuscript–a fact overlooked in Gansten 2017. Pingree’s entry also gives the name of Tuka’s father wrongly as Sadāśiva.

[27]:

See section 4.2.

[28]:

See sections 2.9, 4.5.

[29]:

Pingree’s dating of the Tājikabhūṣaṇa seems to have veered considerably. After first (1970–1994 A2: 107a–110a, published in 1971) giving Gaṇeśa’s date as ‘fl. ca. 1600’, he states in A3: 28b (1976): ‘Originally dated ca. 1600, Gaṇeśa’s floruit must be extended backwards by about 50 years in light of the date of his cousin Jñānarāja (fl. 1503).’ This then becomes ‘1550/1600’ in A4: 75b f. (1981) and A5: 74b f. (1994). In Pingree 1981: 99 it is ‘[t]owards the end of the sixteenth century’; in 1984: 93 he strikes a mean with ‘ca. 1575’; but in 1997: 84 it is again ‘about fifty years later’ than 1550, and in 2004: 230, ‘ca. 1600’. No arguments are given for these changes.

[30]:

Pingree 1970–1994 A4: 179a; A5: 208b. For more on Padmasundara’s interactions with Akbar, see Truschke 2016: 69 ff.

[31]:

For more details on Nīlakaṇṭha’s works, see Pingree 1970–1994 A3: 177b–189a, A4: 142b–144; 1981: 97 ff., 116, 127; 1997: 84 f.

[32]:

See section 1.6.

[33]:

For discussions of Nīlakaṇṭha’s court position and the jyotiṣarāja institution, see Pingree 1997: 92 f.; Sarma 2000. Minkowski (2004: 330 f.), citing no sources, states that the Tājikanīlakaṇṭhī was actually commissioned by Akbar, which seems doubtful; the text itself makes no reference to the Mughal emperor. On the basis of a conjecture in Ali 1992: 43, Minkowski further claims that Nīlakaṇṭha’s work was later translated into Persian at Akbar’s request, but Ali is probably mistaken: Abū al-Faẓl’s Āʾīn-i-Akbarī, to which he refers, only states vaguely that ‘Mukammal K̲ h̲ān of Gujrāt translated into Persian the Tājak, a well-known work on Astronomy’ (transl. Blochmann 1927 [1873]: 112). That Ali should tentatively identify this as the Tājikanīlakaṇṭhī is yet a tribute to the continued popularity of the latter work; but only three to four years had passed between its completion in Varanasi in 1587 and the writing of the Āʾīn-i-Akbarī, providing a rather narrow window for it first to have become sufficiently well-known and appreciated to merit translation, then actually translated and brought to the notice of Abū al-Faẓl. The Persian translator’s connection to Gujarat rather suggests a text originating in western India–possibly Samarasiṃha’s foundational and, at that time, still extant Tājikaśāstra.

[34]:

For the Ṭoḍarānanda, commissioned by Rājā Ṭoḍaramalla, see Rocher 2016: 1–13.

[35]:

Pingree 1970–1994 A4: 166b, 169a; A5: 502.

[36]:

See Pingree 1970–1994 A5: 669a ff.

[37]:

The following overview is a summary of the information on Yādavasūri found in Gansten 2017.

[38]:

Pingree 1981: 99; 1970–1994 A5: 335. The earliest manuscript of the Tājikayogasudhānidhi cited by Pingree was copied in 1667, after the composition of the Hāyanaratna.

[39]:

Pingree 1997: 84.

[40]:

Pingreee 1984: 98; 2004: 231.

[41]:

I have not been able to verify the quotation, however, as I have access only to a single, incomplete manuscript of the Tājikakaustubha. For Bālakṛṣṇa, see Pingree 1981: 99; 1970–1994 A4: 243a f.