Aparajitaprucchha

SR No.: 008438
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: B Bhattacharya
Publisher: Oriental Research Institute Vadodra
Total Pages: 810
Language: Sanskrit, Hindi
Classification: Book_Devnagari, Culture, & Art
File Size: 12 MB

Page 139

cxxxiv
407ca's 8 are as – #198: 1931, #97134, A8H7, 69, #917# (#12+), ale and fa.
astazia and ga have - alarak, ***, za, audien, 45alaski, gaz, faa7 and grafa.
All other deities not included in the above have FROIECT, , faren, चित्रकर्मक, तारागण, वृद्धिराम, सुच्छत्र and विमान.
Out of these 64 faahas, apgufta, it seems, has ignored the differentiating लक्षण of 24 वितानs, (8 for ईश्वरी, 8 for वोतराग and 8 for सर्वदेव).
In the same way, the names and 5 of cats are not detailed in . full, only a meagre account of some is given, while so far as fa and af are concerned, neither their names nor dem find any room at all in this book. This shortcoining notwithstanding, be it noted that storia contains a decent and reasoned literature regarding fan not to be found in any other work on aith as yet dublished.
समराङ्गणसूत्रधार-following the अपराजितपृच्छा plan of describing the 25 kinds of rare under eaciu type has defined 25 laas which are enuinerated hereunder:
1 st, 2 rataa, 3 alaa, 4 glaars, 5 27797, 02:17, 7 alitaleil, 8 9595, 9 , 10 919, 11 , 12 fàu, 13 reakf24, 14 Teatre, 15 4969 16 Jis, 17 afa, 18 #ITF, 19 $97, 20 4a, 21 fabia, 22 168981, 23 goca, 24 gota, 25 faya raiTF.
Their distinctive characteristic featuers ( farafor) are notou here for ready reference. Incidentally, it may be observed as worth noticing that the very inention of the fact that the vault of the faala assumes forms of flowers of various kinds leads one to the conclusion that the literature regarding these forms of domes, vaults etc. must surely lave existed, agreeably to the Indian way of fara formation especially when we are given the exact numbers of different types et fait innging over a total as great as 1113. If that literature, very fortui. tously, to come to hand, in course of time, it wouid, it is very likely, go to throw a deal of light on the question whether doines and vaults have found their development in a particular manner in the Moghal period from a wide range of variety existing in India long before the invasion of India by Afghan and other Mahoinedan races, or indepcndently of any Indian influence. Domes and vaults did exist in India in multifarions forms long before the advent of the Maboinedan rulers. How far the Indian constructive and decorative characteristics were contributory to the development of the Saracenic domes etc. of the Moghal period and whether the Indian influence came to be exerted in the formation of the substratum and superstructure of these forms will remain a moot question till the whole literature on the Indian typc of faata is available. There could be no doubt that parti