________________
Vol. XXXII, 2009
Symbolic and mimetic fire-altars:...
* 39
Rathacakra citi. Dus mentions only the pradhiyukta (without spokes) variety while the MDus records only the smra (with spokes). As regards the circular Dmaomna, none of these two Dus-s contains anything but the name.
We may also venture to suggest that even the BDus betrays uncertainties in the later part of the text. The Dmaðṁna citi employs bricks that look like the Praüga and Ubhayataś Praüga citi-s (see figs. 7-9). Even though I have included the BDus Dmaomna citi in the list of mimetic citi-s, it is to be noted that, like the Kîrma, it too has no caturasra variety, which is found in the Dus, 14. 14-15 (See figs. 10-11). This may suggest that all mimetic citi-s grew out of the symbolic caturasra ones.
Notes and References
The Samžhya-Purěāa citi is excluded, for it was piled with loose earth, not bricks.
2 The Dus variety is in no significant way different from the BDus one. See Kulkarni (1987), pp. 101-102.
3 In an earlier paper (2004) I have tried to show that the bird-shaped Dyena evolved as a mimetic citi and was meant to be an improvement on the symbolic caturasra types.
4 One variant in the Dus, however, is faulty with regard to the prescribed area, which it exceeds by several square aNgula-s. For a detailed study see R. Bhattacharya (2006). The Rathacakra citi-s in the MDus too do not conform to the requirements regarding the area and number of bricks to be employed, as mentioned in the BDus.
s See BDus, 5. 4, 6. 4, and 9. 3. Cf. •Dus, 6.3, 13. 9, 14. 12.
6 The VakrṁŅga Kõrma citi is unique to the BDus; the Dus mentions the caturasra and circular varieties only. It may also be noted that the layout of the • Dus Dmaomna citi is nothing but the Dus Drosa citi without the handle, as mentioned in Dus, 14.15 (tsaruvarjaN droñacitoktas). Hence, Dus, 13. 8-11 are repeated verbatim in Dus, 14. 11-14.
Works Cited
Baudhỉyana Drauta Sỉtra. Ed. Dr. W. Caland. New Delhi: Munshiram Monoharlal.