Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Jyotihshastra: Astral and Mathematical Literature c7: Chapter V. Genethlialogy

Jyotiḥśāstra: Astral and Mathematical Literature c7

Language
English

Contents

Chapter V. Genethlialogy

c7.1

*Jātaka*

c7.2

Though already as a part of divination Indians had for long predicted the characteristics of a native on the basis of the *nakṣatra* occupied by the Moon at his birth (e.g., *Śārdūlakarṇāvadāna*, pp. 61–62), the prediction of the life of the native on the basis of the horoscope cast at his birth—a science that was developed in Hellenistic Egypt in the second century B.C.—was introduced into India only in the second century A.D. In 149/150, probably at the court of the Western Kṣatrapa Rudradāman in Ujjayinī, a Greek manuscript of an astrological text composed in Egypt shortly after 100 A.D. was translated into Sanskrit prose by the head of the Greek community, who was entitled Yavaneśvara. Already in this translation the Hellenistic system had begun to be Hinduized—for instance, the pictures of the Decans and Hours that adorned the Greek manuscript were interpreted by Yavaneśvara in terms of the iconography of Śiva and Pārvatī.¹ Unfortunately, we no longer have Yavaneśvara's translation, but we do possess a very substantial portion of a versification of it made by the *Yavana*rāja Sphujidhvaja in 269/270, during the reign of the Western Kṣatrapa Rudrasena II. His *Yavanajātaka*² shows further signs of Hinduization; in particular one suspects that he was responsible for adding the chapter on reincarnation (YJ 43), the lists of minerals, plants, and animals that are influenced by āyurvedic materia medica (YJ 62), and the section on military astrology that is indebted to such sources as the GS (YJ 73–76). The original Greek system was of course further modified so that the predictions fit the social and economic expectations of people born in India, and Indian astrologers after Sphujidhvaja considerably developed genethlialogy by emphasizing some aspects at the expense of others or by creating new and more complex techniques of interpreting horoscopes; but basically all of *jātaka* before the introduction of *tājika* texts in the thirteenth century, and even most of *jātaka* after that, can be traced back to the *Yavanajātaka* and to the lost work of Satya, who had access to at least one other Sanskrit translation of a Greek text on genethlialogy besides the YJ.

c7.3

¹ D. PINGREE, "The Indian Iconography of the Decans and Horās," JWCI 26 (1963), 223–254.

c7.4

² Edited, translated, and commented on by D. PINGREE, The Yavanajātaka of Sphujidhvaja, HOS 48, 2 vols., Cambridge, Mass. 1978.

c7.5

Sphujidhvaja’s YJ contains seventy-nine adhyāyas, which may be divided into five sections: on nativities (YJ 1–51), on praśna or interrogations (YJ 52–72), on yātrā or military astrology (YJ 73–76), on muhūrta or catarchic astrology (YJ 77–78), and on mathematical astronomy (YJ 79). We have already discussed the last section in the chapter on astronomy; here we shall only review the contents of the first, reserving sections two-four for the relevant chapters of this book.

c7.6

YJ 1 describes the fundamental elements of genethlialogy—the zodiacal signs (rāśis) and their subdivisions (horās [ὥραι], drekāṇas [δεκανοί], saptāṃśas, navāṃśas,³ dvādaśāṃśas [δωδεκατημόρια], triṃśāṃśas [ὅρια], sauras, cūḍāpadas, and liptikas [λεπτά]); the astrological places (bhāvas), categorized as cardines (kendras; κέντρα), succeedent (pāṇapharas; ἐπαναφοραί), and cadents (āpoklimas; ἀποκλίματα); the planets’ exaltations (uccas); their triplicities (trikoṇas; τρίγωνα); their aspects (dṛṣṭi); the various strengths of the zodiacal signs and planets; and the characteristics, spheres of influence, and interrelationships of the planets. The next two adhyāyas (YJ 2–3) describe respectively the figures associated with each of the twenty-four horās and thirty-six decans. And adhyāya 4 lists the objects associated with the zodiacal signs and the planets. The next two chapters deal with conception and gestation (YJ 5), and the circumstances of birth (YJ 6). In adhyāya 7 Sphujidhvaja describes the effects on the natives of the planets being in their exaltations or dejections, in their triplicities, in their own, their friends’, or their enemies’ houses. Adhyāyas 8–9 are devoted to the astrological situations that lead to the birth of kings and other leaders. The four yogas of the Moon—sunaphā (συναφή), anapharā (ἀναφορά), daurudhara (δορυφορία), and kemadruma (κενοδρομία)—are discussed in adhyāya 10, the two of the Sun—veśi and vāśi (φάσις) in adhyāya 11. There follow seven chapters (YJ 12–18) on the native born when each of the planets (in the order Sun, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and Moon) is in each of the zodiacal signs. Adhyāya 19 is on the effect of each of the zodiacal signs in the ascendant, adhyāya 20 on that of each of the planets. There follows a section on conjunctions of planets: of two and three planets in YJ 21, of four planets (producing religious natives) in YJ 22, of five planets in YJ 23, and of six and seven planets in YJ 24. The next two chapters (YJ 25–26) enumerate the effects of each of the planets’ being in each of the places except the ascendant. In adhyāya 27 Sphujidhvaja describes three melothesias: of planets, of horās, and of decans. There follow four adhyāyas (YJ 28–31) on the native born when each horā, decan, saptāṃśa, and navāṃśa is in the ascendant. Adhyāyas 32 and 33 are on the Moon’s and all the other planets’ being in each others’ navāṃśas, and adhyāya 34 on each of the planets in a dvādaśāṃśa of each of the zodiacal signs. In YJ 35 Sphujidhvaja very obscurely deals with the theory of the prorogator (ἀφέτης)—a topic ignored by subsequent Indian astrologers until it was reintroduced as the *hillāja* (Arabic *haylāj*) in *tājika* texts. There is then inserted a chapter (YJ 36) on the planetary configurations known as *yogas*. *Adhyāyas* 37–43 are concerned with the computation of the length of the native's life (*āyurdāya*; YJ 37), with fatal configurations (*ariṣṭayoga*; YJ 38), with the periods (*daśās*) and subperiods (*antara-daśās*) of the native's life (YJ 39–41), with the cause of his death (YJ 42), and with his next incarnation (YJ 43). There follows a long section (YJ 44–51) on *aṣṭakavarga* or the transits of each of the planets (in the order Sun, Saturn, Jupiter, Venus, Mars, Mercury, and Moon) through the astrological places counted from themselves, from each other, and from the ascendant; this is a fundamental method of continuous horoscopy. Sphujidhvaja's treatment of *jātaka* ends with a description of the ideal astrologer (YJ 51, 13–20).

c7.7

³ On the Indian decans and navāṃśas in Sasanian, Arabic, Byzantine, and Latin astrology see D. PINGREE, Viator 7 (1976), 146, 151, 172–173, and 181–184.

c7.8

In large measure based on the YJ, but also dependent on the lost work of Satya,⁴ is the *Vṛddhayavanajātaka*⁵ composed by the Yavanādhirāja Mīnarāja⁶ in about 300–325 in the realm of the Western Kṣatrapas—that is, during the reign of Rudrasiṃha II (ca. 305–317) or Yaśodāman II (ca. 317–332). This is probably the work called *Yavana* referred to by al-Bīrūnī (*India* 14). It is an immense text, twice as long as the YJ, divided into seventy-one *adhyāyas*; the last eight, as we have already noted, are concerned with omens. The rest to a large extent repeat and expand upon the YJ.⁷ The remainder deal with the effect of each planet (in the order of the week-days, as henceforth is normal in Sanskrit texts) in each zodiacal sign aspected by each other planet (VYJ 9–15); on the effects of the planets in each astrological place while in various of its *vargas* (VYJ 24–35); on the ascendant aspected by each of the planets (VYJ 36); on the lord of each astrological place in its own and every other place (VYJ 54); and on the "rays" (*raśmi*) of the planets (VYJ 56). Only once—in an astrological *digvijaya* (VYJ 2, 9–10)—does Mīnarāja mention Rāhu as a *graha*; Sphujidhvaja never does. The inclusion of Rāhu and Ketu among the planets to make them nine postdates the VYJ.

c7.9

⁴ The details of the dependence of Indian astrologers on the YJ and on each other will be found in my edition of Sphujidhvaja.

c7.10

⁵ Edited by D. PINGREE as GOS 162–163, Baroda 1976; *adhyāyas* 1–34 with a Hindi *ṭīkā* were published by RĀMASVARŪPA ŚARMAN, New Delhi 1976.

c7.11

⁶ CESS A 4.

c7.12

| VYJ | YJ | VYJ | YJ |
| 1–2 | 1 | 17–24 | 12–19 |
| 3–4 | 5–6 | 37–39 | 10 |
| 5–6 | 37–40 | 40–51 | cf. 21–24 |
| 7 | cf. 41 | 40, 52–53 | 36 |
| 8 | cf. 44–51 | 55 | 19 |
| 16 | 20, 25–26 | 57 | 8–9 |

c7.13

The following authors of *jātaka* works seem to have written in the fourth or fifth century since they were quoted in the sixth by Varāhamihira: Maya,⁸ Yavana, Maṇittha⁹ (Μανέθων), and Śaktipūrva (Parāśara)¹⁰ are cited on the maximum length of human life (BJ 7, 1); on the same subject of *āyurdāya* he cites Devasvāmin,¹¹ Viṣṇugupta (Cāṇakya¹²), and Siddhasena (BJ 7, 7); and Jīvaśarman¹³ is mentioned concerning *āyurdāya* (BJ 7, 9) and *rājayogas* (BJ 11, 1). Also earlier than Varāhamihira was a *jātaka* work by Bādarāyaṇa,¹⁴ though it is not clear whether or not the extant *Bhāvādhyāya*¹⁵ was a part of this, and another by Māṇḍavya.¹⁶

c7.14

⁸ CESS A 4.

c7.15

⁹ CESS A 4.

c7.16

¹⁰ CESS A 4. See also BJ 12, 2.

c7.17

¹¹ CESS A 3, 121 b.

c7.18

¹² CESS A 3, 46 b. Viṣṇugupta is also cited in BJ 21, 3.

c7.19

¹³ CESS A 3, 70 a.

c7.20

¹⁴ CESS A 4.

c7.21

¹⁵ CESS A 4.

c7.22

¹⁶ CESS A 4.

c7.23

But the *Bṛhajjātaka*¹⁷ itself became the model for much of the subsequent Sanskrit literature on *jātaka*, and remains the most authoritative text-book on the subject today. Again, most of its contents correspond to those of the YJ dan VYJ:

c7.24

¹⁷ Published Calcutta [1812?]; with Bhaṭṭotpala’s *ṭīkā*, Kāśī 1861, Bombay 1863, and Bombay 1864; with a Telugu *ṭīkā* by S. T. Ācārya and V. R. Ācārya, Madras 1865, Madras 1872, and Madras 1885; with Bhaṭṭotpala’s *ṭīkā*, Madras 1870, Madras 1873, and Bombay 1874; with Bhaṭṭotpala’s *ṭīkā* and a Marāṭhī translation, Bombay 1874; with Mahīdhara’s *ṭīkā*, Lucknow 1879, Lucknow 1882, and Lucknow 1887; with Bhaṭṭotpala’s *ṭīkā*, Bombay 1882; with a Kannaḍa *ṭīkā*, Bangalore [1883]; with a Simhala *ṭīkā* by V. P. Baṇḍāra, Colombo 1888; with Mahīdhara’s *ṭīkā* and a Hindi translation, Benares 1889; with the Hindi *ṭīkā* of Ādityadāsa, Delhi 1890; *adhyāyas* 1–5 with a Malayālam translation and commentary, Trichur 1890; with Bhaṭṭotpala’s *ṭīkā* and a Bengālī commentary, Aruṇodaya 1893; with a Simhala translation by A. J. Wikramasingha, Colombo 1896; *adhyāyas* 1–10 with Govinda Somayājin’s commentary, Palghat 1905; with a Marāṭhī translation, Belgaum 1910; with an English translation by H. P. Chatterjee, Allahabad 1912, reprinted New York 1974; *adhyāyas* 1–10 with the *ṭīkā*, Naukā, Bombay 1912; *adhyāyas* 1–20 with a Kannaḍa translation and commentary by B. V. Subrahmaṇya Śarman, Bangalore 1913; with the Telugu version of A. Vāsudeva Śāstri, Madras 1914; with the Kannaḍa translation of R. Veṅkaṭarāma Śāstri, Bangalore 1915; with Bhaṭṭotpala’s *ṭīkā*, Madras 1916; with the Kannaḍa version of H. Sūrya Śāstri, Mysore 1917; with the Hindi *ṭīkā* of Mātrprasāda Pāṇḍeya, Benares 1922; with the Telugu commentary of B. Veṅkaṭaraṅga Kavi, Madras 1923; edited with Bhaṭṭotpala’s *ṭīkā* by Sītārāma Jhā, Benares 1923, reprinted Benares 1934; with the Telugu *ṭīkā* of A. Veṅkaṭakṛṣṇayya, Madras 1926; edited with the *vivaraṇa* of Rudra by K. Sāmba Siva Śāstri as TSS 91, Trivandrum 1926, 2nd ed. by S. K. Pillai, Trivandrum 1957; edited with Bhaṭṭotpala’s *ṭīkā* by G. S. Devasthalī, Benares and Bombay 1926; with the Tamil version of Viśvanāthārya, Madras 1927; with an English translation by V. Subrahmanya Sastri, Mysore 1929, 2nd ed. Bangalore 1971; edited with a Hindi *ṭīkā* by Sītārāma Jhā as MM 176, Benares 1944, 2nd ed. 1952; edited with a Hindi *ṭīkā* by Acyutānanda Jhā as HSS 171, Benares 1945, 2nd ed. Benares 1957; *adhyāyas* 1–10 edited with his own *ṭīkā* by A. N. Srinivasaraghava Aiyan-

c7.25

1. *rāśiprabheda*. YJ 1; VYJ 1.
2. *grahayoniprabheda*. YJ 1; VYJ 2.
3. *viyonijanma*. Cf. YJ 62, but the births of animals and plants is not a special topic for Sphujidhvaja or Mīnarāja.
4. *niṣeka*. YJ 5; VYJ 3.
5. *janmavidhi*. YJ 6; VYJ 4.
6. *ariṣṭa*. YJ 38.
7. *āyurdāya*. YJ 37; VYJ 5.
8. *daśāntardaśā*. YJ 39—41; VYJ 6—7.
9. *aṣṭakavarga*. YJ 44—50; VYJ 8.
10. *karmajīva*. Cf. YJ 25, 20—23, though again, the profession of the native is not a special topic for Sphujidhvaja or Mīnarāja.
11. *rājayoga*. YJ 8—9; VYJ 57.
12. *nābhasayoga*. YJ 36; VYJ 40 and 52—53.
13. *candrayoga*. YJ 10; VYJ 37—39.
14. *dvigrahayoga*. YJ 21.
15. *pravrajyāyoga*. YJ 22.
16. *ṛkṣaśīla*. Not in YJ; VYJ 63.
17. *candrarāśiśīla*. YJ 18; VYJ 18.
18. *rāśiśīla*. YJ 12—17; VYJ 17 and 19—23.
19. *dṛṣṭiphala*. YJ 32; cf. VYJ 9—15.
20. *bhāva*. YJ 20; VYJ 16.
21. *āśrayayoga*. YJ 8, 1—22; scattered in VYJ.
22. *prakīrṇa*. Some of this miscellaneous material is in YJ 1.
23. *aniṣṭa*. Congenital defects are not a separate topic for either Sphujidhvaja or Mīnarāja.
24. *strījātaka*. Not in YJ; VYJ 58—62.
25. *nairyāṇika*. YJ 42—43.
26. *naṣṭajātaka*. YJ 52, 1—5.
27. *dreṣkāṇa*. YJ 2—3.

c7.26

The best commentary on the BJ or any other *jātaka* work is the Jagaccandrikā composed by Bhaṭṭotpala in Kāśmīra in ca. 967/969. Other commentators include Rudra, who wrote the Naukā in Kerala in 1527; Mahīdhara,¹⁸ who

c7.27

¹⁸ CESS A 4.

c7.28

GAR as ALS 79, Madras 1951; and edited with the *ṭīkā* of Parameśvara by K. RAGHAVAN PILLAI as TSS 198, Trivandrum 1962. In addition to the translations mentioned above there are a Pāli version published with a Burmese translation, 3 vols., Mandalay 1908—1909; an English translation by N. C. IYER, Madras 1885, 2nd ed. Madras 1905, 3rd ed. Madras 1926; and another English translation by B. SURYANARAIN ROW, Bangalore 1919, 3rd ed. 1948.

c7.29

composed his *vivaraṇa* at Vārāṇasī in 1599; Kṛṣṇa,¹⁹ Gadādhara Miśra,²⁰ and two Parameśvaras (*Jātakacandrikā*²¹ and *Horābhiprāyanirṇaya*).²² Both Rudra and Mahidhara have copied out much of the *Jagaccandrikā*.

c7.30

¹⁹ CESS A 3, 22b.

c7.31

²⁰ CESS A 2, 114b.

c7.32

²¹ CESS A 4.

c7.33

²² CESS A 4.

c7.34

Varāhamihira also wrote a summary of the BJ, the *Laghujātaka*,²³ in sixteen *adhyāyas*. There is the inevitable commentary, the *Śiṣyahitā*, written by Bhaṭṭotpala in Kāśmīra in 966; there are also commentaries composed by Maheśvara,²⁴ the father of Bhāskara, in the Sahyādri in ca. 1100; by Ananta²⁵ in 1534; and by Īśvaramiśra²⁶ (*Dīpikā*).

c7.35

²³ Published with Bhaṭṭotpala’s *ṭīkā*, Ratnāgiri 1867; *adhyāyas* 3–12 edited by H. JACOBI, De Astrologiae Indicae “Horā” appellatae originibus, Bonn 1872, reprinted Bonn 1896; published with the Hindi *ṭīkā* of MATHURĀNĀTHA, Lucknow 1875; with Bhaṭṭotpala’s *ṭīkā*, Bombay 1883; with the Simhalese translation of O. A. A. JAYASEKERE, Colombo 1886; with Bhaṭṭotpala’s *ṭīkā* and the Bengālī translation of RAJANĪKĀNTA ĀCĀRYA, Calcutta 1910; with Bhaṭṭotpala’s *ṭīkā* and the Hindi commentary of NĀRĀYAṆAPRASĀDA, Bombay 1911; with Bhaṭṭotpala’s *ṭīkā* and the Hindi commentary of CIRAÑJĪVA ŚARMAN, Benares 1921; with the Hindi *ṭīkā* of KĀŚĪRĀMA PĀTHAKA, Bombay 1936; with the Sanskrit and Hindi *ṭīkās* of SĪTĀRĀMA JHĀ as MM 72, Kāśī 1948; with the Gujarātī *ṭīkā* of BHĀNUŚAṄKARA NILAKAṆTHA ĀCĀRYA, Bhāvanagara 1953; and with Bhaṭṭotpala’s *ṭīkā* and the Hindi commentary of VĀSUDEVA, Vārāṇasī 1968.

c7.36

²⁴ CESS A 4.

c7.37

²⁵ CESS A 1, 40b.

c7.38

²⁶ CESS A 1, 56a–56b.

c7.39

At some time after 600 was written the *pūrvakhaṇḍa* of what was to become known as the *Bṛhatpārāśarahorā*²⁷ ascribed to Parāśara.²⁸ It computes the *ayanāṃśa* or precession, due to a misunderstanding of Āryabhaṭa, from 522 (BPH *pūrva* 3, 31), and is deeply indebted to the BJ; it also has borrowed two verses from Sphujidhvaja (BPH *pūrva* 2, 47–48 equal YJ 1, 59–60). Moreover, it was used by Kalyāṇavarman, who wrote in ca. 800 (BPH *pūrva* 2, 49–52 = S 5, 21–24; and BPH *pūrva* 21, 17–48 equal S 21, 21–52; cf. S 21, 6), and its existence is presupposed by the author of the *uttarakhaṇḍa*, which was commented on by Govindasvāmin in ca. 850. Therefore, the *pūrvakhaṇḍa* must have been written between ca. 600 and 750, and the *uttarakhaṇḍa* after the *pūrvakhaṇḍa* but before ca. 800. The *pūrvakhaṇḍa* in fifty-one *adhyāyas* is a rich but confused collection of material, much of which is unprecedented: the basic elements of astrology (2–3); aspects (4); the nature of the neonate native (5–7); the planetary operators (kāraka) (8–9); the astrological places (10); the mounted places (ārūḍha) and their next places (upapada) (11–12); the killer (māraka) planets (13); the astrological places and their lords (14–15); curses in previous incarnations (pūrvajanmaśāpa) (16); aṣṭakavarga (15–20); nābhasa and other yogas (21–22); smashing the killer planet (mārakabheda) (23); āyurdāya (24–25); death (26–27); rājayogas and yogas leading to wealth and poverty (28–31); rebirths (32); pleasure and sorrow (33); various conditions (avasthās) of the planets (34); the varieties of daśās, including vimśottarī, ṣoḍaśottarī, dvādaśottarī, aṣṭottarī, pañcottarī, śatābdikā, caturaśītyabdikā, dvi-saptatikā, ṣaṣṭihāyanī, and ṣaṭtriṃśatkā (35);²⁹ vimśottarīdaśās (36); antardaśās and their subdivisions: upadaśās, sūkṣmadaśās, and prāṇadaśās (37–48); kālacakradaśās (49); caradaśās (50); and the sudarśanacakra (51).

c7.40

²⁷ Edited by GIRIDHARA LĀLA ŚARMAN (*pūrva*) and GOVINDA ŚARMAN (*uttara* with Śrīdhara’s *ṭīkā*), Bombay 1905, 2nd ed. Bombay 1915, and 3rd ed. Bombay 1951; with a Bengālī version by ṬHĀKURADĀSA CŪḌĀMAṆI, Calcutta 1926; with a Hindi *ṭīkā* by SĪTĀRĀMA JHĀ as MM 189, 2nd ed. Kāśī 1952, and 3rd ed. Vārāṇasī 1968; with a Hindi *ṭīkā* by GAṆEŚADATTA PĀTHAKA, Vārāṇasī [1972]; and with a Hindi *ṭīkā* by DEVACANDRA JHĀ as KSS 220, Vārāṇasī 1973. There is an English translation by N. N. KRISHNA RAU and V. B. CHOUDHARI, 2 vols., Bombay 1963.

c7.41

²⁸ CESS A 4.

c7.42

²⁹ See D. PINGREE, The Yavanajātaka of Sphujidhvaja, vol. 2, p. 336.

c7.43

This congeries seems to consist of an original core, characterized by its being cast in the form of a dialogue between Maitreya and Parāśara, and various accretions. These latter may include: adhyāyas 5–6, 13–14, and 17–23, which are not dialogues and contain no vocatives; adhyāya 16, which is in the form of a dialogue between Pārvatī and Śaṅkara; adhyāya 33, which is in the form of a dialogue between Sujanma and Lomaśa; adhyāyas 36–48, which are spoken by Parāśara for the benefit of Maheśvara; and adhyāyas 49–51, which are attributed to Pārvatī. The elimination of at least adhyāyas 16, 33, and 49–51 would produce a more homogeneous text; but the precise extent of the pūrvakhaṇḍa must await a careful study of the manuscripts and of its relation to other texts—not only to the uttarakhaṇḍa and to Kalyāṇavarman, but also to Bhaṭṭotpala’s ṭīkā on the BJ from which some of its verses seem to be derived.

c7.44

The uttarakhaṇḍa, which is also a dialogue between Maitreya and Parāśara, is a much more unified composition, and its integrity is guaranteed by Govindasvāmin’s commentary. It deals with aṣṭakavarga (1; cf. pūrva 17–23), the six kinds of planetary strength (ṣaḍbala) (2); computing planetary strength (iṣṭakaṣṭavarṇana) (3); raśmi (4; cf. VYJ 56); the native’s passage through this world (lokayātrā) (5–9); āyurdāya (10–12; cf. pūrva 24–25); good fortune (bhāgya) (13); time units and the fruition of astrological indications (14–17); interrogations (praśna) (18); and, in conclusion, a table of contents (19) and a praise of the work (20). The uttarakhaṇḍa was commented on by Govindasvāmin in Kerala in about 850 (Prakaṭārthadīpikā), while the whole BPH was commented on by Śrīdhara and Harikṛṣṇa at Jayapura in about 1875. Despite the questionability of the authenticity of some parts of the pūrvakhaṇḍa, the BPH represents some notable developments in the long process by which the original Hellenistic astrology that was transmitted to India in the second century was made increasingly complex so as to generate predictions more closely approximating reality; these developments are particularly noticeable in the theories of āyurdāya.daśās, and the computation of planetary strength.

c7.45

A more traditional work, but one of great importance, is the Sārāvalī³⁰ composed by Kalyāṇavarman,³¹ the lord of Vyāghrapadi (Vyāghrataṭi in Bengal), in about 800. Its fifty-four chapters are to a large extent based on the YJ, the VYJ, the BJ, and the BPH,³² though Kalyāṇavarman also quotes (in addition to many astrologers whom we have already mentioned) Citragupta³³ (S 54, 12), Cūḍāmaṇi³⁴ (S 5, 20 and 39, 8), Devakīrti³⁵ (S 37, 1), Brahmaśaṇḍa³⁶ (S 10, 6), who had previously been cited by Varāhamihira (BY 9, 1), and Hari (S 5, 2; 6, 1; and 6, 6). But most important for his date is his mention of Kanaka³⁷ (S 53, 1), who is probably identical with the Kanaka who served as an astrologer in the court of Hārūn al-Rashīd (786–809) in Baghdād and continued to work in Baghdād into the reign of al-Ma’mūn (813–833);³⁸ he was probably still in India till sometime in the 790’s. Other Indian astrologers known to the Arabs during the ‘Abbāsid period include Āryakula,³⁹ Indra,⁴⁰ Ṛṣi,⁴¹ Jitāri,⁴² Jina,⁴³ Rāja, Saṅghadhāra, and Siṅghala. The S itself was known to al-Bīrūnī (India 14).

c7.46

³⁰ Edited by K. Śrīnivāsa Tirumalācārya, 2 (3?) vols., Kalpatti and Palghat 1906–1909; by V. Subrahmaṇya Śāstrī, Bombay 1907, 2nd ed. Bombay 1914, and 3rd ed. Bombay 1928; with a Telugu translation, Madras 1923; and edited with the Hindi ṭīkā of Sītārāma Jhā by Prahlāda Svāmin as MM 229, Benares 1953. Adhyāya 45, the Strijātaka, was published with a Telugu version at Madras in 1885 and 1926. The Sārāvalī was translated into English by N. N. Krishna Rau and V. B. Choudhari, [Bombay 1961]; the Strijātaka was translated by R. K. Aiyar, "Stri Jathakam or Female Horoscopy," The Astrological Magazine 5–10 (1901–1908).

c7.47

³¹ CESS A 2, 26a–29a; A 3, 19a; ans A 4.

c7.48

³² Kalyāṇavarman acknowledges his indebtedness to Varāhamihira and Yavanarendra (Sphujidhvaja) in S 1, 2–3; further details will be found in the commentary to the YJ.

c7.49

³³ CESS A 3, 47a.

c7.50

³⁴ CESS A 3, 52b.

c7.51

³⁵ CESS A 3, 118a.

c7.52

³⁶ CESS A 4.

c7.53

³⁷ CESS A 2, 19a–19b.

c7.54

³⁸ D. Pingree in DSB 7, New York 1973, pp. 222–224. See also D. Pingree, "The ‘Liber Universus’ of ‘Umar ibn al-Farrukhān al-Ṭabarī," JHAS 1 (1977), 8–12.

c7.55

³⁹ CESS A 1, 50b.

c7.56

⁴⁰ CESS A 1, 55a.

c7.57

⁴¹ CESS A 1, 59a.

c7.58

⁴² CESS A 3, 65a.

c7.59

⁴³ CESS A 3, 65a.

c7.60

If Kalyāṇavarman’s terminus post quem is given by his use of the BPH and his reference to Kanaka, his terminus ante quem is established by the quotations from the S in Govindasvāmin’s Prakaṭārthadīpikā, which was written in Kerala in about 850. This commentary on the uttarakhaṇḍa of the BPH is extraordinarily rich in quotations from early astrologers, astronomers, and mathematicians; aside from those astrologers already discussed, Govindasvāmin cites Kṛṣṇa⁴⁴ (who may be identical with the author of the Kṛṣṇiya or Cintājñāna⁴⁵ which was extremely popular in Kerala), Bhagadatta,⁴⁶ Cirantana Yavana, Yavaneśvara (who is different from Sphujidhvaja, though the latter is also quoted by Govindasvāmin), and Haridatta (the seventh century astronomer, who evidently also wrote on astrology). The names of and quotations from the works of a few more authorities on *jātaka* from this early period can be found in Bhaṭṭotpala’s Jagaccandrikā; they are Yama (on BJ 8, 3), Vaṅkālaka⁴⁷ (on BJ 15, 1), and Śrutakīrti (on BJ 1, 7; 8, 9; 13, 3; and 21, 3).

c7.61

⁴⁴ CESS A 2, 50 a.

c7.62

⁴⁵ CESS A 2, 50 a–51 a.

c7.63

⁴⁶ CESS A 4.

c7.64

⁴⁷ Vaṅkālaka was already quoted in the Kuvalayamālā completed by Uddyotana Sūri at Jalor in Rājasthān in 779; see A. N. UPADHYE, “Vaṅkālakācārya. A Forgotten Authority on Astrology,” Professor P. K. Gode Commemoration Volume, POS 93, Poona 1960, pt. III, pp. 203–208, and “Works and Authors Referred to in the Kuvalayamālā of Uddyotanasūri,” VIJ 3 (1965), 117–119.

c7.65

At some time before Śrīpati (fl. 1039–1056) wrote his Jātakakarmapaddhati⁴⁸ in Rohiṇikhaṇḍa, Śridhara had written on *jātaka* (see JKP 5, 36). There does exist in several manuscripts, some of which are associated with Mysore (the earliest dated example was copied in 1589), a Jātakapaddhati of Śridhara; and a Jaina priest named Śridhara from Narigunda in the Karṇāṭaka wrote, in Kannaḍa, a Jātakatilaka⁴⁹ in 1049 under the Western Cālukya Someśvara I (1042–1068). What relation the two Śridharas might have to each other or to the astrologer cited by Śrīpati remains unclear. Śrīpati’s own Jātakapaddhati or Jātakakarmapaddhati teaches in eight *adhyāyas* how to calculate the astrological places, and how to compute the amount of aspects, the strengths of the planets, the length of life, the *daśās* and *antardaśās*, and the *aṣṭakavarga*; it is closely related to the *pūrvakhaṇḍa* of the BPH. The JKP was immensely influential as is indicated by the numerous imitations of it and commentaries on it; the latter were composed by Sūryadeva at Gaṅgāpura in about 1250 (Jātakālaṅkāra); by Parameśvara at Aśvatthagrāma in about 1425 (Bālaprabodhini); by Acyuta in about 1525 (Bhāvārthamañjarī); by Sūryadāsa at Pārthapura in about 1550 (Bodhasudhākara); by Raghunātha (the unique manuscript was copied in 1612); by Sumatiharṣa Gaṇi, presumably at Khairābād, in 1616 (Subodhā); by Kṛṣṇa in about 1625; by Dullaha⁵⁰ in 1776; and by Kāmābhaṭṭa⁵¹ (Sampradāyapariśuddhi); by a Brāhmaṇa from Parakroḍa in Kerala;⁵² by Bhāveśa;⁵³ by Bhāskara;⁵⁴ by Bhūdhara;⁵⁵ by Mādhava⁵⁶ (Janabodhinī); and by Śivadāsa.

c7.66

⁴⁸ Edited with an English translation by V. SUBRAHMANYA SASTRI, Bangalore 1903, 2nd ed. Bangalore 1919, 3rd ed. Bangalore 1937, and 4th ed. Bangalore 1957; and edited with the commentary of Kṛṣṇa by J. B. CHAUDHURI, PST 19, Calcutta 1955.

c7.67

⁴⁹ Edited with a Kannaḍa *ṭīkā* by S. N. KṚṢṆA JYOTIṢA as PKG 22, Mysore 1959.

c7.68

⁵⁰ CESS A 3, 117 a.

c7.69

⁵¹ CESS A 2, 31 b.

c7.70

⁵² CESS A 4.

c7.71

⁵³ CESS A 4.

c7.72

⁵⁴ CESS A 4.

c7.73

⁵⁵ CESS A 4.

c7.74

⁵⁶ CESS A 4.

c7.75

In 1167, during the reign of the Caulukya Kumārapāla (ca. 1143–1172), at Campāvatī (presumably Chātsu south of Jayapura in Rājasthān rather than Chaul south of Bombay in the Koṅkaṇa), a Jaina of the Kāśahradagaccha, Naracandropādhyāya⁵⁷ wrote a Beḍājātaka,⁵⁸ which is a *vṛtti* in verse on his own Janmasamudra. In eight *kallolas* it treats the astrology of conception, birth, congenital faults, death, *rājayogas*, other *yogas*, and *strījātaka*.

c7.76

⁵⁷ CESS A 3, 136a–137a, and A 4.

c7.77

⁵⁸ Edited with a Hindi *ṭīkā* by G. K. OJHĀ, Triphalā, Vārāṇasī 1971, pp. 159–271.

c7.78

There circulates, primarily in South India, an extensive work on *jātaka* entitled Horāsāra,⁵⁹ which is sometimes attributed to Varāhamihira’s son, Pṛthuyaśas. However, the author has borrowed verses from Kalyāṇavarman’s Sārāvalī⁶⁰ and so must have written after ca. 850; and the H is cited by Viṣṇuśarman⁶¹ (fl. ca. 1370), and so must have been written before ca. 1350. The H is also closely related (as is the S) to the southern Candrābharaṇahorā of Yavana,⁶² but unfortunately the date of that work is not yet precisely known. The H consists of thirty-two *adhyāyas* covering basically the material in the BJ with the addition of one chapter (31) on *uḍudaśā*, which computes the planetary *daśās* from the *nakṣatras*, and one on omens (32). On *uḍudaśā* there also exists a popular Uḍudāyapradīpa⁶³ based on Parāśara⁶⁴ (cf. BPH *pūrva* 35, 71–74).

c7.79

⁵⁹ Edited with an English translation by V. SUBRAHMANYA SASTRI and M. R. BHAT, Bangalore 1949.

c7.80

⁶⁰ I find the following coincidences:

c7.81

⁶¹ H 17, 59a on VM 8, 2 (vol. 2, p. 135) and 17, 94b–97a on VM 4, 28 (vol. 1, p. 293).

c7.82

⁶² D. PINGREE, The Yavanajātaka, vol. 1, pp. 28–31.

c7.83

⁶³ Published Calcutta [N D]; with the Hindi *ṭīkā* of GOVINDARĀMA, [NP] 1859 and 1868; Bombay 1870; with a Hindi *ṭīkā* Bombay 1870, Bonares 1872, Delhi 1874, and Lucknow 1874; Bombay 1875; with the *ṭīkā* of BHAIRAVADATTA, Calcutta 1883; edited with a Simhalese *ṭīkā* by D. FERNANDO, Colombo 1888; with a Hindi *ṭīkā*, Agra 1889; with BHAIRAVADATTA’S *ṭīkā* in Bṛhaspati 1 (1891–97); edited with a Telugu *ṭīkā*

c7.84

| H | S | H | S |
| 5, 38 | 10, 25 | 20, 16a–b | 35, 107a–b |
| 8, 8a–b | 40, 9a–b | 20, 17a–b | 35, 150a–b |
| 8, 9 | 40, 21 | 20, 19 | 35, 165 |
| 8, 14–16 | 40, 12–14 | 20, 20 | 35, 168 |
| 8, 17–18 | 40, 17–18 | 20, 24c–25b | 35, 138 |
| 20, 12a–13b | 35, 145a–145b | 27, 7c–8d | 51, 1a–2b |
| 20, 14a–b | 35, 114a–b | 27, 11a–12b | 51, 2c–3d |
| 20, 15 | 35, 110 | | |

c7.85

On the same subject and called by the same title or by the title Jātakacandrikā⁶⁵ is a short poem by Veṅkaṭeśvara, who was the grandson of Govinda Dīkṣita,⁶⁶ the court astrologer of Acyutappa Nāyaka (1560–1600) at Tanjore. Veṅkaṭeśvara has apparently borrowed several verses from the older Uḍudāyapradīpa.

c7.86

⁶⁵ Published with a Telugu ṭīkā, Madras 1863, 2nd ed. Madras 1873: published with an English translation and notes by B. SURYANARAIN RAO, Bellary 1898, 2nd ed. Madras 1900, 3rd ed. (without Sanskrit text, as are the subsequent editions) Madras 1908, 6th ed. Bangalore [1976]; and with a Telugu ṭīkā, Madras 1912 and 1919.

c7.87

⁶⁶ CESS A 2, 137b.

c7.88

Possibly somewhat later than the H is the Horāmakaranda⁶⁷ written by Guṇākara⁶⁸ at Kharjūra in Avanti. This work in thirty-one adhyāyas closely follows the BJ. Since Guṇākara mentions the RM composed by Bhojarāja in 1042 (HM 1, 5), and since the HM itself is often quoted by Śivarāja (ca. 1475/1500) in his Jyotirnibandha, he must have lived between ca. 1100 and 1450.

c7.89

⁶⁷ Published Lucknow 1879.

c7.90

⁶⁸ CESS A 2, 127b–128b; A 3, 31b; and A 4.

c7.91

Also quoted by Śivarāja is the Lomaśasaṃhitā,⁶⁹ which is basically a dialogue between Lomaśa and Sujanma, though some sections are dialogues between Śiva and Pārvatī; BPH pūrva 33 is a dialogue between the first pair of interlocutors. In general the Lomaśa seems to belong to the tradition of the BPH.

c7.92

⁶⁹ I have used G 8442 of the Asiatic Society of Bengal and transcripts of 9488, 9489, and 9490 of the Scindia Oriental Institute, Ujjayinī.

c7.93

Vaidyanātha wrote in South India a Jātakapārijāta⁷⁰ in eighteen adhyāyas largely based on the S of Kalyāṇavarman,⁷¹ though he has also taken many

c7.94

⁷⁰ Adhyāyas 1–2 with an English translation by V. SUBRAHMANYA SASTRI, Bombay 1903; the whole by the same, Bangalore 1915, and in 2 vols. Bangalore 1932–1933; with a Gujarātī translation, Ahmedabad 1917; with a Tamil version, Madras 1919; and edited with KAPILEŚVARA ŚĀSTRIN's ṭīkā by MĀṬRPRASĀDA ŚĀSTRIN as KSS 10, Benares [1942], 3rd ed. Benares 1953.

c7.95

⁷¹ I have noted, e.g., the following borrowings:

c7.96

by K. SUBBARAYARYA, Madras 1898; with MADANAMOHANA PĀṬHAKA's Hindī translation, Lucknow 1906; with a ṭīkā, Amalapuram 1907; edited with a ṭīkā and Oriya translation by C. PRAHARĀJA, Cuttack 1910; edited with a Marāṭhī translation by V. G. NAVĀTHE, Jātakaśiromaṇi 1, 7, Bombay 1914; edited with Sanskrit and Hindī ṭīkās by MĀṬRPRASĀDA PĀṆḌEYA, Benares 1924; edited with a ṭīkā and a Hindī translation by ACYUTĀNANDA JHĀ as HSS 135, Benares 1941, 2nd ed. Benares 1948; edited with a Hindī ṭīkā by SĪTĀRĀMA JHĀ as MM 19, 3rd ed., Benares 1945; edited with a Hindī ṭīkā by D. R. KAPŪRA, Vārāṇasī 1964; and edited with Sanskrit and Hindī ṭīkās by VĀSUDEVA GUPTA, Vārāṇasī 1972.

c7.97

⁶⁴ CESS A 4.

c7.98

| JPJ | S | JPJ | S |
| 5, 72 | 46, 22 | 7, 37 | 35, 89 |
| 5, 79 | 46, 19 | 7, 38 | 35, 117 |
| 7, 32 | 35, 32 | 7, 39 | 35, 126 |
| 7, 33 | 35, 49 | 15, 24 | 20, 5 |
| 7, 35 | 35, 83 | 15, 26–39 | 20, 6–19 |
| 7, 36 | 35, 86 | | |

c7.99

verses from the BJ⁷² and even from the H.⁷³ In general, his astrology seems more developed than that of Śrīpati; but a more exhaustive search of the relevant texts is necessary before one can establish a firm terminus post quem for the JPJ; the terminus ante, ca. 1450, is provided by the quotations in Śivarāja’s Jyotirnibandha. At some time after Vaidyanātha, whose work he uses,⁷⁴ Mantreśvara⁷⁵ wrote a Phaladīpikā⁷⁶ at Śrīśālivaṭi (Tinnevelly). In twenty-eight adhyāyas he covers the main topics of jātaka; adhyāya 24 describes the aṣṭakavarga of Horāsāra 17.

c7.100

⁷² E.g.:

c7.101

⁷³ E.g., JPJ 5, 80–81 equal H 26, 37–38.

c7.102

⁷⁴ E.g.:

c7.103

⁷⁵ CESS A 4.

c7.104

⁷⁶ Edited by KṚṢṆA SŪRI, Kumbakonam [1898]; published Kalpatti [1905]; Madras 1914; with VÍŚVANĀTHĀCĀRYA’S Tamil version, Madras 1928; edited by GAṆAPATI SARAKĀRA, Calcutta 1934; published with an English translation by V. SUBRAHMANYA SASTRI, Bangalore 1937, 2nd ed. Bangalore 1950; and with a Hindī ṭīkā by G. K. OJHĀ, Vārāṇasī 1969. Adhyāyas 20–28 were published Palghat [1906].

c7.105

In about 1500 at Nandigrāma in Gujarāt Keśava,⁷⁷ the father of the celebrated Gaṇeśa, composed an extremely concise (there are only forty-two verses) but very popular handbook on the principal mathematical calculations essential in jātaka, the Jātakapaddhati.⁷⁸ Keśava’s inspiration was apparently Śrīpati’s JKP, of which his JP might be regarded as a condensation. Commentaries were

c7.106

⁷⁷ CESS A 2, 66b–70b; A 3, 24a; and A 4.

c7.107

⁷⁸ Published with a Marāṭhī version, Bombay 1872; with a Hindī ṭīkā, Benares 1877; with Divākara’s ṭīkā, Benares 1882; with UMĀŚAṄKARA MIŚRA’S Sanskrit and Hindī ṭīkās, Kāśī 1890; with JAGADĪŚAPRASĀDA TRIPĀṬHIN’S Hindī ṭīkā, Bombay 1899, 2nd ed. Bombay 1924; with the Gujarātī translation and ṭīkā of K. M. DVIVEDIN, Bombay 1909; with the ṭīkā of GOPĪKĀNTA ŚARMAN, Ayodhyā 1924; and edited with the ṭīkās of APŪCHA JHĀ, RĀMĀDHĪNA ŚARMAN, and himself by SĪTĀRĀMA JHĀ, Benares 1925, 2nd ed. as MM 3, Benares 1948.

c7.108

| JPJ | BJ | JPJ | BJ |
| 3, 11 | 4, 1 | 5, 17–21 | 7, 9–13 |
| 3, 76–79 | 5, 23–26 | 7, 56 | 21, 2 |
| 4, 17 | 4, 16 | 7, 83–85 | 13, 3 and 5–6 |
| 4, 18 | 4, 10 | 7, 166–177 | 12, 2–5, 7–11, and 13–15 |
| 4, 32–39 | 6, 3–6 and 9–12 | 15, 23 | 15, 4 |
| 4, 99 | 7, 14 | 15, 42 | 15, 2 |
| 5, 7 | 7, 2 | 18, 12 | 8, 20 |
| 5, 9 | 7, 3 | 18, 13 | 8, 22 |
| 5, 11 | 7, 4 | 18, 14 | 8, 10 |

c7.109

| PhD | JPJ | PhD | JPJ |
| 13, 3–4 and 6 | 4, 1–3 | 19, 18 | 18, 60 |
| 19, 9 | 18, 84 | 19, 19 | 18, 73 |
| 19, 16 | 18, 107 | 19, 23 | 18, 123 |

c7.110

composed by Keśava himself; by Viśvanātha at Kāśī in 1618; by Divākara at Kāśī in 1626 (Prauḍhamanoramā⁷⁹); by Dharmeśvara⁸⁰ in the first half of the seventeenth century in Mālava (Vāsanābhāṣya); by Nārāyaṇa at Kāśī in 1678 (Jātakakaustubha); and by Gurudāsa⁸¹ at Jālandhara in 1824.

c7.111

⁷⁹ T. AUFRECHT, “Ueber die Prauḍhamanoramā von Divākara,” ZDMG 45 (1891), 303—304.

c7.112

⁸⁰ CESS A 3, 126a—127a, and A 4.

c7.113

⁸¹ CESS A 3, 128b—129a.

c7.114

Another extremely popular work on jātaka, though this time a very full treatment of the subject in some forty-five adhyāyas, is the Jātakābharaṇa⁸² composed by Dhuṇḍhirāja,⁸³ the pupil and (probably) nephew of Jñānarāja, at Pārthapura in about 1525. Another sixteenth century astrologer was Nārāyaṇa Bhaṭṭa.⁸⁴ He wrote another extremely popular work, the Camatkāracintāmaṇi,⁸⁵ which, in 115 verses, gives predictions based on the presence in each of the twelve astrological places of each of the nine planets. The earliest dated manuscript was copied in 1596. There is a commentary, Anvayārthadīpikā, composed by Dharmeśvara in the first half of the seventeenth century. A similar work, also entitled Camatkāracintāmaṇi, was written by Rājarṣi at Dadhīcyapura in Gujarāt in about 1630.

c7.115

⁸² Published Bombay 1861 and 1888; Delhi 1875; Lucknow 1879 and 1889; Poona 1883; Calcutta 1884, 1885, and 1886/7; with the Hindi ṭīkā of SŪRYANĀRĀYAṆA SIDDHĀNTIN, Lucknow 1900; with the Hindi ṭīkā of VANAMĀLĪ CATURVEDĪ, Bombay 1903; with the Hindi ṭīkā of ŚYĀMALĀLA, Bombay 1905; with the Simhala translation of M. KHEMĀNANDA, Colombo 1913; with the Marāṭhī version of M. B. GOḌABOLE, Poona 1918; edited by V. TĀTĀCĀRYA, Pemtapāḍu 1929; with a Hindi ṭīkā by ACYUTĀNANDA JHĀ as HSS 212, Benares 1951; and with a Hindi ṭīkā by SĪTĀRĀMA JHĀ, Benares [ND].

c7.116

⁸³ CESS A 3, 79b—84b, and A 4.

c7.117

⁸⁴ CESS A 3, 152b—155b, and A 4.

c7.118

⁸⁵ Published with the ṭīkā of Dharmeśvara, Benares 1856, 1869, and 1870; with a Marāṭhī version, 2nd ed., Poona 1869; with Dharmeśvara’s ṭīkā, Delhi 1872 and 1876 and Calcutta 1883; with the Simhala translation of H. D. F. TAMBI-APPU GURUNĀNSE, [Colombo] 1891; with the Bengālī translation of RĀMAGOPĀLA JYOTIRVINODA, Calcutta 1895; with the Marāṭhī version of M. B. GOḌABOLE, Poona 1915; with the Hindi version of MADANAMOHANA PĀṬHAKA, Benares 1916, Bombay 1919, and Benares 1924, and also with the Bengālī translation of SURENDRANĀTHA BHAṬṬĀCĀRYA, 2nd ed., Calcutta 1936; edited with a Hindi ṭīkā by GAṆAPATIDEVA ŚĀSTRIN as HSS 45, Benares 1935, 2nd ed. Benares 1948, and 3rd ed. Benares 1963; edited by GAṆESADATTA PĀṬHAKA, Benares 1966; and edited with Dharmeśvara’s ṭīkā by BRAJAVIHĀRĪ LĀLA ŚARMĀ. Vārāṇasī 1975. English translation by KṚṢNANĀTHA RAGHUNĀTHAJĪ published Bombay 1894.

c7.119

The year before Divākara wrote his Prauḍhamanoramā on Keśava’s Jātakapaddhati—that is, in 1625—he composed a similar, but lengthier, treatise entitled Jātakamārgapadma,⁸⁶ in which he claims to present the essence of the tantras of Śrīpati, Keśava, and Sundara. Divākara wrote his own commentary on this, the Gaṇitatattvacintāmaṇi, in 1627.

c7.120

⁸⁶ I have used Smith Indic 104 at Columbia University.

c7.121

In the early seventeenth century a popular treatise on selected topics of jātaka was penned by Gaṇeśa,⁸⁷ who wrote his Jātakālaṅkāra⁸⁸ at Bradhnapura on the Tāpī in Gujarāt in 1613; he states that he is following the Śukajātaka. There are commentaries written by Haribhānu Śukla in 1809; and by Kṛpārāma⁸⁹ and Narmadāgiri Avadhūta.⁹⁰

c7.122

In 1629 one Harajī or Harijit wrote a Yoginīdaśāphalaprakaraṇa describing the eight yoginīdaśās in accordance with the Śivayāmala. And in 1633 Rājarṣi, the son of Kalyāṇa, wrote a Daśācintāmaṇi at Dadhīcyapura in Gujarāt; he also was the author of a Yoginīdaśāphala. To a Kalyāṇa,⁹¹ who may be Rājarṣi's father, is attributed a vast Janmapatrikāpaddhati, which is sometimes also entitled Mānasāgarī; and to Mānasāgara⁹² is ascribed an identical—or at least very similar—Mānasāgarī,⁹³ in which is incorporated Harajī's Yoginīdaśāphalaprakaraṇa (end of adhyāya 5). The earliest dated manuscript of the Mānasāgara version was copied in 1708. Manuscripts of Kalyāṇa's version seem to have quotations from the VYJ, the BJ, the LJ, and other works. The relations of the various Mānasāgarīs and the various Yoginīdaśās to each other remain to be investigated.

c7.123

In about 1625 Nṛsiṃha⁹⁴ put together a vast nibandha entitled Jātakasāra-

c7.124

⁸⁷ CESS A 2, 110a–114a; A 3, 28b; and A 4. ⁸⁸ Published Calcutta [1812 ?]; with a ṭīkā, Benares 1858; with Haribhānu's ṭīkā, Benares 1869 and Bombay 1871; with Ātmarāma Kāśīnātha Śāstrī's Marāṭhī translation, Bombay 1873; with Haribhānu's ṭīkā, Bombay 1876, Lucknow 1879, and Bombay 1889; with a Siṃhala ṭīkā, [Colombo ?] 1882; with Haribhānu's ṭīkā and a Marāṭhī translation, 2nd ed. Poona 1894; with a Bengālī translation, Calcutta 1901; with Haribhānu's ṭīkā and the Hindī translation of Rāmanātha Śarman, Bombay 1902; with the Oriyā translation of Gopīnāthakara Śarman, 2nd ed. Cuttack 1908, reprinted Cuttack 1914 and 1920; with a Gujarātī ṭīkā, Bombay 1909; with the Marāṭhī translation of Viṣṇugopāla Navāthe Jātakaśiromaṇi 5, Bombay 1914; Madras 1915; with the Hindī ṭīkā of Rāmasvarūpa Śarman, Bombay 1916; with Haribhānu's ṭīkā and the Hindī ṭīkā of Sītārāma Śarman, Benares 1923; with Ādityanārāyaṇa Pāṇḍeya's Hindī ṭīkā, Benares [1925] and [1927]; with a Bengālī translation, Calcutta 1929; with Haribhānu's ṭīkā and Rāmeśvaradatta's Hindī ṭīkā, Benares 1930/31; with an English translation by V. Subrahmanya Sastri, Bangalore 1941; with Haribhānu's ṭīkā and Dīnānātha Jhā's Hindī ṭīkā as KSS 141, Benares 1950; edited by Gaṇeśadatta Pāṭhaka, Benares 1966; with a Marāṭhī translation by R. Paṭavardhana, Poona [ND]; and with a Hindī ṭīkā by H. Ś. Dātāra, Vārāṇasī [ND]. ⁸⁹ CESS A 2, 47b. ⁹⁰ CESS A 3, 144a. ⁹¹ CESS A 2, 25a–25b. ⁹² CESS A 4. ⁹³ Published Bombay 1871, 1876, and 1903; with the Hindī translation of Vanamālī Caturveda, Bombay 1904; with the Hindī ṭīkā of Vamśīdhara, Bombay 1904, reprinted Bombay 1919; with the Hindī ṭīkā of Madhukānta Jhā, VSG 101, Vārāṇasī 1963; edited with the Hindī ṭīkā of Rūpanārāyaṇa Jhā by Sītārāma Jhā, Vārāṇasī [ND]; and with Sītārāma Jhā's own ṭīkā as MM 261, Benares 1966. ⁹⁴ CESS A 3, 198a–198b, and A 4.

c7.125

dīpa.⁹⁵ The earliest dated manuscript was copied in 1637, and the latest work to which the author refers is the Saurabhāṣya composed by Nṛsiṃha at Vārāṇasī in 1611; whether or not the two Nṛsiṃha’s are identical cannot as yet be established. Other authorities utilized in the JSD include the YJ, the VYJ, the BJ, the LJ, the S, the HM, and, from a later period, Dāmodara, the Gaurijātaka, the Sūryāruṇasaṃvāda, and works on tājika and hillāja. In 1654 Balabhadra⁹⁶ wrote another gigantic nibandha, the Horāratna,⁹⁷ at the court of Shāh Shujāʿ. Though so late, this is an extremely full and valuable compilation deserving of a critical edition and careful study for its contributions to the histories of the texts from which it has borrowed.

c7.126

⁹⁵ Edited with his own ṭīkā by LAKṢMĪNĀRĀYAṆA UPĀDHYĀYA as TSMS 45 = Madras GOS 64, Tanjore 1951.

c7.127

⁹⁶ CESS A 4.

c7.128

⁹⁷ I have used 1030 of 1886/92 at the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute in Poona. Adhyāyas 1–5 were published with his own Hindī ṭīkā by M. CATURVEDĪ, Vārāṇasī 1979.

c7.129

A far more original work is the Sarvārthacintāmaṇi,⁹⁸ composed by Veṅkaṭeśa near Tirupati in Tamilnadu in about 1650. The core of its eighteen chapters deals in great detail with the possible influences of the twelve bhāvas on the native’s life (adhyāyas 2–8). There is a commentary ascribed to Divānanda⁹⁹ (or Divānacandra) Miśra or to his son, Rādhākṛṣṇa; both lived at Lavapura (Lahore, Pañjāb).

c7.130

⁹⁸ Published Ratnāgiri 1842; Bombay 1876; and with the Hindī ṭīkā of MAHĪDHARA ŚARMAN, Bombay 1905, reprinted Bombay 1955.

c7.131

⁹⁹ CESS A 3, 112a.

c7.132

At Jambūsara in Gujarāt Yājñikanātha composed the Jātakacandrikā,¹⁰⁰ which deals with technical aspects of jātaka in six prabodhas. By this time Kāśīnātha¹⁰¹ had written his popular Lagnacandrikā;¹⁰² for the oldest dated manuscript was copied in 1670. If, however, this Kāśīnātha is identical with the author of the Praśnapradīpa and the Śīghrabodha, as seems likely, he flourished before 1550. A rather traditional treatise on jātaka is the Śambhuhorāprakāśa¹⁰³ composed by Puñjarāja¹⁰⁴ in about 1700 for Śambhudāsa (born 1662), the ruler of Nandidvārapura (Nander, Mahārāṣṭra ?). Several decades later Putumana Somayājin, the author of the Karaṇapaddhati, wrote the Jātakādeśamārga¹⁰⁵ in Kerala.

c7.133

¹⁰⁰ Edited with a Gujarātī translation by GAURĪŚAṄKARA MAṄCHĀŚAṄKARA RAIKVA, 3rd ed., Surata 1924.

c7.134

¹⁰¹ CESS A 2, 36b–39a; A 3, 20a; and A 4.

c7.135

¹⁰² Published Kāśī 1867; Delhi 1876; with the Hindī ṭīkā of NĀRĀYAṆAPRASĀDA, Bombay 1916; with the Hindī ṭīkā of RĀMA VIHĀRI SUKULA, 13th ed., Lucknow 1968; and with the Hindī ṭīkā of VĀSUDEVA GUPTA, Vārāṇasī [ND].

c7.136

¹⁰³ Published Kāśī 1869; and with a Hindī ṭīkā by MAHĪDHARA ŚARMAN, Bombay 1916, reprinted Bombay 1937.

c7.137

¹⁰⁴ CESS A 4.

c7.138

¹⁰⁵ Published Madras 1918; Kunnamkulam 1930; with an English translation by V. SUBRAHMANYA SASTRI and M. M. BHAT, Bangalore 1942; with a Malayālam ṭīkā

c7.139

Before 1729 when the earliest dated manuscript was copied Jaimini¹⁰⁶ (or rather someone using the sage’s name) composed the Upadeśasūtra,¹⁰⁷ a collection of 1031 sūtras (there is also a set of verse kārikās that summarize them) divided into four adhyāyas, each of which has four pādas. The only other jātaka work composed in sūtras seems to be the Jātakatattva¹⁰⁸ completed by Uḍumbara Mahādeva Pāṭhaka¹⁰⁹ at Ratnapura (Ratlam, Madhya Pradeśa) in 1872. The earliest manuscript of the Upadeśasūtra already contains the commentary of Kṛṣṇānanda Sarasvatī,¹¹⁰ who calls himself a Drāviḍācārya; this commentary is also preserved in a manuscript dated 1721. Tentatively, then, one might surmise that the Upadeśasūtras were composed in South India in, perhaps, the seventeenth century. Other commentaries were written by Nīlakaṇṭha Regmi¹¹¹ in 1754 at Bhaṭgaon, Nepāla (Subodhini); by Ākumalla Nṛsiṃha¹¹² in South India (Arthaprakāśikā); by Nṛsiṃha Kheḍakara,¹¹³ probably in Mysore; by Parameśvara Yogīndra,¹¹⁴ apparently in Tamilnadu (Jyotiṣānanda); by Premanidhi¹¹⁵ (Kāśikā); by Malayavarman,¹¹⁶ the ruler of Tākumaparvata (Kāśikā); by Lakṣmaṇa in South India (Jyotiḥpradīpikā); and by Veṅkaṭeśa in South India (Bhāvakaumudī).

c7.140

¹⁰⁶ CESS A 3, 71a–74a, and A 4.

c7.141

¹⁰⁷ Published with Nīlakaṇṭha’s ṭīkā, Kāśī 1874, Kāśī 1877, Calcutta 1884, Bombay 1888, and Allahabad 1888; with his own ṭīkā by VINĀYAKA ŚĀSTRĪ VETĀLA, Kāśī 1911; with a Marāṭhī translation by V. G. NAVĀTHE, Jātakaśiromaṇi 1, 8, Bombay 1914; with the ṭīkā of RĀMAYATNA OJHĀ, 2nd ed., Benares 1925; with the ṭīkās of DURGĀPRASĀDA DVIVEDA and MĀDHAVA, Bombay 1925; with Nīlakaṇṭha’s ṭīkā and a Bengālī translation by RĀDHĀVALLABHA PĀṬHAKA, Calcutta 1926; with Sanskrit and Hindi ṭīkās by ACYUTĀNANDA JHĀ as HSS 159, Benares 1943, 2nd ed. Benares 1952; with an English translation by B. SURYANARAYANA RAO, Bangalore 1932, rev. ed. by B. V. RAMAN, Bangalore 1944; with his own ṭīkā and an English translation of I–II by K. V. ABHYAṄKARA, Ahmedabad 1951; with the Hindi ṭīkā of KĀŚĪRĀMA, Bombay 1958; and with the Sanskrit and Hindi ṭīkās of SĪTĀRĀMA JHĀ, 4th ed., Vārāṇasī 1970.

c7.142

¹⁰⁸ Edited by VINDHYEŚVARĪPRASĀDA DVIVEDIN, Benares 1879; with a Telugu ṭīkā by VEṄKAṬA ŚĀSTRĪ, 2 vols., Rajahmundry-Gopalpur 1926; with the Hindi ṭīkā of Śrīnivāsa, 2nd ed. Ratlam 1929, 5th ed. Ratlam 1953; and with an English translation by V. SUBRAHMANYA SASTRI, Bangalore 1941, 2nd ed. Bangalore 1967.

c7.143

¹⁰⁹ CESS A 4.

c7.144

¹¹⁰ CESS A 2, 61b–62a; A 3, 23b; and A 4.

c7.145

¹¹¹ CESS A 3, 191b–192b, and A 4.

c7.146

¹¹² CESS A 3, 195a.

c7.147

¹¹³ CESS A 3, 199b.

c7.148

¹¹⁴ CESS A 4.

c7.149

¹¹⁵ CESS A 4.

c7.150

¹¹⁶ CESS A 4.

c7.151

It would not be possible to close this discussion of the literature on jātaka without reference to one of the most notorious texts of this genre, which has had numerous offshoots. This is the vast collection of thousands of potential

c7.152

by K. S. NAMPŪTIRIPPĀṬ, Kunnamkulam 1960; and with a Hindi ṭīkā by GOPEŚA KUMĀRA OJHĀ, Vārāṇasī 1971.

c7.153

horoscopes assembled under the name Bhr̥gusaṃhitā, and presented in the form of a dialogue between Bhr̥gu¹¹⁷ and Śukra. The work contains thirteen gigantic adhyāyas: one for each zodiacal sign, and a Yogasāgara.¹¹⁸ The earliest dated manuscript was copied in 1645; I doubt that the work antedates the sixteenth century. The manuscript copies all originate in North India, where some extraordinarily diligent fellow compiled it. A similar collection found in South India is the mammoth Saptarṣi nāḍī¹¹⁹ in Tamil.

c7.154

¹¹⁷ CESS A 4.

c7.155

¹¹⁸ Published Bombay 1898 and 1937.

c7.156

¹¹⁹ Only the material relating to the first six signs seems to have been published: vol. 1, edited by K. NATESAN as Madras GOS 82, Madras 1951; vol. 2, edited by S. THANGAREL NADAR as Madras GOS 103, Madras 1953; vol. 3, edited by R. V. RAJAGOPALA AIYANGAR as Madras GOS 115, Madras 1954; vol. 4, edited by V. S. SESHADRIYACHARYAR and C. G. RAJAN as Madras GOS 123, Madras 1958; vol. 5, edited by R. V. RAJAGOPALA AIYANGAR and C. G. RAJAN as Madras GOS 144, Madras 1956; and vol. 6, edited by C. G. RAJAN and T. CHANDRASEKHAR as Madras GOS 168, Madras 1961.

Tājika

c7.s1.1

The word tājika is derived from the Pahlavī Tāzig, a term which the Iranians applied to the Arabs; it in turn is derived from the name of the Arab tribe, Ṭayyi’. Since the early eighth century, the Arabs and Persians who encroached on the Western coast of India were called Tājikas.¹²⁰ As the name for a branch of genethlialogy the term tājika refers to Indian adaptations of Arabic/Persian astrology, which was itself a combination of elements from Greek, Syriac, Sasanian, and Indian science.¹²¹ In tājika texts not only are a number of astrological techniques and concepts foreign to jātaka—including some like the ἀφέτης or haylāj (Sanskrit hillāja) that had been a part of the YJ but later forgotten in India—but also many technical terms—e.g., kabūla (qabūl), antihā (intihā’), hadda (hadd), sahama (sahm), and many others.

c7.s1.2

¹²⁰ D. PINGREE, “Sanskrit Evidence for the Presence of Arabs, Jews, and Persians in Western India: ca. 700–1300”, JOI Baroda.

c7.s1.3

¹²¹ D. PINGREE, “Astrology,” in The Cambridge History of Arabic Literature.

c7.s1.4

The earliest author on tājika in Sanskrit was Samarasiṃha of the Prāgvāṭakula, who wrote his Gaṇakabhūṣaṇa or Tājikatantrasāra or Karmaprakāśikā¹²² in Gujarāt in 1274; his great-great-grandfather, Caṇḍasiṃha, had been a saciva of the Caulukya Mūlarāja II (ca. 1177–1179). Samarasiṃha names as his source the work of Khindika,¹²³ a name derived from the Arabic al-Hindī. There is a commentary, the Daivajñasantoṣiṇī or Karmaprakāśikāvṛtti, composed by Nārāyaṇa Sāmudrika¹²⁴ in about 1725.

c7.s1.5

¹²² Edited with Nīlakaṇṭha’s Tājikanīlakaṇṭhī, Meratha 1866.

c7.s1.6

¹²³ CESS A 2, 80 a.

c7.s1.7

¹²⁴ CESS A 3, 166 b–168 a, and A 4.

c7.s1.8

A relatively short text on *tājika* in seventy-three verses is the Varṣaphala¹²⁵ attributed to Maṇittha,¹²⁶ whose name, which is that of the ancient Greek authority on *jātaka* (Μανέθων), was inspired by the Arabic technical term *muntahan*, which occurs in Sanskrit as *munthahā*. The earliest dated manuscript was copied in 1475. To a large extent based on the Varṣaphala is the Tājikamaṇi¹²⁷ completed in eighty-five verses by Mahīdhara at Vārāṇasī in 1585. Both these works are on the topic of anniversary horoscopes (*hāyana* or *varṣaphala*), which became a very prominent feature of *tājika*.

c7.s1.9

¹²⁵ Poorly edited with a Hindi translation by RĀMAPRASĀDA BHAṬṬA ŚARMAN, Solana 1943; I hope to publish soon a new edition based on Leipzig 1148; β 2 and P. 37 a in the Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine; and IO 2529 C.

c7.s1.10

¹²⁶ CESS A 4.

c7.s1.11

¹²⁷ I have used Baroda 3145 and 9557.

c7.s1.12

In about 1500 the well known Keśava of Nandigrāma wrote a Tājikapaddhati¹²⁸ on *hāyana* in twenty-six verses. Commentaries were written by Viśvanātha at Golagrāma in 1610 and by Mallāri¹²⁹ in 1612. A far fuller treatment of the subject is to be found in the Tājikasāra composed by Hari in 1523. A commentary on this was written by Sumatiharṣa Gaṇi at Khairābād in 1620. That Sūryadāsa who commented on Bhāskara’s L and BG at Pārthapura in 1541 and 1538 respectively was also the author of a Tājikālaṅkāra. Perhaps in 1544 Govardhana¹³⁰ wrote a Tājikapadmakośa¹³¹ on *hāyana*. Before 1559, the date at which the earliest manuscript was copied, Vāmana authored a Tājikasāroddhāra; while in about 1575 Nṛsiṃha, who was born at Nandigrāma in 1548, wrote a Varṣaphaladīpikā on *hāyana* and a Hillājadīpikā on the *haylāj*.

First 168 of 185 passages. Read on

Linked texts (36)