Yantras or Mechanical Contrivances in Ancient India

Mechanical devices (automata, water machines, flying machines, war engines) described in Sanskrit literature, especially Bhoja's Samarāṅgaṇasūtradhāra.

Language: English
Author: V. Raghavan
Extent: 238 passages, 13,611 words
Text: complete digital text
Source: archive.org · Indian Institute of Culture, Bangalore, Transaction No. 10, 1952; scan on archive.org, OCR Gemini 3.8 Flash;… · In copyright (V. Raghavan †1979); freely available on archive.org, iiwc.in — shown with credit and a link to…

c1 Front matter — 3 parts
c2 Yantras or Mechanical Contrivances in Ancient India — 235 parts

Text

Front matter

Yantras or Mechanical Contrivances in Ancient India

Many valuable lectures are given, papers read and discussed, and oral reviews of outstanding books presented, at the Indian Institute of Culture. Its day is still one of small beginnings, but wider dissemination of at least a few of these addresses and papers is obviously in the interest of the better intercultural understanding so important for world peace. Some of these are published in the Institute's monthly organ, *The Aryan Path*; then we have two series of occasional papers—Reprints from that journal, and Transactions. The Institute is not responsible for views expressed and does not necessarily concur in them.

c2.7

Transaction No. 10

c2.8

Dr. V. Raghavan heads the Department of Sanskrit in the University of Madras. He came to Bangalore to deliver two lectures, on June 18th and 19th, 1951, under the auspices of the Indian Institute of Culture. It is the first of these, given under the chairmanship of Prof. D. D. Kosambi, which we publish here.

c2.9

Dr. Raghavan's paper admirably complements Dr. H. J. J. Winter's study: *The History of Scientific Thought with Special Reference to Asia*, published as the *Institute's Transaction No. 5*.

c2.10

His careful study of this subject has led him to conclusions about ancient India quite different from the stereotyped concept popular in the West. The idea of a nation of dreamers, essentially impractical folk, is one which has never been reconcilable with the surviving records of engineering triumphs and the rare achievements in architecture as well as in art which have defied the ravages of time and climate through untold centuries. The intellectual, moral and spiritual heights attained by ancient India's great seers and sages, to which early writings and far earlier oral traditions bore witness, were generally recognized in India. With that recognition may have gone a growing undervaluation of material development that may have played its part in the neglect for ages to carry further, on the practical side, the high material civilization attained thousands of years ago, to which the very ancient ruins of Mohenjo-daro bear witness.

c2.11

The explanation for the loss of ancient technological knowledge advanced by another scholar, Shri V. R. R. Dikshitar, the author of *War in Ancient India*, is the secrecy with which certain arts and sciences were guarded, lest, he believes, the popular knowledge of them lead to abuse and disturb the peace of mankind. Certainly the modern world can appreciate the value of such a sense of responsibility in the possessors of dangerous knowledge!

c2.12

But, whatever the cause of the material decline, Dr. Raghavan as well as Shri Dikshitar is convinced by the textual evidence that ancient India had once attained a high technological development, even in aeronautics.

c2.14

"*To deny to Babylon, to Egypt and to India, their part in the development of science and scientific thinking is to defy the testimony of the ancients, supported by the discovery of the modern authorities.*" L. C. KARPINSKI.¹

c2.15

¹ His article "Hindu Science," *The American Mathematical Monthly*, 1919, Vol. XXVI, pp. 298-300; quoted by LYNN THORNDIKE in his *History of Magic and Experimental Science*, Six Volumes. (New York, 1923 ff.)

c2.16

"*Thus we see that India's marvels were not always false.*" LYNN THORNDIKE.²

c2.17

² THORNDIKE, *op. cit.* Vol. II. p. 238.

c2.18

It is indeed in the realms of literature and art, religion and philosophy that ancient India made its outstanding contributions. While the achievements in the former have gained world-wide appreciation, those in the latter constitute really the survival value, if any, of the ancient culture of this country. The skill of execution evident in art, the speculation that fathomed the depths of the spirit, and the powerful imagination that was an over-all feature of all this activity, expressed themselves so freely, however, that no bounds were set to the all-round unfoldment of this culture, and the fecund creative power resulted in unceasing zest in every department of intellectual activity. The exclusive other-worldliness of this culture is no longer subscribed to,³ and the discovery of manuscripts and the advance of research have both brought to light no insignificant amount of ancient Indian activity in the fields of positive aspects of life, of subjects of practical interest and scientific value, which, considering the intellectual level of other nations in those times of antiquity, do justify India's claim to the role of teacher of the ancient world.

c2.19

³ See the present writer's "Is Hindu Culture Other-worldly?" *The Twentieth Century*, Allahabad, 1937, August, pp. 1142-1154; September, pp. 56-65; October pp. 169-179.

c2.20

On this positive side of ancient Indian culture, topics pertaining to major sciences like medicine or mathematics have always formed the recognised subjects for research or disquisition. I have picked up an out-of-the-way subject from what may be referred to as one of the byways in this department of investigation. The enormous scientific advancement today and our familiarity with marvels of mechanical invention and perfection may reduce the value of this study; but it must be granted by the moderns that it is the dreams of ages and the crude experiments of old that have been the forerunners of the recent advances.⁴

c2.21

⁴ It may be interesting in this connection to draw attention to the story of the 8th century Jain writer Haribhadra and his two nephews, Hamsa and Paramahamsa, as told in the *Prabhavakacarita* (IX. 48 ff.) where we hear of the employment of a parachute for escaping. The nephews were confined in an upper storey by their angry Buddhistic teacher and, to escape further punishments, the brothers spread two umbrellas, jumped out of the window, and softly and safely set foot on the ground. (*Ibid*., Ch. IX, verses 87-89)

c2.22

To a student of ancient Indian civilization in detail this is a question arousing very keen enthusiasm and, from the point of view of the general cultured public conversant with Sanskrit literature, what I am going to present contains much unfamiliar material about which they are likely to be curious. The whole of this material has not, so far as I know, been set forth previously at length or in a single place; the literary sources concerned are not free from textual problems and difficulties of interpretation, a few of them being still in manuscript; and, on the whole, I feel gratified, and grateful to this Institute that I have this opportunity to put together data that I have been noting down for some time.

c2.23

That from ancient times the idea of a *yantra* was very common is proved by two facts, the application of the concept to the esoteric sphere, and the way the *yantra* roused the imagination of the spiritual writers. In esoteric worship the *yantra* was a chart which stored up within its confines spiritual power; drawn on a flat surface or made in relief, it had components or details which had to be strictly conformed to and, as an instrument for achieving spiritual power, it eminently deserved the name "*yantra*." In the minds of the writers, who were essentially men of religious faith and spiritual yearning, the yantra or machine always suggested a highly apt analogy for the material universe or the mundane body activated by a God or presided over by a Soul.

c2.24

The word "*yantra*" is derived from the root *yam*, to control, and has been freely used in ancient India for any contrivance; some very simple ones are commonly known: the water-pulley in the well was called *Ghaṭīyantra*; an oil-presser was *Taila-yantra*; a cane-presser was *Ikṣhu-yantra*; ploughs, water-lifts and even weighing balances were referred to as *yantras* (*Arthaśāstra* II. 19; II. 24); and in Tamil even the stone grain-grinder is referred to by the Tamil form of the same name "*entiram*." These should not lead us to think that very complicated mechanisms were not evolved by the ancients.

c2.25

Mechanical skill had produced in ancient India many accessories for scientific activities, such as surgical instruments in medicine, the *pākayantras* or laboratory equipment in medicine, *Rasāyana*, and the astronomical yantras⁵ described in Jyotiṣa works. These belong to a different category. Nor do I propose to touch upon very late material, when Sanskrit writers translated or reproduced from Persian works, as for instance the *Bhārotthāpana-yantra-nirmāṇa* on weight-

c2.26

⁵ See Indian Historical Quarterly, "Astronomical Instruments of the Hindus," Vol. IV, pp. 256-269.

c2.27

lifting contrivances, a 17th century work, translated by Devasimha according to his own statement, from a Persian work.⁶

c2.28

The yantra as I shall take it here derives much of its interest from the social background and I, therefore, crave your indulgence for presenting here a whole picture of it, together with its proper *milieu*.

c2.29

One of the best creations of the most ancient architects of this country is the chariot, *Ratha*. The *Ratha-kāra* of Vedic times was ever a person of importance, according to the *Vājasaneyi-Saṁhitā*, the *Śatapatha-Brāhmaṇa* and the *Atharva-veda*. To the earliest Vedic poet the Ratha, finely hewn and fitted, was the very type of a well-wrought thing; his appreciation of the skill involved in its making made him not only refer to its maker as a person of high mental equipment, *Dhīra* and *Manīṣin*, but several times compare himself and his own creation in words, the hymn, to the gifted carpenter shaping his chariot. (*Ṛgveda*, I. 130.⁶; V. 2. 11; 29. 15; 73. 10; X. 39. 14). The poet referred to himself as a *Kāru*, architect; later, the Great Epic refers to the architect Maya as a *Mahākavi*, a great poet.

c2.30

⁶ *The Poona Orientalist*, Vol. X. 3-4 (July-Oct. 1945), pp. 79-80.

c2.31

The Ṛibhus, Viśvakarman and Tvaṣhṭar of the Vedas and the anonymous Vedic Takshan are succeeded in the epics by the two great architects of the Devas and the Asuras, Viśvakarman and Maya. The epics form indeed the great age of the exploits of Viśvakarman and, even to a greater extent of Maya.⁷ Both the epics are full of the magnificence of the architecture for which Maya was responsible. In the *Mahābhārata* we hear of the *Matsya-yantra* or the revolving wheel with a fish which Arjuna had to shoot in order to win Draupadī in the *svayaṁvara*. This has a late echo in the *Gadyacūḍāmaṇi* and *Kṣhatracūḍāmaṇi* of the Jain poet Vādībhasimha of the 12th century, in a similar context of *svayaṁvara*, the test stipulated here being the piercing of three boars placed within a yantra called *Candraka-yantra*. In this connection attention may be drawn also to the general observation in both Kauṭilya and Kālidāsa that one of the uses of the hunt is to develop the skill to shoot targets which are in constant movement (*paricayaṁ cala-lakṣhya-nipātane*).

c2.32

⁷ *Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society* (London) 1915, pp. 77-83.

c2.33

In *Ādi* 64 (Kumbhakonam edition), the *Mahābhārata* describes the festival of Indra's banner inaugurated by Uparicara Vasu, which thereafter continued to be celebrated as a great national festival, by the Kings especially. The *Rāmāyaṇa*, which refers to Indra's Banner more than once, takes it specifically as a *yantra-dhvaja*. The Flagstaff representing Indra was an elaborate affair, with a large number of things hanging about it all around, and its raising and bringing down after a 10-day festival were impressive sights. The falling down of Bharata in *Ayodhya* 77.9 is compared to the *yantra-dhvaja* of Indra falling down. That the flag was raised and pulled down by means of fittings and ropes is known from another reference, in the *Yuddhakhāṇḍa*, where Rāma and Lakṣmaṇa lying down in Indrajit’s *Nāgapāśa* are compared to the Indra-banner after the ropes have been let loose. The full particulars of the erection and dismantling of the *Indradhvaja* are set forth by Bhoja in a chapter of over 200 verses exclusively devoted to it in his *Samarāṅgaṇasūtradhāra*. The central pole, the pedestal, the painted flag itself, the subsidiary fittings, the dolls to be hung on it, its outstretched arms, the six ropes attached to it and several *yantras* fitted to it for raising it and bringing it down are described by Bhoja. In the *Harivaṁśa*, a supplement to the *Mahābhārata*, there is mention of the stone-throwing machine, *Aśma-yantra*, in the battle with Jarāsandha (II. 42. 21).

c2.34

More interesting references are made by Vālmīki to yantras on the field of battle, the continuity of which tradition we see later in the *Arthaśāstra* of Kauṭilya. The fortifications include equipment in the form of yantras. In *Ayodhya* 100.53, in the *Kaccit-sarga*, while enquiring about measures of defence, Rāma asks Bharata whether the fort is equipped with yantras. Laṅkā, as a city built by Maya, is naturally more full of the yantras. The city, personified as a lady, is called *yantra-agāra-stanī*, informing us of a special chamber filled with yantras. (*Sundara* 3. 18). In his account to Rāma of the fortifications of Laṅkā, Hanumān says in *Yuddha* 3.12 that Laṅkā has four big gates and that each gate is furnished with strong and huge yantras that can hurl both arrows and stones (*Upala-yantras*):

c2.35

तत्रोपलयन्त्राणि बलवन्ति महान्ति च ।

c2.36

And over the moats are bridges which are controlled by numerous big yantras (3.16, 17). That such yantras were employed on the field is seen in a description of Kumbhakarṇa, in *Yuddha* 61.32, where his giant figure striding the streets of Laṅkā is compared to a huge yantra that has been set up:—

c2.37

उच्छ्रितं वानराः सर्वे यन्त्रमेतत् समुच्छ्रितम् ।

c2.38

Mammoth machines turned by a large number of persons and making a terrific noise are to be seen in a description of Rāvaṇa, soon after he got the news of Indrajit’s death. As he gnashed his teeth in fury, the noise was heard as of a big catapult being turned by Dānavas.

c2.39

दन्तान् विदशतस्तस्य श्रूयते दशनस्वनः ।
यन्त्रस्यावेष्ट्यमानस्य महतो दानवैरिव ॥ VI. 93.23.

c2.40

The mention here of Dānavas in connection with machines must be noted. Later we see references to machines, associating the Yavanas especially with

c2.41

them. The reference gains some significance when we bear in mind the relation of Maya with the Asuras and of the Asuras with Iran⁸ and the near west, and the continuous contact which ancient India had with these neighbouring and cognate civilizations on the west.

c2.42

⁸ See D. B. SPOONER, “The Zoroastrian Period of Indian History,” (*J. R. A. S.* 1915, pp. 63-89, 405-455); the theory of Persepolitan influence in Mauryan architecture is worked out here. On Asura Maya as Ahura Mazda, see *ibid.*, pp. 80-89. See also Archæological Report, Government of India, 1912-13; 1913-14. GRUNDWELL and BURGESS, *Buddhist Art in India*, p. 17. On Persepolis as a channel of influence and contact between India and Assyria, see KENNEDY, “Early Commerce of Babylon with India, 700-300 B.C.”, *J. R. A. S.* April 1898, p. 283.

c2.43

The *Arthaśāstra* of Kauṭilya is one of the books of culture which throw a flood of light on the particular epochs in which they arose. This work of *c.* 300 B.C. being a treatise on statecraft, speaks of yantras in connection mainly with battles, but also with architecture to some extent. An early work, a theoretical treatise and a text of great reputation, the *Arthaśāstra* forms our most valuable document on the subject of yantras.

c2.44

Before we come to its account of the main yantras of warfare, we shall note some of the other mechanical contrivances met with in Kauṭilya’s work. In II. 5, he refers to a dugout, *Bhūmigṛha*, and mentions for it a mechanical staircase which can be thrown in and withdrawn (*Yantra-yukta-sopāna*). While detailing the exact methods to be adopted for finishing off enemies and unwanted persons (XII. 5), Kauṭilya speaks of machines which could be conveniently pressed into service. When the unwanted person is entering a temple, from an overhead yantra there could be released on his head a piece of masonry or a stone to kill him instantly.

c2.45

It may be recalled here that in the political play of Viśākhadatta in which the author of the *Arthaśāstra* is the leading character, Kauṭilya is made to use this device against Vairocaka, brother of Parvatakeśvara, the unwanted partner; Kauṭilya gets advance intelligence of the ruse employed by Rākṣhasa through an architect named Dāruvarman; the architect had erected a *yantra-toraṇa*, a mechanically fitted arch, which could be brought down by the drawing out of one of the fastening rods; this had been set up to kill Candragupta as he entered the palace for the coronation; and Kauṭilya offers Vairocaka as a victim to this *yantra-toraṇa*. This may be compared to the *Viśvāsa-ghātī* to be noticed below. A second ruse mentioned by Kauṭilya for the same purpose is a bedchamber in which part of the flooring has a mechanical contrivance; underneath this part of the floor is a deep cavity or a pit with pikes; and over it is placed the bed of the unwanted person; after he goes to sleep, the flooring is released and down goes the poor man with his bed.

c2.46

Yantras for actual warfare are generally touched upon in several contexts: II.3 and 18 mention the need to equip forts with *yantras*. In X. 4, yantras on the field are said to be attended to by special labourers and workers. In IX.2, Kauṭilya deals with counter-manœuvres for tackling particular kinds of enemy forces; here, among the things to be used against elephants yantras or probably *Hasti-yantras* are included; these are machines in general or special machines designed to scare elephants; Bhoja, in his *Samarāṅgaṇasūtradhāra*, mentions that one of the uses of the aerial vehicle is to create a terrific noise and frighten elephants. In XIII.4, Kauṭilya advocates the use of yantras for devastating an enemy place which is full of defence-erections.

c2.47

The chapter devoted wholly to armoury, *Āyudhāgāra*, 11.18, is the main section speaking of military yantras. Kauṭilya divides the yantras into stationary and mobile—*Sthira* and *Cala yantras*. The former class comprises:—

c2.48

*Sarvatobhadra*: According to the commentary of Bhaṭṭasvāmin⁹, this is a sharp-edged wheel that is placed on a wall and rotated so as to fling big stones all around; according to others, it is also called *Siddhabhūmirika-yantra* and scatters small stones.

c2.49

⁹ Printed in the *Journal of the Bihar and Orissa Research Society*, XII, pt. 1, Supplement, p. 105 ff.

c2.50

*Jamadagnya*: Bhaṭṭasvāmin explains it as a big *Śara-yantra* or mechanical arrow-thrower. It is placed behind a wall and it shoots arrows through crevices in the wall. But the name signifies a fire-arm.

c2.51

*Bahumukha*: This is an elevation and a mount for archers; it is leather-covered and is as high as the wall to enable archers to shoot all round.

c2.52

*Viśvāsaghāti*: An iron bar placed across the path in the approaches to the city, which, manipulated by a mechanical device, falls down and pounds a man. It belongs to the class mentioned above for killing unwanted persons and the *yantra-toraṇa* mentioned in the *Mudrārākṣasa*.

c2.53

*Saṅghāṭī* means "tied together". It was made of wood and used to set fire to enemy fortifications. It is called an *Agni-yantra*.

c2.54

*Yānaka* or *Yānika* is a yantra moved on wheels; it discharges batons.

c2.55

*Parjanyaka* is an *Udaka-yantra*, a fire-quencher.

c2.56

*Bāhus* are two arm-like pillars which when released from either side by a yantra, press to death a person between them; this appears to be an instrument of torture.

c2.57

*Ūrdhvabāhu* is similarly an overhead column which comes down upon a man and puts him to death.

c2.58

*Ardhabāhu* is the same as *Bāhu*, but is of diminutive size.

c2.59

The *Cala-yantras* are:

c2.60

*Pāñcālika*. Its use is outside the fort walls, in the moat; thrown in the midst of the water, its sharp protruding points prevent the progress of enemies.

c2.61

*Devadaṇḍas* are long cylindrical cannon-like things placed on parapet walls. Bhaṭṭasvāmin gives them another name also, *Pratītaroca*.

c2.62

*Śūkarikā* is a huge thing shaped like a pig or bellows, made of bamboo, rope and hide, filled inside with cotton etc., and is placed on the path as an obstruction and as a buffer to stop stones, etc., that are flung by the enemy. According to some others, *Śūkarikās* are to prevent enemies from easily getting up the ramparts; they, on this view, were probably closely suspended all along the walls to prevent the enemy-scaler from getting a foothold.

c2.63

*Musala* and *Yaṣṭi* are well-known; Hastivāraka is interpreted as a two- or three-pronged iron rod, *Hastiparigha*, for striking at elephants, but may really mean, as seen from a reference in Daṇḍin's *Avantisundarī*, a machine which hurls heavy iron rods to smite and demoralize the elephants.

c2.64

A *Tālavṛnta* mentioned is explained as a *Vātacakra*, the significance of which is obscure. We may suggest that here was a device to create a tempest which could demoralize the enemy ranks. The observation of Philostratus, relating to Alexander's invasion of India; that Indians drive the enemy off "'by means of tempest and thunders, as if from heaven,"¹⁰ may, however, be only an echo of the epic *Vāyavya-astra*.

c2.65

¹⁰ H. M. ELLIOT, *History of India*, Vol. VI, App., p. 477.

c2.66

After *Mudgara*, *Gadā*, *Sphṛktalā*, a picked missile, and *Kuddāla*, are mentioned in the following:—

c2.67

*Āsphoṭima* has four feet, is covered by hide, has a projectile and throws stones.

c2.68

*Udghāṭima* is a machine which demolishes walls with the iron bars fitted to it.

c2.69

*Utpāṭima* is interpreted as the *Syena-yantra* which uproots and tears up things.

c2.70

And before the *Triśūla* and *Cakra*, which are known, there occurs the *Śataghni*, the centicide, which is mentioned in all descriptions of warfare in old literature, but as to the exact nature of which there is difference of opinion. Bhaṭṭasvāmin takes it as a huge, cannon-like, cylindrical thing 'with wheels, placed on the parapet.

c2.71

Bhaṭṭasvāmin quotes also a verse on yantras in general as of three kinds, *Vyādhita*, *Bhrāmita* and *Bhārayukta*: the first acts by being pressed, the second by rotation and the third by its sheer weight.

c2.72

व्याधितं भ्रामितं चैव भारयुक्तं च कारयेत् ।
पीडनाद् भ्रमणाद् भाराद् त्रिधा यन्त्रं प्रवर्तते ॥

c2.73

The Jain Sūtras, which may go back in their nucleus to Mauryan times and which attained their present form in the 6th century A.D., know these yantras. The *Bhagavatī Sūtra* gives a list of eight finalities one of which is the last fight with huge stones thrown as missiles.¹¹ The same Sūtra describes the war between Kūṇiya and Cheḍaga where we have the expressions *Mahāśilākaṇṭaka-Saṁgrāma* and *Ratha-musala-Saṁgrāma*; the correct construction of the first name is "a battle in which one is beset by the stone complex," for the text itself elaborates that such a heavy stone-shower has been in operation that even if a blade of grass or a piece of wood, a leaf or a pebble struck one, one got the fright of a stone. The *Ratha-musala* is described by the text 'as a mechanical chariot which ran about without horses or driver and worked carnage in the enemy lines.

c2.74

¹¹ See A. F. R. HOERNLE'S Translation of the *Uvasakadasao*. (*Bibliotheca Indica*, 1888, App. I, p. 7.).

c2.75

Hoernle has the following note on these two, *Mahāśilā* and *Ratha-musala*, which are clearly war-machines: "...the *Mahāśilākaṇṭaka* must have been some engine of war of the nature of a catapult which threw big stones. It created such a panic among the enemy that all fled...the *Ratha-Musala* would seem to have been a sort of 'scythed chariot'¹² such as the ancient Persians used to employ in war, but apparently furnished with clubs instead of scythes. It would also seem to have been provided with some kind of self-acting machinery to propel it, as it is described as having moved without horses or driver; though, possibly, as in similar contrivances in the middle ages, it was moved by a person concealed inside who turned the wheels."¹³

c2.76

¹² Cf. Roger Bacon (latter part of the 13th century A.D.) in his *Epistolo de secretis operibus*: "Also cars can be made so that without animals they will move with unbelievable rapidity; such we opine were the scythe-bearing chariots with which men of old fought." (THORNDIKE, *op. cit.*, Vol. II, p. 654.)

c2.77

¹³ HOERNLE, *op. cit.*, App. III, pp. 59-60.

c2.78

The above marks off one period in the history of these yantras. One of the questions that naturally agitate one's mind at this stage is that of firearms in ancient India. The throwing of arrows with fire or with combustibles on them is no doubt very old and forms one of the things prohibited by Manu in righteous warfare. Some of the other arms and machines mentioned by Kauṭilya do appear to be firearms.

c2.79

Writers like Elliot¹⁴ and Oppert¹⁵ have canvassed the subject at sufficient length in favour not only of the prevalence of firearms in ancient India but also of India being the original home of gunpowder, the fire meant being not merely naphtha.¹⁶

c2.80

¹⁴ ELLIOT, *op. cit.*, Vol. VI, App., pp. 455-482.

c2.81

¹⁵ G. OPPERT, *On the Weapons, Army Organisation and Political Maxims of the Ancient Hindus with special reference to Gunpowder and Firearms*. 1880. See also *I. H. Q.*, Vols. VII and VIII.

c2.82

¹⁶ On the early use of gunpowder in the East see also M. AKRAM MAKHDOOMEE, "Mechanical Artillery in Medieval India. (*Journal of Indian History*, Vol. XV, p. 185)

c2.83

Without being able to subscribe to Oppert's early date for the *Śukranīti*¹⁷ or the *Nītiprakāśikā* of Vaiśampāyana,¹⁸ one feels that there is much to be said in favour of the findings on the antiquity of firearms in ancient India. Two data cited by Oppert and Elliot have some significance in relation not only to the use of yantras in battle in the ancient times but also to the question of the yantras and the *Yavanas*. As we shall see, Bāṇa, Daṇḍin and Budhasvāmin associate yantras in general and the aerial vehicle in particular with Yavanas. The Yavanas may mean Greeks or Arabs and, at the time when these are mentioned, the 7th-10th centuries, both meanings are possible.¹⁹

c2.84

¹⁷ Ed. OPPERT. (Madras, 1882)

c2.85

¹⁸ Ed. OPPERT. (Madras, 1882)

c2.86

¹⁹ On Yavanas, even in more ancient references in Sanskrit, being Persians or Iranians, see SPOONER, *op. cit.*, pp. 433-34.

c2.87

Now we have the following corroborative evidence on the use of yantras by these peoples:

c2.88

Towards the end of the 7th century the architect Kallinikos of Heliopolis, when Constantinople was besieged by Arabs in 668, manufactured big tubes made of iron or of other metals formed like big beasts with gaping jaws, out of which were thrown iron, stones and combustibles. In consequence of the havoc caused by these projectiles the siege of the city was raised. The Greeks kept, it is said, the composition for four centuries when it was betrayed to the Saracens, who availed themselves of it during the crusades at Jerusalem and also at Damietta. (Oppert p. 47)

c2.89

Elliot says that²⁰ "when the Muhammadan connection with India first commenced, we find, according to the ancient and authentic historians, that the powerful engine called *Mañjanīk* was brought into use as a propelling machine. It was a favourite implement with the Arabs" and was probably received from the Persians. Muhammad Qasin used it in the capture of the port of Daibal (711-712 A.D.). It required 500 men to operate it and it worked havoc. According to the authority Ibn Kotaibah, this machine was used by Jazynah, the second King of Hyrah, as early as c. 200 A.D.

c2.90

²⁰ ELLIOT, *op. cit.*, p. 461 ff.

c2.91

Elliot also collected the following data pertaining to certain mechanical objects used in warfare in India: the *Majmalu-t-Tawarikh* says that the Brahmans advised²¹ their King to employ on the battle field an elephant of clay which, as soon as the enemies were sufficiently near, would explode and blow them up; more than the mere explosion, the device for timing it is to be noted here. Firdusi refers to a similar explosive Iron Horse which Alexander was advised to employ, and blacksmiths and artisans constructed 1,000 of these for Alexander. In a Chinese account of India, reference is made to the use in Indian warfare of flying ladders, wooden oxen and rolling horses. One of Muhammad Qasim's successors used a "battering ram with horns of great power and demolished with it the walls of the city."

c2.92

²¹ *Ibid.*, pp. 475, 476, 463. See also MAKHDODMEE, *op. cit.*, pp. 189-195.

c2.93

The Yavanas referred to being Greeks is rendered probable by two circumstances; one the antiquity of the yantras, particularly of war, in India, going through Kauṭilya to the epic literature itself, and the other, the evidence available on the Greeks and automata; there are numerous correspondences that can be fully appreciated only after we deal with the material found in Somadeva and Bhoja, for which reason I have reserved them to the end.

c2.94

The references to machines in classical Sanskrit literature that we may now examine start with Bāṇa's *Harṣhacārita*, the biography of his patron, King Harṣhavardhana of Kanauj (606-647 A.D.). When Harṣha had decided to go against the King of the Gauḍas—who had been responsible for the death of his sister's husband and of his own brother—Skandagupta, a loyal friend and courtier of Harsha, expatiates on the need for caution and exhorts the king to give up his wonted habit of trusting everybody. Illustrating the calamities that befell kings in the past from unsuspected quarters, Skandagupta narrates a series of anecdotes of kings, attached to certain recreations or habits, being taken unawares by scheming enemies and done away with or brought into difficulties. One of the incidents mentioned here records that one Caṇḍīpati was always curious about miraculous things and that a Yavana who had been brought under his control, manufactured a machine-vehicle that could fly, and carried away the King:—

c2.95

आश्चर्यकुतूहली च चण्डीपतिः दण्डोपनतयवननिर्मितेन
नभस्स्थलयायिना यन्त्रयानेन अनीshared कापि ।

c2.96

The mention of a Yavana as the maker of the aerial vehicle must be noted.

c2.97

Daṇḍin, who came soon after Bāṇa, and wrote from Kāñcī in South India, has much more and more varied information to give in the autobiography attached to the opening portion of his prose work, the *Avantisundarī*; this

c2.98

forms the full text of the truncated *Daśakumāracarita*, and the introductory portions referred to are still in manuscript.²² In one of the introductory verses praising earlier poets, Daṇḍin introduces yantras; praising the author of the *Mahābhārata*, he says that, but for the knowledge that Vyāsa infused in us, we would merely be human machines:—

c2.99

²² The relevant portions are cited here from the transcript of it with the Curator of the Travancore University Oriental MSS. Library.

c2.100

मर्त्ययन्त्रेषु माहात्म्यं महाभारतविद्यया ।
अर्पयामास तत्पूर्वं यस्तस्मै मुनये नमः ॥

c2.101

In Daṇḍin's own life-story, a gifted architect Lalitālaya, son of another eminent architect Māndhātā, is introduced and the achievements of these two, which form the subject of the amazed talk of the people, are set forth. It is said here that the father excelled even the Yavanas, from which we have to deduce that Māndhātā and his son Lalitālaya were natives of the soil. Once the father, anxious lest his young son might be hungry, rushed to him in an aerial car, evidently from a distance where he had been at work; which shows how casually the architect took his personal equipment of an aerial vehicle.

c2.102

The son, who is the actual character figuring in the narrative, and is said to excel his father, is credited with the following achievements, the description of which forms a brief treatise on yantras. Lalitālaya created mechanical men and arranged for the exhibition of a mock-duel between them; he created an artificial cloud and brought down heavy showers; with yantras, he exhibited magic; he devised a machine for war from which shafts as stout as pestles were discharged by him on the heads of elephants.

c2.103

दृष्टेऽपि तस्मिन् विस्मयस्पृशो जनस्य " अयं किल यन्त्रपुरुषैः द्वन्द्वैः युद्धमहीनमादर्शितवान्। अनेन किल अलीकजलधरधाराजलजालदन्तुरितमन्तरिक्षं कृतम् । एष किल यन्त्रमयमिन्द्रजालकं कृतवान् । एष किल संख्येपु असंख्यानां युगपदेव भिनत्ति शत्रुहस्तिनां मस्तकस्थलानि मुसलमात्राभिः रिषुभिः। अमुना किल द्रमिडभाषया शूद्रकचरितमुपनिबद्धम् । अस्य किल पित्रा यवनानप्यतिशयानेन क्षुधितोऽयमिति यन्त्रेणासिधावितम् । अयं ततोऽप्यधिकः किल" इत्येवमासन् विकसितकुतूहलाः प्रलापाः।

c2.104

Lalitālaya is said to be master of all kinds of yantras; the varieties mentioned in this connection are six, *Sthita*, *Cara*, *Dhārā*, *Dvīpa*, *Jvara* and *Vyāmiśra*. Other texts speak of the classes of yantras as two and five and give the classifications somewhat differently. The *Sthita* or *Sthira* and *Cara*—stationary and mobile—is a classification going back to Kauṭilya. *Dhārā* is plainly water-works; the manuscript gives the next as *Dvīpa*, which had been wrongly construed also by some; *Dvīpa*, I think, is an error for *Dvipa*, meaning elephant, and refers either to animal-shaped yantras or to special machines,—

c2.105

such as we have already noted, employed against elephants in battle; *Jvara*, if it means heat, may refer to machines involving the employment of fire. *Vyāmiśra* is a yantra partaking of the character of all these.

c2.106

कल्पतंत्रक्रियाविसमापितदुर्जयस्य मान्धातृनाम्नः स्थपतेः प्रशस्तवास्तुशास्त्रार्थसारसामस्त्य-संहारोन्मीलितप्रयोगतन्त्र....वास्तुविस्तारकुशलः षरणवतिप्रासादविधिविशारदो यानासनशयनादि-विकल्पनापटुः स्थित-चर-धार(रा)-द्वीप (द्विप)-ज्वर-व्यामिश्रसंज्ञानां षड्विधानां यन्त्राणां अद्वितीयप्रयोक्ता षट्त्रिंशदाचार्यगुणैः अलङ्कृतः ललितालयनामा समस्तसूत्रग्राही वर्धकी तच्चक्रवत्प्रतीक्ष्यः क्षत्रियैश्च संस्कृतः (सत्कृतः ) स्थपतिरभ्येत्य विरचिताञ्जलिराद्र्दृष्टिर्निर्द्विद्वांयां भूमावुपविवेशत् ।
अवसिता एव सर्वे नित्यप्रमादशैथिल्याभ्यां शिल्पायितिशयाः, यतो अद्य त्वेवं प्रयोगलेशोऽपि विस्मयाय लोकस्य । युष्मादृशां तु ब्रह्मेन्द्रपराशरप्रभृतिप्रणीतशास्त्रहृदयवेदिनां कियदिदवैतच्चैपुणम् ।

c2.107

The machines referred to here are either on either side by Kauṭilya in his *Arthaśāstra* and Bhoja in the *Samarāṅgaṇasūtradhāra*. The mechanical fighters are included in Bhoja; the artificial rain occurs in Kauṭilya in the yantra called Parjanyaka, and the machine intended to smite the elephants' heads may be related to the Hasti-yantra advocated by Kauṭilya for use against an elephant corps. From a passage that follows it would appear that these yantras are dealt with in treatises associated with the authors Brahma, Indra and Parāśara, and that their vogue had become so reduced by long neglect that even humble efforts in the line excited people's wonder.

c2.108

We now proceed to cite some texts on the existence and popularity of a different category of yantras. Till now we have been dealing with yantras having mainly the background of war. The yantras we shall now deal with are accessories of pleasure and entertainment, and more properly come under household fittings and architectural engineering. Some of them are for the reduction of human labour, some for sport and merriment,—toys and gadgets of miscellaneous kinds for entertainment.

c2.109

We may begin with Somadeva Sūri, an encyclopædic Jain writer, and his long religious poem, the *Yaśastilaka Campū*,²³ written in South India in 949 A.D. In the first part of the work, Somadeva describes the hero resorting to the cool *yantra-dhārā-gṛha* to spend the hot hours of the summer days. This park, fitted with mechanical fountains, is appropriately called by the commentator *Kṛtrima-megha-mandira*, the artificial cloud-pavilion. It is erected in the dense garden in an area provided with many canals. There is the stream for water sports in the midst of which is a sandbank raised like a pavilion, provided with a water-bed, *Salila-tūlikā*; nearby are numerous vessels containing fragrant

c2.110

²³ *Kavyamala* 70, in two parts. See Part I, pp. 522-32. See also the present writer's "Gleanings from Somadeva Suri's Yasastilaka Campu," *Journal of the Ganganatha Jha Research Institute*, Vol. I, Nos. iii-iv (May-August 1944) pp. 378-9, 467.

c2.111

water; at one end here is an *yantra-jala-dhārā*, a contrivance producing an artificial waterfall; the water is taken through and thrown out of the mouths of figures of elephants, tigers, lions, snakes, etc.

c2.112

Other artificial works here are figures of celestial trees, *Kalpavṛkṣas*,²⁴ with celestial damsels seated on them along with their lovers and figures of cloud-damsels (*payodhara-purandhrī* or *Meghaputtalikā*) giving shower-baths from their bosoms, figures of monkeys spouting water, statuettes of water-damsels, (*jaladevatās*); there are wind-damsels (*pavana-kanyakās*), wafting breezes with fly-whisks; and figures of ladies, scattering cool sandal-water all around. Somadeva Sūri says of such a figure that if her hands were touched, she would emit sprays through her nails; if her face, through the eyes and so on, a description which, as we shall see presently from its corroboration in every detail in Bhoja's treatise,²⁵ pertained clearly to fact and not to mere imaginative fiction.

c2.113

²⁴ The "*Kalpavriksha*" is referred to by Bhoja also, and Dandin's references to *Kalpavriksha-Kriya* as a work in which Mandhata excelled must be to this.

c2.114

²⁵ On the close parallels on this subject between Somadeva and Bhoja, see Note on the same by the present writer in the *Journal of the University of Gauhati*, Vol. III.

c2.115

That mechanical fountains were constructed as a necessary adjunct to all palaces is seen even in the casual descriptions in the dramas, the *Mālavikāgni-mitra* (II. 12) and the *Nāgānanda* (III. 7) for example, describing jala-yantras.²⁶ The mechanical breeze-lady in the *yantradhārā-gṛha* in the park has her companion within the bedchamber where Somadeva Sūri describes how near the bed was a *yantra-putrikā* plying a fan for the King's relief.

c2.116

²⁶ (a) बिन्दुच्छेद्वान् पिपासुः परिसति शिखी भ्रान्तिमद्वारियन्त्रम्
(b) यन्त्रोन्मुक्तश्च वेगाच्चलति विटपिनां पूरयन्नालवालान् आपातोत्पीडहेलाहत कुसुम रजःपिञ्जरोऽयं जलौघः ।
(c) *Prabodhacandrodaya*, II. 15 and IV. 27: मुच्यन्तां यन्त्रमार्गाः प्रचरतु परितो वारिधारा गृहेषु, which refers to the water-works being set in action and अभी धारा-यन्त्रस्रङ्गिजलझंङ्कारमुखराः ।

c2.117

उपान्त्ययन्त्रपुत्रिकोत्क्षिप्यमाणव्यजनपवनापनीयमानसूरतश्रमः ।

c2.118

Many others of this class we shall be meeting in Bhoja.

c2.119

Bypassing chronology a little, I shall now take up three available Sanskrit versions of the *Bṛhatkathā*. The story thesaurus called *Bṛhatkathā* is on a par with the two epics, and can very well be called the great epic of popular life. The version of Budhasvāmin is the earliest, belonging probably to the 9th-10th centuries, and coming from and based on a non-Kashmirian area and source. Budhasvāmin has important information on aerial vehicles, *Ākāśa-yantras*, as he expressly calls them; it is also to be noted that he explicitly mentions the Yavanas as the knowers of these Ākāśa-yantras, and the geographical area where he locates the architect and his exploits is also the part of the country where the foreign tribes had settled. The names of the architects too bear a strange complexion, suggesting their foreign origin.²⁷

c2.120

²⁷ It may be mentioned here that the association of skilled works with Yavanas had become so well known that we find it mentioned in Tamil literature also. In the fragmentary Tamil version of the *Brihatkatha*, by Konguvel, Yavana carpenters are included among the workmen of many types responsible for a chariot of high workmanship used by Udayana (I. 58.40); and in the Buddhistic epic *Manimekhalai*, in an almost similar list of workmen mentioned as responsible for a garden house of great architectural charm, Yavana carpenters are again found (XIX. 108).

c2.121

The context where the description of the "yantra" occurs is the longing of the pregnant Vāsavadattā; in the Kashmirian version of Somadeva there is only a line saying that her *dohada* (longing) was fulfilled by manifold contrivances, yantras, etc., arranged by the Minister Yaugandharāyaṇa. But in Budhasvāmin's version²⁸ the context contains an elaborate digression devoted to the yantras. Vāsavadattā yearned to see the whole world from above in an aerial vehicle (Śloka 190); Rumaṇvān, the commander-in-chief,²⁹ at once ordered carpenters to manufacture a flying yantra (Śloka 196). The carpenters say that they know only four kinds of yantras, made respectively with water, stone, mud and twigs; that it is the Yavanas who know the *Ākāśa-yantras*, and that they, for their part, have not even laid eyes on them.

c2.122

²⁸ Ed. F. Lacote (Paris, 1908) Canto V, p. 64 ff.

c2.123

²⁹ The substitution here of the military head shows the natural connection that these yantras bore to the army.

c2.124

आकाशयन्त्राणि पुनर्द्यवनाः किल जानते ।
अस्माकं तु न यातानि गोचरं चक्षुषामपि ॥

c2.125

Thereupon a Brahman told Rumaṇvān a story to illustrate how in the matter of the aerial vehicle, architects made a secret of their lore and uttered the falsehood that they knew it not.

c2.126

With Mahāsena, King of Ujjain and father of Vāsavadattā, was an architect named Pukkasaka who once went out to Saurāṣhtra along with the King's camp. There he came across a young architect, Viśvila by name, who was verily the equal of Viśvakarman. To Viśvila's father, called Maya, Pukkasaka proposed that he desired to give his daughter Ratnāvalī in marriage to his son. The proposal was agreed to and Pukkasaka was waiting for the arrival of his son-in-law. Once, after attending to his work, Pukkasaka returned rather late and to his surprise found none in his house eager to attend to his bath and his dinner.

c2.127

On enquiry, he heard from his wife that a visitor had upset their home; the visitor had come over with some rice and asked that it be cooked for him;

c2.128

they in the house had been burning loads of fuel and yet the rice would not even moisten. Pukkasaka now understood that his son-in-law had arrived and desired to see the youth. Viśvila issued out of the workshop and when the puzzled Pukkasaka asked him what that so-called rice was, Viśvila revealed that they were fake, fine rice-like chisellings from the white wood of the Karaghāṭa tree. The marriage of Viśvila and Ratnāvalī was then celebrated. After a time, Viśvila learnt from his brothers-in-law their anxiety about feeding in their house one more family member in the form of the son-in-law; Viśvila at once repaired to the forest, cut down certain kinds of wood and manufactured out of them yāvana-machines,

c2.129

यन्त्राणि घटयामास यावनान्यथ विश्विलः ।
(Śloka 224)

c2.130

as also manifold household utensils conducive to health and longevity, according to the principles laid down in *Vrikshāyurveda* (225); he sold these for thousands of pieces of money and presented the gains to his father-in-law.

c2.131

Once Pukkasaka sadly told his family of his impending departure for Benaras whither King Mahāsena had ordered him to go to build a temple for his friend King Brahmadatta of Benaras. Viśvila asked leave to deputize for his father-in-law and, with the King's permission and accompanied by a retinue, he departed for Benaras. At the end of every day's journey, however, Viśvila would vanish somewhere and slip back inconspicuously into the camp. At his home, Ratnāvalī shortly became pregnant, to the surprise and agony of her parents. That news reached the King who, putting two and two together, explained that every night, Viśvila, according to the report of the men of his retinue, would mount a machine-cock, *Yantra-kukkuṭa*, fly away somewhere and stealthily and with shrouded face slip back into his bed in the small hours of the morning. Once he had been forced to return late in the morning and, confessing to his friends about his nocturnal visits to his wife by an aerial vehicle, he had begged them not to inform any, architects or laymen, of the secret of his aerial vehicle, which in fact could not be understood by non-Yavanas; if that knowledge became public, the ākāśa-yantra would become a cheap affair like a cot.

c2.132

आकाशयन्त्रविज्ञानं दुर्विज्ञानमयावनैः ।'
खट्वाघटनविज्ञानमिवेदं प्रचुरीभवेत् ।
लोकेन परिभूयेत सञ्चारागा हि मानुषाः ।
(Ślokas 250-2)

c2.133

That explained how Ratnāvalī came to bear a child. Soon the temple at Benaras was finished and Viśvila returned.

c2.134

King Mahāsena now pressed Pukkasaka for knowledge of the “Ākāśa-yantra.” Pukkasaka replied that he had not taught Viśvila; he, in fact, did not know it, the Yavanas being the custodians of that knowledge:

c2.135

तस्मै तु कथितं प्रीतैः शिल्पिमियचिनैैरिति।
(Śloka 261)

c2.136

The King would not believe his words and pressed him, whereupon Pukkasaka pressed Viśvila. Viśvila pretended to reveal the secret, but that night he woke up his wife and gave her an ultimatum; by pressing him for knowledge of the flying-machine, her father was virtually driving him to his own home, that she had to choose between father and husband, and that, so far as he was concerned, he would give her up rather than the secret. She took little time to decide and in a moment they were off on the machine-cock:

c2.137

यानं कुक्कुटसंस्थानमास्थाय सह भार्यया।
रात्रावाकाशमुत्पत्य स्वस्थानं विश्र्विलो ययौ॥

c2.138

Having told the story, the Brahman told the commander-in-chief Rumaṇvān that architects made such secrets of their knowledge, that all of them might well be bound and beaten till they agreed to make the aerial car. As Rumaṇvān was putting that advice into action, there came a fresh architect who offered to manufacture an aerial car.

c2.139

The new *Śilpin* asked Rumaṇvān to collect the materials. When these were assembled and the work was to start, the old *Śilpins* suggested to the new one that he ascertain from Rumaṇvān the seating capacity that was required. The mention of this deserves to be noted, as also the further observation that there had been cases in the past in which aerial cars had been made without regard to seating capacity and they had come to ruin, with the result that their makers had been cruelly dealt with by the Kings:—

c2.140

आरोहकपरीणाहं सेनानीरनुयुज्यताम्।
अज्ञातवाह्यसंख्याभिः बहवः शिल्पिनो नृपैः।
विपन्नयन्त्रैः श्रूयन्ते मथिताः कुपितैरिति॥
(Ślokas 276-7)

c2.141

The new *Śilpin* replied that the yantra that he was going to make was of a superior type quite different from the productions of the stupid architects to whom they referred, and that the seating capacity of his vehicle was not limited. He made accordingly an aerial car of the shape of Garuḍa. Vāsavadattā and Udayana mounted it with their retinue, roamed about, called on Padmāvatī’s brother in Magadha on the east and on Vāsavadattā’s own parents at Ujjain on the west and returned to Kauśāmbī.

c2.142

This fulfilment of the Queen’s *dohada* during her pregnancy, for an aerial flight, has an echo in Jain Kāvya literature also; in Vādībhasimha’s *Gadyacintāmaṇi* ³⁰ and *Kṣatracūḍāmaṇi* ³¹, carpenters make a peacock-like aerial car (*Mayūra-yantra*) for the pleasure flight of Queen Vijayā.

c2.143

³⁰ and [^31] Eds, of T. S. Kuppuswami Sastri (Tanjore), I, pp. 10-11, and Cāṇṭo I.

c2.144

On smaller mechanical objects also we have some information in the *Ślokasaṁgraha* of Budhasvāmin (Chapter XIX, p. 287). At Campā, when Naravāhanadatta was staying with Gandharvadattā, they heard the story of the origin of a local water festival. An old King of Campā had a Queen whose *dohada* during pregnancy expressed itself as a desire to move about in waters filled with all sorts of aquatic beings. For her sake the King dammed a river, widened it into a big lake and fitted it with wooden replicas (*Dāru-yantras*) of crocodiles, fishes, etc., which moved freely in the water, and there let her sport in a vessel shaped like an aerial vehicle.

c2.145

तत्र नक्रादिसंस्थानदारुयन्त्रनियन्त्रिते।
विमानाकारपोतस्थौ तौ राजानौ विचेरतुः॥

c2.146

Of the two Kashmirian versions of the *Bṛihatkathā*, Kshemendra’s is very brief, and Somadeva’s long enough for us to glean much information about yantras. These two works may be noticed together. We have here material bearing on three classes of yantras, dolls and entertainment pieces, mechanical men and women, and aerial vehicles.

c2.147

In the course of the Madanamañcukā story in VI. 3, Somadeva narrates in his *Kathāsaritsāgara* the episode of Somaprabhā, the daughter of Maya, who takes a fancy to Madanamañcukā and becomes her great friend; Somaprabhā and Svayamprabhā, of *Rāmāyaṇa* and *Pañcāpsaras* fame, were two daughters of the Asura architect Maya. One morning Somaprabhā calls on Madanamañcukā with a wonder-box full of various kinds of mechanical dolls. Maya himself had taught Somaprabhā how to make these yantras, mechanical wooden toys.

c2.148

Then follows a description of four of these toy-yantras: By striking at a pin, one makes a yantra jump up in the air and it comes down with a garland; another similarly comes back with a cup of water; a third dances; and the fourth sits up and gossips. After entertaining Madanamañcukā with these, Somaprabhā leaves the box in the former's care and departs. Next day, when she calls again, Madanamañcukā introduces her to her own parents. The two then go to the royal park where one of the toys brings forth a Buddha image and materials for worship. Hearing of this, the parents rush to see the wonder and on the King asking her about the yantras and how they go into action, Somaprabhā gives a short account of the yantras that her father had devised; the treatment here has some parallels with that in Bhoja's work.

c2.149

Somaprabhā says that, just as the universe is made up of five elements, yantras are also based on the five elements of earth, water, fire, air and ether. The yantra based on earth-materials (*pṛthvī-pradhāna*) undertakes activities like shutting doors; a *water-based yantra* will be as lively as a living organism; a *fire-yantra* emits flames; an *air-yantra* moves to and fro; and the element of *ether* serves to convey the sound generated by these yantras. Somaprabhā adds that there is a *super-yantra* called *Cakra-yantra* with miraculous powers which her father did not teach her, but in the description of this there is an obvious mix-up of mythology. Then, with the parents' permission, Somaprabhā takes Madanamañcukā in an aerial car (49) to her own father's place, where her sister Svayamprabhā is living, and returns to Takshaśilā. Kshemendra's account of this episode is brief, comprising about a dozen verses in his *Bṛhatkathāmañjarī* (VII. 195-207).

First 151 of 240 passages. Read on

Yantras or Mechanical Contrivances in Ancient India

Contents

Text

Front matter

Yantras or Mechanical Contrivances in Ancient India