English
17, notes, 1. 24. Elsewhere, however, it is denied that Kapila was son of Kardama, by Devahti; another and later wife of the patriarch, of unspe- cified name, being the sage’s mother. As to Devahitti, she is represented as the daughter, not of Manu Sy&yambhuva,—as is ordinarily declared,—but of Trinabindu. The original of these statements is expressed in the following words ; wagH Sarat aay fasraga feairgrel war mat t fas anat qu tw sary, agrarfeady veo ware ag: | eyiaarg wares zag qu fea TeaE a eta at aI Waray IX Se sa: afating, fasaata area? | WAHT Wara_afrer dawifad i et Padma-purdna, Pétdla-khanda, 97th chapter. P, 20, notes, 1.6, For “ Gaurf-varnane” read ‘ Gaurt-vindha-varnana.” P. 20, notes, 1.8. For “ Kalépa”—wwhich should have been “‘ Kalpa”-— read © Indraprastha.” 62 \ P. 20, notes, 1.15. The Kapila-gftd, in a detached form, has also bees und. It professes to be a part of the Padma-purdna, and is concerned with the practices of the yoga, or theocrasy. P. 21, notes, |. 24. For “ Nagoji” read “ Nagoji.” P. 26, notes, 1. 21, According to Colebrooke, the Pis’upatas—like the followers of Mis’ra—maintain “the distinct and separate existence of the efficient and material causes of the universe.” Miscell. Essays, Vol. I., pp. 407, 409, and 412. P. 26, notes, 1. 26. The author of the Shat-tantri-sdra proves to be no other than the Nilakantha who annotated the Mahdbhdrata, and wrote the Veddnta-kalaka. His parents were Govinda and Phull4mbikd; his line was that of Gautama; his family name was Chaturdhara; and he resid- ed at K&rpara, now Koiipar, in Maharashtra, to the west of the Godavari, near the temples of S‘ukres’wara and Kaches’wara. A man who calls himself grandson of this Nilakantha, is now living at Benares. Govinda Dikshita—the Govinda above mentioned, or some other, but of - the Chaturdhara family—was father of S/iva Dikshita, author of the Dhar- ma-tattwa-prakds‘a, the date of which is S’aka 1668, or A. D. 1746. P. 27, notes, 1.15. For “ frqua:” read “ faqaa:” P. 28, notes, 1.12. For “ -@¥t<T” read “ -e erat.” P. 33, notes, 1.6. For “ Ashtaputra” read “ Ashtaputre.”” P. 33, notes, 1.6. For “ Raji” read “ Raja.” Correct similarly at p. 36, notes, 1, 23; and at p. 37, notes, 1. 30. P. 34, notes, 1.15. The Jainas affect to have their own Sankhyas, Mi- mansakas, &c. Mackenzie Collection, Vol. II., p. xxxvi. P. 34, notes, 1.29. The author of the Tattwa-chandra gives the title of Muni to I's’wara Krishpa, and distinctly calls him disciple of Panchas‘ikha. P. 35, notes, 1. 2. For “‘ Darga” read “ Durga.” P. 35, notes, 1.9. The use of aliases is by no means infrequent among Hindu authors. Though not, generally, of much interest, one occurs to me, which seems worth recording. Like the run of facts connected with Indian history, it has no better support, however, than the unwritten.tradi- tion of the schools. Jayadeva, the author of the Géta-govinda, is said to have been the same person as Pakshadhara Misra, the dialectician. Report has it that his custom was to attend his Nyaya teacher no oftener than once a fortnight, and that he owed to this fact his title of Pakshadhara. Quite possibly this is mere fiction; and it may have had its origin, partially, in the circumstance that there was a logician Jayadeva, who is spoken of as having been likewise a poet. See my Catalogue, &c., Vol. I., p. 61, 1. 6 ; and its Appendis, p. 161. 63 Professor Lassen—Gita-govinda, Prolegomena, p.v.—, for want of an op- portunity to examine the Chandrdloka, is in doubt whether the J ayadeva to whom it is attributed be identifiable with the lyric poet of the same name, The question is one of no difficult decision. The Jayadeva of the Chandrdéloka was, by his own showing, son of Mahé- deva, surnamed Yajnika, and of Sumitré. Jayadeva, the author of the Prasan- nardghava drama, particularizes the same persons as bis parents, and further states that his family was denominated Kaundinya. Whether the Chandra- loka, a dry technical treatise, was the production of the writer of the Gita- govinda, could scarcely be ascertained by comparing the necessarily different styles of the two compositions. The Prasanna-rdghava is, however, every way inferior, in respect of language and general execution, to the elegant Lays of Govinda ; and there is no ground on which the position may be con- troverted, that the rhetorician and the play-wright were the same individual. Internal evidence even is quite sufficient to determine the point under con- sideration, independently of the discrepancy offered in the accounts given, séverally, of their extraction, by the rhetorician and dramatist, and by the author of the Géta-govinda. Moreover, if, fullowing Lassen, we account as spurious the stanza with which this collection of poems, according to many manuscripts, terminates, we are left without any notice whatever, by its au- thor, of his parentage. And why, if the Chandrdloka and Prasanna-réghava were also his, should he have consigned to them a specification which he has denied to his foremost performance ? “The couplet above mentioned, which Professor Lassen presumes to be forged, is objected to, by him, on the assumption that the Bhojadeva whom Jnyadeva is made, by it, to name as his father, must be the sovereign of Dhara. But Bhojadeva or Bhojaraja is by no means an appellation of unique incidence. More than one chieftain is certainly known to have borne it; and it has not yet been shown that, among persons so called, the grammarian, for instance, has any claim to be regarded as a royal patron rather than as an actual maker of buoks. In a word, it is not imperative to take such a termination as deva or rdja to be indicative of rank. It may be part of a name ; as in Varadarija, Govindaraja, Jayadeva, and Harshadeva. The name of Jayadeva’s mother is written, by Lassen, Ramidevi. My own manuscripts have Vamadevi. Jayadeva’s father is called Bhojadeva, by the Brahman Raychand, in his metrical Hindi translation of the Gite- govinda, the Gita-govindddars’a. . It remains to speak of the Rima-gita-govinda, a poem on the incongruity of whose title Lassen justly animadverts: Gita-govinda, Prolegomens, Pp VI. This wretched affair purports to have, fur its author, one Jayadeva, GL of Janakapura. So much the poetaster himself tells us; and I know not on what authority Professor Wilson—Mackenzie Collection, Vol. I., p. 103— concludes him to be one with the poct of Radha and Krishna. The subject of the Réma-gita-govinda is that of the Rdmdyana. Its extent is 360 couplets; divided into six cantos, which bear the designations of Sdnanda- raghunandana, Vijita-paras'urdma, Jagannivdsa-pravdsz, Hanumad-dga- mana, Lanké-vijaya, and Réma-rdjibhisheka. P. 35, notes, 1. 31. S‘ankara, it should seem, has wildly been assigned to the cighth century before the Christian era. See Mr. B. H. Hodgson’s Il- lustrations of the Literature and Religion of the Buddhists, p. 18, foot- note. P. 35, notes, 1.34. The notion that Gandapdda was pupil of S'uka, the son of Vy4sa, is generally reccived by the Brahmans. See, for this associa- tion, Colebrooke’s reference to the S’ankara-vijaya: Miscellaneous Essays, Vol. L., p. 104. Gangadhara Saraswati, author of the Dattdéreya-charitra, a metricnl | composition in the Marahattf language, deduces his own discipular descent, through S‘uke and Gaudapida, from Siva, as follows: S‘ankara, Vishou, Brahma, Vasishthe, S‘akti, Pards’ara, Vyasa, S’uka, Gaudapida Achirys, Govinda Acharya, S’ankara A’chirya, Vis’wartpa, Bodha Giri, Jndna Giri, Sinhala Giri, I's'wara Tirtha, Nrisinha Tirtha, Vidya Tirtha, S’iva Tirtha, Bharati Tirtha, Vidydranya, S’ripida, Vidya Tirtha, Malayinanda, Deva Tirtha, Vrinda Saraswati, Yadavendra Saraswati, Krishna Saraswati, Nri- sinha Saraswati, and Gangidhara Saraswati. Gangidhara had seven fellow- students, all bearing the title of Saraswati: Bula, Krishna, Upendra, Ma- dhava, Sadananda, Jnanajyoti, and Siddhendra, The Afitdkshard, a commentary on the Brahma-sitra, by Annum Bhatta, son of Tirumala, contains a list, identical, down to S’‘ankara A'charya, with the foregoing; except that Vasishtha is preceded by Brahma and Brahma. Gaudapida, it appears credible, belongs to the very precinct of the dge of fable. P. 36, notes, 1.9. Bhanu Bhatta, in the Dwaita-nirnaya-siddhdnta-san- graha, speaks of the author of a treatise having the name of Dwaita-nirnaya, as being his paternal grandfather. But his own work, which cites it, proves that he does not menn the Dwaita-nirmoya of Vachaspati Mis’ra. Bliuinu Bhatta’s parents were Nilakavtha Bhatta and Gang’. The title of Bhatta is borne by Mimansnkas. P. 36, notes, 1. 29. The atndékara, compiled under the patronage of Chandes’wara, embraccs at least seven sections, entitled Kyitya, Diana, F'ya- vahdra, S'uddhi, Puja, Vivdda, and Grihastha. Of these, Vachaspati 69 Mis’ra, in the Dwaita-nirnaya, quotes, by name, the Ddna-ratnékara ; and the Grihastha-ratndkara, in the Vivdda-chintémani. Chandes/wara was son of Vires’wara. The Vivdda-ratnékara, in some copies, states that the former was chief secretary of war to a chieftain of Nepal, and that he resided on the banks of the river Vagwati. In the same work, Chandes’wara, as we have scen, is also designated as minister to a prince of Mithila; and itis related that, after subjugating certain royalets of Nepal, he bestowed away his weight in gold on the banks of the river Saraswati. No obstacles being offered by the circumstances of time and locality, it therefore seems reasonable to identify the Harasinha Deva whom Chandes‘wara served, with the Harasinha Deva who is named in a memorial couplet still current in the neighbourhood of his former capital, Simraun, the ancicnt metropolis of Mithiléa.