Indian Antiquary Vol 14

SR No.: 032506
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: John Faithfull Fleet, Richard Carnac Temple
Publisher: Swati Publications
Publication Year: 1984
Total Pages: 418
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 18 MB

Page 401

BOOK NOTICES.
DECEMBER, 1885.]
The remarks on the value of Vâtsyâyana's Kimasdstra are very true. The earliest poets whose works we possess, seem to have carefully studied it and to have used its rules for their compositions. The best commentary on Vâtsyâyana is, as the English translation (printed by the Hindoo Kâmashâstra Society, London, 1883, for private circulation) states, the JayamangalaVritti, written in the 13th century. I regret that I cannot "forgive" Dr. Peterson's suggestion that the Hindus derived their Kámasâstra from the Ionian Greeks. Many passages in Vedic literature and in the Buddhist Vinaya make it perfectly believable that this "science" is of true Indian growth.
The last twenty pages refer to Jaina and especially to Digambara works. Vasunandin's Acharavṛitti, the Tattvarthavyáklyánálamkára, the Shatprabhṛitaka with a commentary, and Mêrutunga's Prabandhachintamani are very valuable acquisitions. It may be noted that two copies of the text of the first work are found in the Collection of 1875-76; Nos. 656-57, and that the usual title of the book is Müláchára. Mêrutunga's Prabandhachintamani is included in the Collection of 1873-74. Dr. Peterson's remarks on these and other Jaina works are most instructive and the extracts in the Appendix judiciously selected. One might, however, have wished to learn something definite about Samantabhadra's Prakrit grammar, No. 96 of his list, and about the Digambara Brihatkalpabhishya. In 1876 Pandits Phatehlâl and Chimarlâl protested that the Brihatkalpasútra was a Svêtâmbara forgery (Ind. Ant. Vol. VII. p. 29). What proofs are there that the MS. found is a Digambara book? It is also a matter of deep regret to me to see the discussion on the Jainéndravyakarana (pp. 67-74) disfigured by an unnecessarily bitter attack on Dr. Kielhorn. Dr. Kielhorn's identification of its reputed author Pajyapâda with the Tirthankara Vardhamâna is no doubt erroneous. But there is no need to represent his view, which was a very natural inference from the few facts known to him, as a dire offence. Dr. Peterson's remarks, the correctness of which is disputed by Mr. Pathak, and seems by no means certain, show that the questions of Pujyapâda's identity and age are surrounded with very great difficulties. I am at present not prepared to give a definite opinion on the disputed points, whether Pajyapåda's other and real name was Dêvanandin or Gunanandin, whether the Pañchavastuka belongs to Śrutakirtti or to Dêvanandin, and whether Pajyapada lived in the fifth century A.D. or in the seventh. But I must call attention to one fact, viz. that Pajyapada is doubtlessly a biruda
355
or honorific epithet, not the real name of a Yati. Though it may have been customary to designate Dêvanandin or Gunanandin by this term, just as it is usual to call Kumârilabhaṭṭa, Bhaṭṭapâdâḥ, yet there must have been many Jaina Pajyapadas, just as there are many Bhattas. Hence the utmost caution is necessary in using inscriptions or passages from books which mention a Pujyapâda for fixing the date of the Pujyapâda.
In conclusion, I can only congratulate Dr. Peterson on the results of his work in 1883-84, and express the hope that the Third Report will make us acquainted with a still greater number of Ratnas, and will show a still more rigorous exclusion of all works of doubtful value from the list of purchases.. G. BÜHLER.
CENTENARY REVIEW OF THE ASIATIC SOCIETY OF BEN
GAL, FROM 1784 TO 1983. Published by the Society. (Calcutta: Printed by Thacker, Spink and Co., 1885). 8vo. Part I. History of the Society, by Dr. RAJEN DRALAL MITRA, LL.D, C.IE., pp. 195.-Part II. Archæology, History, Literature, etc., by Dr. A. F. RUDOLF HOERNLE, pp. 216 and ciii.-Part III. Natural Science, by BABOO P. N. BOSE, pp. 109 and xevi. With Proceedings of the Special Centenary Meeting, pp. 20.
"A hundred years have elapsed-a century of arduous and unremitting labour, and the time has now arrived for a review of the progress made and of the services rendered to the cause of literature and science by the Asiatic Society of Bengal since its foundation." Such are the opening words of the valuable volume before us, a volume which we owe to the united labours of Dr. Rajendralal Mitra, Dr. A. F. Rudolf Hoernle, and Mr. P. N. Bose, and which will be received with gratitude by all who take an interest in India and in Oriental studies generally. The Asiatic Society of Bengal may indeed be proud of what it has accomplished since the days of its foundation; and its centenary festival could not have been celebrated in a more fitting manner than by placing before the world a record of the names and labours of its distinguished members, who-few of them trained to be scholars or Orientalists by profession--have opened up new fields of inquiry, have made discoveries which must ever rouse the grateful admiration of later generations, and have laid the foundations of many branches of study, which, thanks to their genius and painstaking toil, we are prosecuting with ease, and with some hope of completing the building designed by them. But there was another, if we may say so, more practical reason why such a record, as has now been presented to us, should have been written. The Researches, the Journal, and the Proceedings of the Society fill, we are told, no less than 103 volumes. "These 103 volumes represent, roughly speaking, a total of 50,000 pages of