Minerals and Metals in Ancient India v2.c43.s3.t3.13

v2.c43.s3.t3.13

The confusion was however not perpetuated. Kālidāsa gave the right description of vaidūrya by referring to its long columnal (ratnaśalākā) grass-green crystals (Kumārasambhava, 1.24). Chrysoberyl was rightly recognised as a separate mineral karketana, by Buddhabhaṭṭa himself rudhira hemamadhuprakāśam (RP, 222; also 221-30). This gem was known to be ‘uniformly coloured, light-red like copper or yellow like honey’ (MM, 426). Garuda Purāṇa describes it as possessing ‘burning fiery brilliance of honey, shedding brilliant rays as if heated in fire’ (GP, 1.75.2 and 4) which reminds us of Buddhabhaṭṭa’s Sphuliṅga bahā (RP, 200), a description wrongly assigned to beryl (it could represent golden beryl, a gem softer than chrysoberyl but occurring with beryl). Pāribhadra, ‘a transparent water-green gem’ was equated by Tagore (Manimālā, part 2, p. 509) to aquamarine, a variety of beryl; it could be chrysoberyl also.