Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Jyotihshastra: Astral and Mathematical Literature c8: Chapter VI. Catarchic Astrology

Jyotiḥśāstra: Astral and Mathematical Literature c8

Language
English

Contents

Chapter VI. Catarchic Astrology

c8.2

To regard the time when the Moon conjoins with a particular nakṣatra as propitious or unpropitious for performing certain acts was an ancient custom in India.¹ We have, indeed, encountered systematic expositions of such systems already in the Śārdūlakarṇāvadāna (pp. 81–99). In the YJ (77–78) actions to be taken on the planetary week-days, when the Moon is in each of the zodiacal signs, in the years ruled by each of the planets, and various other yogas are described. The Gargasamhitā (aṅga 1) prescribes actions to be undertaken when the Moon is in each nakṣatra and in each tithi and karaṇa; see also the BS (97–99) and the Śārdūlakarṇāvadāna (pp. 201–203).

c8.3

¹ See, for instance, the not always reliable account by P. V. KANE, History of Dharmaśāstra, vol. 5, part 1, Poona 1958, pp. 523–536.

c8.4

Eventually a separate science developed that used this notion of auspicious and inauspicious time-units, in combination with omens and astrological yogas, to establish the correct time for initiating various kinds of actions; this is the science of muhūrta, corresponding to Hellenistic catarchic astrology. In Indian treatises on catarchic astrology great importance is given to deciding the time for performing the saṃskāras and other ritual acts; this aspect of muhūrta strongly influenced dharmaśāstra, many treatises of which are entirely or partially devoted to this kind of prediction.² Also, a number of texts that will be discussed in this chapter represent conflations of muhūrta with omens, but with the muhūrtas as the more important component rather than the omens as in the GS and BS.

c8.5

² The dharmaśāstra texts on muhūrta will not be discussed here; information concerning them will be found in the appropriate entries in CESS.

c8.6

The earliest work that we know to have been devoted to muhūrta was the Ratnakośa composed by Lalla in, probably, the eighth century. Though a few fragmentary manuscripts of this work survive, and there are numerous quotations from it in later commentaries and nibandhas, its contents are not yet clear. However, Śrīpati, who wrote his Jyotiṣaratnamālā³ at Rohiṇikhaṇḍa in about 1050, claims to base a large part of it on the Ratnakośa. The contents of Śrīpati’s work are: saṃvatsara (1) or the sixty-year cycle of Jupiter; the characteristics of tithis (2), week-days (3), yogas (4), karaṇas (5), nakṣatras (6), and muhūrtas (7); the upagrahas (8); the Sun’s entry into the zodiacal signs (saṅkrānti; 9); planetary transits (gocara; 10; cf. BS 103); the influence of the Moon (11) and of the ascendant (12); the saṃskāras (13); laying the sacred fire (14); the consecration of the king (15); military expeditions (yātrā; 16); marriage (vivāha; 17); building (vāstu; 18); entering the house (19); wearing clothes (20); and installing images of the gods (21). This became the standard arrangement for a pure muhūrta text; as usual, while the details of the interpretations of phenomena may vary, and while the methods employed tend to become increasingly elaborate, the basic structure of muhūrta, like those of the other sciences we have investigated in this volume, tended to remain unchanged. Śrīpati wrote his own Marāṭhī commentary on the JRM.⁴ Of the Sanskrit commentaries the grandest is the vivṛti completed by Mahādeva, Āmarāja's nephew, in Gujarāt in 1264; it is especially valuable for its numerous citations of jyotiṣa, dharma, purāṇa, and other types of texts. Other commentaries were composed by Dāmodara⁵ (Bālāvabodha); Paramakāruṇika⁶ (Bālabodhinī in Gujarātī or Rājasthānī; the earliest dated manuscript was copied in 1636); and Vaijā Paṇḍita (the earliest dated manuscript was copied in 1493).

c8.7

³ Published with Mahādeva’s ṭīkā, Benares 1884, 2nd ed. Calcutta 1915; adhyāyas 1–6 were published by P. POUCHA, “La Jyotiṣaratnamālā ou Guirlande des Joyaux d’Astrologie de Śrīpatibhaṭṭa,” Arch. Or. 16 (1949), 277–309.

c8.8

⁴ Edited by M. G. PANSE, Poona 1957.

c8.9

⁵ CESS A 3, 100a.

c8.10

⁶ CESS A 4.

c8.11

Contemporaneously with Śrīpati, Bhojarāja, the famous Paramāra ruler of Dhārā, wrote (or had written) the Rājamārtaṇḍa.⁷ This text, naturally uninfluenced by the arrangement of Śrīpati's, deals, among other topics, with the names and qualities of the planets, nakṣatras, and zodiacal signs; with many saṃskāras in the order of their normal occurrences in life from conception till death; with military astrology; with building, installing images, digging wells, agriculture, planting trees, archery, mounting elephants, and a variety of other topics. Unfortunately, the printed edition includes material that does not belong to the original; for instance, it cites (p. 116) the opinion of the Kālamādhavīya, which was written by Mādhava in the late fourteenth century. A critical edition is a necessity before this fascinating collection of material on ordinary life in medieval India can be properly exploited.

c8.12

⁷ Published Bombay 1896; a selection of 286 verses (out of 1421 or 1462) on tithis, vratas, and utsavas was edited by P. V. KANE, "Passages from the Rājamārtaṇḍa on Tithis, Vratas and Utsavas," ABORI 36 (1956), 306–339.

c8.13

In about 1100 Maheśvara,⁸ the father of the great Bhāskara, wrote a brief but relatively popular Vṛttaśataka⁹ on muhūrta.

c8.14

⁸ CESS A 4.

c8.15

⁹ I have used CS e. 147 (8) in the Bodleian Library, Oxford.

c8.16

Two of the Jaina scholars in the circle of Vastupāla, the minister of the Vāghelas Lavaṇaprasāda and Vīradhavala in Gujarāt from 1220 till 1240, wrote popular works on muhūrta. Udayaprabha Sūri¹⁰ composed an Ārambhasiddhi or Pañcavimarśa¹¹ in 412 verses, on which Hemahaṃsa wrote a vārttika at Āśāpallī (Ahmadābād, Gujarāt?) in 1457 (Sudhīśṛṅgāra). And Naracandra Sūri¹² was the author of a Jyotiṣasāra or Nāracandra¹³ in 4 prakaraṇas, on which a ṭippaṇaka was composed by Sāgaracandra Sūri before 1468, when the earliest dated manuscript was copied. Neither author, of course, deals with the proper moments for performing saṃskāras.

c8.17

¹⁰ CESS A 1, 57a–58a, and A 4.

c8.18

¹¹ Published with Hemahaṃsa's ṭīkā, Bhavnagar [ND] and Bombay 1918.

c8.19

¹² CESS A 3, 132a–136a, and A 4.

c8.20

¹³ Published Surat 1913 and Bombay 1938.

c8.21

Perhaps at about the same time (some scholars claim that the date is about 1242, though the earliest dated manuscript was not copied till 1658), someone who claims to be Kālidāsa¹⁴ and to have written at the court of Vikramāditya in 34 B.C. composed a Jyotirvidābharaṇa¹⁵ on muhūrta with some omen material interspersed. Bhāvaratna¹⁶ wrote his commentary, the Sukhabodhikā, at Pattana in 1711.

c8.22

¹⁴ CESS A 2, 32b–34a, and A 4.

c8.23

¹⁵ Published with the ṭīkā of Bhāvaratna, Benares 1869; edited by RASIKAMOHANA CAṬṬOPĀDHYĀYA, Calcutta 1876; and edited with Bhāvaratna’s ṭīkā by S. S. JĀMBHEKARA, Bombay 1908.

c8.24

¹⁶ CESS A 4.

c8.25

At Ālattūr in Kerala in the late thirteenth century Govindabhaṭṭa, one of the commentators on Varāhamihira’s BJ, wrote a Muhūrtamaṇi, whose contents need to be investigated. A vyākhyā on this was composed by a fellow resident of Ālattūr (Aśvatthagrāma), the prolific Parameśvara, whose grandfather had been Govindabhaṭṭa’s student, in the early fifteenth century.

c8.26

At sometime before about 1365 someone wrote a Nāradasaṃhitā¹⁷ ascribed to the sage Nārada;¹⁸ for it is extensively quoted by Viṣṇuśarman in his Muhūrtadīpikā.¹⁹ The NS, as do several other muhūrta saṃhitās (cf. GS 4–11) ascribed to ṛṣis, begins with planetary omens (2; grahacāra) similar to those in conventional omen saṃhitās; and appends to the usual muhūrta material (adhyāyas 3–31) other omen chapters: e.g., sadyovṛṣṭi (32; cf. BS 28), kūrma-vibhāga (33; cf. GS 23), utpāta (34; cf. GS 39), and various topics (35; cf. GS 55–58; BS 31, 35–37). Viṣṇuśarman also knew a Vasiṣṭhasaṃhitā; however, is different from the Vasiṣṭhasaṃhitā²⁰ that is current now. This latter text, however, is at least as old as the fifteenth century; the earliest dated manuscript was copied in 1443, and the earliest quotations are by Śivarāja in his JN.²¹ The contents of the VSA are very similar to those of the NS, save that much of the omen material in NS 32–37 is omitted. Another mixed text of this nature is the second GS already referred to in the chapter on omen literature.

c8.27

¹⁷ Published Vārāṇasī 1905; edited by RASIKAMOHANA CAṬṬOPĀDHYĀYA, 2nd ed., Calcutta 1915; with the Hindī ṭīkā of VASATIRĀMA ŚARMAN, Bombay 1937, reprinted Bombay 1957.

c8.28

¹⁸ CESS A 3, 148a–149b, and A 4.

c8.29

¹⁹ E.g., NS 1, 4 on VM 1, 1; NS 1, 5 on VM 1, 2–4; and NS 1, 16 on VM 5, 36.

c8.30

²⁰ Published Bombay 1915.

c8.31

²¹ E.g., VSA 37, 39 in JN, p. 191; VSA 37, 94–95 and 97 in JN, p. 196; VSA 37, 98–105 and 107–111 in JN, pp. 197–198; and VSA 37, 149 in JN, p. 199.

c8.32

The most important authority on muhūrta in the fourteenth century, however, was Vidyāmādhava, who wrote his Muhūrtadarśana or Vidyāmādhavīya²² in the Vijayanagara Empire in about 1360. Its fifteen adhyāyas are concerned with terminology and definitions (1; saṃjñā); faults (2; doṣa), exceptions (3; apavāda), and good qualities (4; guṇa) of muhūrtas; strengths and weaknesses (5; balābala); the saṃskāras (6–9); agriculture (10; kṛṣibījavāpa); installation of images of the gods (11; devapratiṣṭhā); military expeditions (12; yātrā); various other activities (13); on the nakṣatras (14); and on gocara (15). There is an extremely valuable ṭīkā on the VM, the Muhūrtadīpikā, written by Vidyāmādhava’s son, Viṣṇuśarman, in about 1365; as has been noted several times above, this provides a rich store of citations from the antecedent literature on several branches of jyotiḥśāstra.

c8.33

²² Edited with Viṣṇuśarman’s ṭīkā by R. SHAMA SASTRY as MSS 63, 67, and 70, Mysore 1923–1926.

c8.34

The other important source for quotations from earlier texts is the JN of Śivarāja. He does not, however, refer to the extraordinarily popular Bālabodha or Jyotiṣasārasaṅgraha of Muñjāditya.²³ But since the earliest dated manuscript of this latter work was copied in 1479, Muñjāditya must have flourished in about 1450 or perhaps a bit before. It is probably the elementary nature of the Bālabodha to which its popularity was due. A brief but also popular muhūrta poem is the Brahmavyavahāra or Trivikramaśataka²⁴ composed by Trivikrama²⁵ before 1484, when the earliest dated manuscript was copied. That manuscript also contains the commentary, Budhavallabha, of Gopīnātha.²⁶

c8.35

²³ CESS A 4.

c8.36

²⁴ I have used copies of 1651, 2617, and 5067 at the Viśveśvarānanda Vedic Research Institute.

c8.37

²⁵ CESS A 3, 91b–92b, and A 4.

c8.38

²⁶ CESS A 2, 132a–132b, and A 3, 33b.

c8.39

As in many other fields, so in muhūrta Keśava of Nandigrāma wrote an important work, the Muhūrtatattva.²⁷ His son, Gaṇeśa, dutifully wrote a ṭīkā, the Muhūrtadīpikā, at Nandigrāma before 1554. Another ṭīkā was written by Viśvanātha in the early seventeenth century; the oldest dated manuscript was copied in 1637. Probably also in the early sixteenth century Kāśīnātha²⁸ composed his very successful Śīghrabodha,²⁹ of which the earliest dated manuscript was copied in 1559. Probably also to be dated in the early sixteenth century is the brief Bālavivekinī or Pañcavimśatikā³⁰ of Nāhnidatta;³¹ the earliest dated manuscript of it was copied in 1589.

c8.40

²⁷ Published Benares 1856; and, with a Marāṭhī translation, by V. V. Jośī, 3rd ed., Poona 1927.

c8.41

²⁸ CESS A 2, 39a–44a; A 3, 20a–20b; and A 4.

c8.42

²⁹ Published Meerut [ND]; Bareilly 1851; Meerut 1852; [NP] 1853; Meerut 1854; Bombay 1858; Bombay 1863; Bombay 1864; Agra 1867; [Benares 1867]; Meerut 1868; Agra 1869; Bombay 1869; [Lucknow 1869]; Delhi 1874; with CAṆḌIDATTA’S Hindī ṭīkā, Lucknow 1874; [Delhi ?] 1876; Meerut 1877; [NP] 1877; Bombay 1878; Meerut [1878]; [NP] 1879; Bombay 1879; Meerut 1879; with the Brajbhāṣā ṭīkā of HARIPRASĀDA BHAGĪRATHA, Bombay 1881; [Delhi] 1886; Bombay 1903; Kāśī 1903; with RĀMEŚVARA BHAṬṬA’S Hindī ṭīkā, Agra 1906, 3rd ed. Agra 1922, 4th ed. Allahabad 1927; Lucknow 1911; Benares [1921], [1922], [1926], and [1928]; with ANŪPAMIŚRA’S Hindī ṭīkā as HSS 51, Benares 1936; with SĪTĀRĀMA JHĀ’S Hindī

c8.43

³⁰ Published Benares 1902; Darabhaṅgā 1910; with the Hindī ṭīkā of BACCŪ ŚARMAN, Darabhaṅgā [1911]; Darabhaṅgā [1924]; and edited by RĀMATEJA PĀṆDEYA, Kāśī [ND].

c8.44

³¹ CESS A 3, 171b—172b, and A 4.

c8.45

A far more impressive treatise is the Muhūrtamārtaṇḍa³² composed by Nārāyaṇa³³ at Ṭāpara north of Devagiri in 1571. A year later he wrote a

c8.46

³² Published [NP] 1836; Benares 1854; with Nārāyaṇa’s ṭīkā, Bombay 1861, Poona 1865, Kāśī 1869, Madras 1871, Lucknow 1879, and Bombay 1894; with Nārāyaṇa’s ṭīkā and the Marāṭhī translation of V. V. ŚASTRIN, Poona 1897, reprinted Bombay 1907, 2nd ed. [Bombay] 1917; with the Telugu ṭīkā of NORI GURULIṄGA ŚĀSTRĪ, Madras 1901; with Nārāyaṇa’s ṭīkā, Bombay 1904; with the Gujarātī translation of GIRIJAŚAṄKARA C. VYĀSA, Tintoi, Aḥmadabad 1916; with the Gujarātī translation of SOMEŚVARA DVĀRAKĀDĀSA, Bombay 1921; with Nārāyaṇa’s ṭīkā and RĀMATEJA PĀṆDYA’S Hindī commentary, Benares 1938; and with KAPILEŚVARA ŚĀSTRIN’S Sanskrit and Hindī ṭīkās as KSS 145, Benares 1947.

c8.47

³³ CESS A 3, 157b—163a, and A 4.

c8.48

Table 6

c8.49

| MM | MC | MG |
| 1. tyājya | 1. śubhāśubha | 1. saṃvatsarādi |
| 2. nakṣatra | 2. nakṣatra | 2. tithi |
| 3. saṃskāra | 3. saṅkrānti | 3. vāra |
| 4. vivāha | 4. gocara | 4. nakṣatra |
| 5. agnyādhāna | 5. saṃskāra | 5. yoga |
| 6. gṛha | 6. vivāha | 6. karaṇa |
| 7. yātrā | 7. vadhūpraveśa | 7. candratārābala |
| 8. miśra | 8. dvirāgamana | 8. śubhāśubha |
| 9. anadhyāya | 9. agnyādhāna | 9. tyājya |
| 10. gocara | 10. rājābhiṣeka | 10. lagna |
| 11. saṅkrānti | 11. yātrā | 11. muhūrta |
| | 12. vāstu | 12. saṅkrānti |
| | 13. gṛhapraveśa | 13. gocara |
| | | 14. saṃskāra |
| | | 15. vivāha |
| | | 16. agnyādhānarājyābhiṣeka |
| | | 17. yātrā |
| | | 18. vāstu |
| | | 19. gṛhapraveśa |
| | | 20. pratiṣṭhā |
| | | 21. miśra |

c8.50

ṭīkā as MM 25, Benares 1950; with CANDRAŚEKHARA PĀṬHAKA’S Hindī ṭīkā, Benares 1966; and with KAILĀSAPATI MIŚRA’S Hindī ṭīkā, Vārāṇasī [ND].

c8.51

commentary, the Mārtaṇḍavallabha. A Laghumuhūrtamārtaṇḍa was apparently composed by Nārāyaṇa himself; an abridgment of the Muhūrtamārtaṇḍa was made by Nīlakaṇṭha³⁴ in 1680.

c8.52

³⁴ CESS A 3, 191 b.

c8.53

But within thirty years the pre-eminence of Nārāyaṇa’s great treatise was eclipsed by Rāma, who completed the Muhūrtacintāmaṇi³⁵ with its ṭīkā, the Pramitākṣarā, at Kāśī in 1600. Another commentary, the Piyūṣadhārā, was composed by Rāma’s nephew, Govinda, at Kāśī in 1603. For the sake of comparison the titles of the adhyāyas in the works of Nārāyaṇa, Rāma, and Gaṇapati are presented in Table 6; this shows clearly Nārāyaṇa’s new approach to the subject, Rāma’s dependence on him, and Gaṇapati’s return (anticipated by Viṭṭhala) to the old tradition of Śrīpati.

c8.54

³⁵ Published with Rāma’s ṭīkā, Benares 1848; Lahore 1853; Benares 1853; with Rāma’s ṭīkā, Bombay 1859 and Lucknow 1869; with Prasannavadana’s Hindi ṭīkā, Allahabad 1869; with Govinda’s ṭīkā, Bombay 1872; with CAKRAPĀṆI PĀṬHAKA’s Hindi ṭīkā, Benares 1874; with Rāma’s ṭīkā, Bombay 1880; with Govinda’s ṭīkā [Bombay 1882]; with a Hindi ṭīkā, Calcutta 1896; with Govinda’s ṭīkā, Bombay 1907; with NĪLAKAṆṬHA’s Hindi ṭīkā, Lucknow 1909, 3rd ed. [NP] 1915; with RAJANĪKĀNTA’s Bengālī version, Calcutta 1910; with a Kannaḍa ṭīkā, Bellary 1913; with MAHĀRĀJADĪNA DĪKṢITA’s Hindi ṭīkā, Benares 1914; with RISĀLADATTA MIŚRA’s Hindi ṭīkā, Benares 1916 and 1920; with MAHĪDHARA DHARMĀDHIKĀRĪ’s Hindi ṭīkā, Bombay 1919; with Govinda’s and ANŪPA MIŚRA’s ṭīkās, Benares 1923; with Rāma’s ṭīkā, Benares 1925; with a Hindi ṭīkā, Benares [1926]; with Govinda’s ṭīkā, Bombay 1933; with Govinda’s ṭīkā, 5th ed., Bombay 1945; with KAPILEŚVARA ŚĀSTRI’s Hindi ṭīkā as HSS 135, Benares 1948; with Govinda’s ṭīkā, 2nd ed., Benares 1954; and with SĪTĀRĀMA JHĀ’S Hindi ṭīkā, Vārāṇasī 1969.

c8.55

But before Gaṇapati wrote toward the end of the seventeenth century, a large number of lesser authors tried their hand. These include: Bhānu,³⁶ who wrote a Sajjanavallabha³⁷ at Māndhāṭṛ in Gujarāt (the earliest dated manuscript was copied in 1602); Nāgeśa, the author of the Grahaprabodha in 1619, who also composed a Muhūrtadīpaka; Viṭṭhala, the author of a Paddhatikalpavallī in 1626, who wrote a Muhūrtakalpadruma³⁸ at Kāśī in 1627; Raghuvīra, Viṭṭhala’s son, who composed a Muhūrtasarvasva in 1635; Mahādeva,³⁹ the author of a brief Muhūrtadīpaka⁴⁰ at Añjāra in Kaccha in 1640 and of a vyākhyā on the same at Bhuja in 1661; Nandikeśvara,⁴¹ who composed the Gaṇakamaṇḍana at Śrīsthala in Gujarāt in about 1640; Paramahaṃsa Parivrājakācārya,⁴² who wrote a Muhūrtamuktāvalī,⁴³ of which the earliest dated manuscript was copied in 1645; Śrīkaṇṭha, who wrote another Muhūrtamuktā- valī, whose earliest dated manuscript was copied in 1656, for Vāḍavāna at Nāḍāpagrāma; Raghunātha Kaṇṭhirava, who composed the Muhūrtamālā at Kāśī in 1660; and Yadunandana, the author of a Muhūrtamañjarī in 1669. Clearly, the interest in muhūrta during the seventeenth century was concentrated in Benares and Gujarāt. This did not change when Gaṇapati Rāvala⁴⁴ completed his gigantic Muhūrtagaṇapati⁴⁵ at Kāśī in 1686.

c8.56

³⁶ CESS A 4.

c8.57

³⁷ Published in Grantharatnamālā 5, 1892.

c8.58

³⁸ Edited by KṚṢṆAŚAṄKARA KEŚAVARĀMA, Bombay 1935.

c8.59

³⁹ CESS A 4.

c8.60

⁴⁰ Published with his own vyākhyā, Kāśī 1867; Bombay 1877; and Bombay 1915.

c8.61

⁴¹ CESS A 3, 131 a–131 b, and A 4.

c8.62

⁴² CESS A 4.

c8.63

⁴³ Published Benares 1875 and 1876.

c8.64

⁴⁴ CESS A 2, 89b–92a; A 3, 27a–27b; and A 4.

c8.65

⁴⁵ Published Bombay 1859 and 1863; Kāśī 1864; Lucknow 1875; Bombay 1887; with SŪRYANĀRĀYAṆA SIDDHĀNTI’S Hindī translation, Lucknow 1894; Bombay 1897; with RĀMASVARŪPA ŚARMAN’S Hindī ṭīkā, Bombay 1898, reprinted Bombay 1910 and Bombay 1954.

c8.66

In the eighteenth century the only notable treatises on muhūrta were the Ratnadyota⁴⁶ composed by Gaṅgārāma Dviveda⁴⁷ in 1718 and the Jyotiścandrārka⁴⁸ composed by Rudradeva Śarman at Kāśī in 1726. But the last such work to which reference should be made here is the Vyavahāraratna⁴⁹ written by Bhānunātha⁵⁰ in Mithilā in 1872. This tradition, like that of genethlialogy, is still very much alive.

c8.67

⁴⁶ Published with a Hindī version, 2nd ed., Lucknow 1899; and with BHAGAVA-DATTA ŚĀSTRĪ’S Hindī ṭīkā, Ayodhyā [ND].

c8.68

⁴⁷ CESS A 2, 86b–87a; A 3, 27a; and A 4.

c8.69

⁴⁸ The first five of the eight chapters with Rudradeva’s own ṭīkā, the Kāśikā, were edited by KHŪBACANDA ŚARMAN, Lucknow 1927.

c8.70

⁴⁹ Published with SĪTĀRĀMA JHĀ’S Hindī ṭīkā as MM 224, Benares 1952.

c8.71

⁵⁰ CESS A 4.

Yātrā

c8.s1.1

Military “astrology,” an aspect of catarchic astrology in which the Indian developments influenced the Syriac scholar, Theophilus of Edessa,⁵¹ in the eighth century and through him the later astrology of Islam, Byzantium, and Western Europe, began in India with the omens during the late first millennium B.C. It is found, then, in such texts as the GS (32–34) and in numerous other collections of omens, including the Narapatijayacaryā and other texts on svara, and regularly in treatises on muhūrta. Yātrā, which combines omens with real astrology, is also the subject of a section of the YJ (73–76); in the commentary thereon (vol. 2, pp. 389–393) a partial list of authorities on the subject, numbering fifty-six, was given. But here only the independent literature on the subject will be briefly considered.

c8.s1.2

⁵¹ D. PINGREE in Viator 7 (1976), 148–149.

c8.s1.3

The earliest separate treatises on yātrā that we have are the three composed by Varāhamihira in the sixth century: the Ṭikanikayātrā,⁵² the Yogayātrā,⁵³ and the Bṛhadyātrā.⁵⁴ Verses from each of these works occur in the other two. In addition to the omens and astrology proper, the BY (18), following the lead of Sphujidhvaja (YJ 76, 66 and 77, 1), gives detailed instructions for the worship of the planets (grahayajña). Commentaries on the YY and the BY were composed by Bhaṭṭotpala in Kāśmīra in about 970, and on the BY by Sūryadeva at Gaṅgāpura in the early thirteenth century; of the two commentaries on the BY all that now survives seems to be a miserable fragment of Bhaṭṭotpala’s. Varāhamihira refers to Bādarāyaṇa⁵⁵ as one of his authorities, and Bhaṭṭotpala in his ṭīkā on the YY cites many verses from a Bādarāyaṇīyayātrā, of which a few manuscript copies are known.⁵⁶

c8.s1.4

⁵² Edited by V. K. PANDIT, “Ṭikanikayātrā of Varāhamihira,” JUB 20 (Arts 26) (1951), 40–63.

c8.s1.5

⁵³ Adhyāyas 1–9 with a German translation were edited by H. KERN, “Die Yogayātrā des Varāhamihira,” IS 10 (1868), 161–212; 14 (1876), 312–358; and 15

c8.s1.6

⁵⁴ Edited with a fragment of Bhaṭṭotpala’s commentary by D. PINGREE, Madras 1972.

c8.s1.7

⁵⁵ CESS A 4.

c8.s1.8

⁵⁶ I have used PM 1313 in the Adyar Library and G 6412 in the Asiatic Society of Bengal.

c8.s1.9

After the tenth century, new literature on military astrology (aside from adhyāyas in muhūrta texts) seems to have followed the models of the Narapatijayacaryā and the Samarasāra rather than Varāhamihira; such seems to be the case, for example, with the Yuddhajayotsava of Gaṅgārāma,⁵⁷ and it is also to a large extent true of Kumāra Gaṇaka,⁵⁸ who wrote his Raṇadīpikā⁵⁹ in Kerala. As yet little is known of the Rājavijaya of Raṇahastin save that it was composed for a king named Mandana, the son of Hammīra, the son of Simhanadeva, and that the oldest dated manuscript was copied in 1600. Clearly Mandana is the Haihaya (Kalacuri) ruler of Ratnapura, Madanabrahman, the son of Ḍamghīra (?), the son of Siṃhaṇa, who is mentioned in the first Kosgain (Kosaṅga) Stone Inscription of his (Madanabrahman’s) great-grandson Vāharendra,⁶⁰ who ruled from about 1480 till about 1515. Raṇahastin, therefore, flourished at Ratanpur north of Bilāspur in Madhya Pradeśa in about 1400.

c8.s1.10

⁵⁷ CESS A 2, 86a—86b.

c8.s1.11

⁵⁸ CESS A 2, 46b, and A 4.

c8.s1.12

⁵⁹ Edited K. SĀMBAŚIVA ŚĀSTRĪ as TSS 95, Trivandrum 1928.

c8.s1.13

⁶⁰ CII IV, Ootacamund 1955, pp. 557—563.

Vivāha

c8.s2.1

Varāhamihira incorporated into his BS (102) a chapter on the astrology of marriage entitled vivāhapaṭala, the “marriage chest;” this was attributed to Vindhyavāsin by his commentator, Bhaṭṭotpala. But he also wrote a separate and more extensive treatise on the astrology of marriage, also entitled Vivāhapaṭala.⁶¹ A commentary on this was written by the faithful Bhaṭṭotpala at

c8.s2.2

⁶¹ I have used manuscript 9316 of the Oriental Institute in Baroda, which also contains Bhaṭṭotpala’s commentary.

c8.s2.3

(1878), 167—184, reprinted in his Verspreide Geschriften, vol. 1, ’s-Gravenhage 1913, pp. 97—168; complete edition by JAGDISH LAL, Lahore 1944.

c8.s2.4

Kāśmīra in about 970. Thereafter, when muhūrta treatises became popular, they all included a section on vivāha—sometimes little else; and, of course, most works on jātaka also included discussions of this topic. Thus, Viṣṇuśarman, in commenting on VM 8 in about 1365, quotes not only from Varāhamihira, but also from Atri, Kalyāṇavarman, Gārgya, Guru, Narapati, Nārada, Bṛhaspati, Bharadvāja, Bhāgila, Bhṛgu, Yavaneśvara (not Sphujidhvaja or Mīnarāja), Lalla, Vasiṣṭha, Vāmadeva, Vāmana, Śaunaka, Śrīpati, and the Saptarṣis.

c8.s2.5

He quotes as well from a number of works whose titles but not authors he names. Among these is the Vivāhavṛndāvana,⁶² which is indeed the work of that title⁶³ composed by Keśavārka.⁶⁴ In seventeen adhyāyas it deals in unparalleled completeness with all aspects of the subject. A commentary, the Vivāhadīpikā or Karapīḍanadīpikā, was composed by Gaṇeśa at Nandigrāma in 1554. Also ascribed to a Keśavārka⁶⁵ is a Mauñjīpaṭala⁶⁶ in but twelve verses.

c8.s2.6

⁶² Vivāhavṛndāvana 3, 3–4 are quoted on VM 8, 18, and Vivāhavṛndāvana 3, 10 on VM 8, 20.

c8.s2.7

⁶³ Published with Gaṇeśa's ṭīkā, Kāśī 1868; with KĀŚĪRĀMA'S Hindī ṭīkā, Bombay 1907; with ŚIVADATTA TRIPĀṬHIN'S Hindī ṭīkā, Kāśī 1909; and with Gaṇeśa's ṭīkā, Bombay 1909.

c8.s2.8

⁶⁴ CESS A 2, 75a–77a; A 3, 25a; and A 4.

c8.s2.9

⁶⁵ CESS A 2, 75a, and A 4.

c8.s2.10

⁶⁶ Edited by K. K. RAIKVA, Vivāhapaṭalam, Bombay 1935, pp. 63–65.

c8.s2.11

The other vivāha texts that we have include the Sārasamuccaya or Vivāhapaṭala⁶⁷ of Sāraṅgapāṇi, a nibandha based largely on the Sārasamuccaya of Vaidyanātha (the earliest dated manuscript was copied in 1597); the Vivāhapaṭala⁶⁸ of Brahmāditya⁶⁹ (the earliest dated manuscript was copied in 1605); and the Vivāhapaṭala⁷⁰ composed by Pītāmbara⁷¹ at Stambhatīrtha (Cambay, Gujarāt) (the earliest dated manuscript was copied in 1615).

c8.s2.12

⁶⁷ Edited RAIKVA, ibid., pp. 1–62.

c8.s2.13

⁶⁸ I have used the fragmentary Harvard 405, which contains a commentary attributed to Sumatiharṣa.

c8.s2.14

⁶⁹ CESS A 4.

c8.s2.15

⁷⁰ Edited RAIKVA, ibid. pp. 66–79.

c8.s2.16

⁷¹ CESS A 4.

Linked texts (26)