GALEWICZ Fourteen Strongholds

141

Cezary Galewicz

Fourteen Strongholds of Knowledge:On Scholarly Commentaries, Authority

and Power in XIV century India

Reading in both its literal and metaphoric senses is crucial constituent of the problem of language. And it is reciprocally related to writing.

A mode of reading implies a mode of writing (and vice versa). D. LaCapra

It is not to be blamed on the mantras if those who are deprived of knowledge

do not understand them1

Sāyaňācārya

A colophon at the end of a little known Sanskrit medieval commentary on a short text forming one of the three minor Sāmaveda Brāhmanas and counting as part of the Vedic canon brings with it a rather enigmatic formulation: its author boasts himself to be an expert (kuśala) in fourteen “branches of knowledge” (vidyā)2. Why should the fourteen branches be so important to show off with the knowledge thereof at the colophon of a Vedic commentary? What could be the reason of inserting a colophon with the same declaration after the end of each and every chapter of the commented text? One may think it to be perhaps

1 tatparicaya-rahitnām anavabodho na mantrāňāņ doşam āvahati| ata evātra lokanyāyam udāharanti| naişa sthānor aparādho yad evam andho na paśyati puruşāparādha sa bhavati.

2 sakala-vedārtha-prakāśaka-svataų-siddhi-caturdaśa-vidyā-kuśala-śrīvaņśa-bhūşaňa-dvi-jarājabhaţţa-śrīvişňvātmaja-viracitaņ chāndogyasaņhitopanişad-bhāşyaņ samāptaņ | (Deva-tādhyāya-Saņhitopanişad Vaņśa-Brāhmaňas, ed. B. Ramachandra Sharma, SHARMA 1983:144).

142

Cezary Galewicz

just a reference to a traditionally recognized set of so called “strongholds of knowledge” (vidyā-sthānas) as we know it from a traditional normative text of Yājñavalkyasmŗti3, composed probably at the beginning of C.E. Judging from the latter one, the fourteen “source disciplines of knowledge” must have been recognized as somehow important for the understanding of the Veda4. But is it a matter of coincidence that a very similar formula concerning fourteen vidyā-sthānas is given stark prominence in defining the equipment of a true knower of the Veda (vedārtha-abhijña/vedavid) in a work of another commentator and a man of letters known to Indian intellectual history as Sāyaňācārya?

The said colophon, as well as the introductory verses, give as the author of the little work the name of Dvijarāja Bhaţţa, son of Vişňubhaţţa. We don’t know any other work by this author. Nor do we hear anything about a person by that name in extant sources. A contemporary editor of his work cautiously calculates his life as belonging to the beginning of XV c.5 and speculates that he must have hailed from the South of India and probably, as his father and guru did, from the domain of the medieval empire of Vijayanagara. If the editor’s guess is right he must have written his work a few decades after Sāyaňa’s death6. Strangely enough he does not mention his by then probably already well known predecessor in the field of commenting on the Vedas. Yet at the same time he thinks it important to supply his work with a certificate of sorts as a legitimation for it’s author’s right to do what he has done, namely to comment on the sacred ‘scripture’ of the Veda. From the colophon it is clear that the author’s expertise in fourteen branches of knowledge must have been intended to make for such a certificate. We might justifiably doubt whether mere declaration should necessarily amount to the expertise in the said set of several knowledge disciplines. But this was probably not the point at stake.

3 purāňanyāyamīmāņsādharmaśāstrāģgamiśritāų| vedāų sthānāni vidyānāņ dharmasya ca caturdaśa| Yāj Smr, 1.3.

4 The number of vidyā-sthānas is made here of the following set purāňa (1)+ nyāya (1) + mīmāņsā (2) + dharmaśāstra (1)+ aģga (6) + vedāų (3) =14 where three of the four Vedas constitute the final element f the sequence. The Mīmāņsā apparently counted as two entities, otherwise the sum would be 13 only. This is parallel to preamble saying about two Mīmāmsās commented first before the Veda project. This meaning of the Mīmāņsā as made of two sys-tems is here supported by the quotation from Yājñavalkyasmŗti. It was however not always counted as such – a Visişţadvaitin (Sudarśanasūri) acting as a Siddhāntin in Appayadīkşita’s treatise on caturmata points out that in traditional lists of 14 vidyāsthānas the Mīmāņsā sho-uld be counted as one, otherwise the list would be extended to 15 elements. Cf. POLLOCK 2004: 27 n. 9.

5 See SHARMA 1983: 31.6 Usually given as 1387. Acc. to Aufrecht (Catalogus Catalogorum p. 711), Sāyaňa died in

A.D. 1387. All later scholars take this for granted [see NARASIMHACHAIR 1916: 24].

143

Fourteen strongholds of knowledge: On scholary Commentaries, Authority and Power...

It was rather meant to be seen as the right and efficient strategy of supporting textual authority and legitimacy of a scholar aspiring to be recognized as a Vedic commentator, and his work as a valid commentary. And it must have been meant to be seen as following the norms set by the well known predecessor in the field whose work proved to be a success that eclipsed other commentaries and the names of their authors. For it is in Sāyaňa’s works, and especially in the one I would like a little to reflect upon below, that we come across several instances of reference to the idea of fourteen vidyāsthānas. Most of them concern a model scholar entitled, eligible and sufficiently equipped for the task of acquiring the knowledge of the artha (meaning and purpose) of the Veda. But whether this was enough in the case of Sāyaňa alone, and necessarily tantamount to the right of composing a commentary on the Veda, is another story.

In my opinion the passages in Sāyaňa referring to the idea of vidyāsthānas concern and serve also a more general aim: a meticulously designed project to establish one’s own commentary as an authoritative one for the study of those who have the right and need to know the message of the sacred ‘scripture’ of the Veda.

Such formulation betrays one preliminary supposition, namely that almost every text implies its audience as well as its narrator7. And the work of Sāyaňa makes no exception to this rule. In this respect it may be interesting to venture a short overall look at a few aspects of the historical and social contexts influencing scholarly textual production like that of Sāyaňa’s and the interaction of the latter with society in medieval South India. A special attention shall be given to the issues of the textual authority of scholarly commentaries in general and the case of a commentary on the scriptural body of the Veda in particular.

When H. Oertel investigated the text of Sāyaňa`s Ŗgvedasaņhitā-bhāşya-bhūmikā8 in 1930, he saw in it mainly an apology of the Vedas – the ‘scripture’ for most orthodox Hindu religions. His otherwise ingenious study into the logic of defending the scriptural authority of the Vedas almost totally bypasses, however, the problems of the authority of the commentary itself. So does it with the historical context of Sāyaňa’s work. The reason for that might have been twofold. First – the bias of earlier Indologists interested in the most remote past of Indian intellectual history rather than its treasures’ developments through historical changes; second – the politically sensitive entanglement of historical and legendary narratives concerning the mutual relationship between the work of

7 Cf. STOCK 1990: 11.8 From here onwards I’m using this name or its short form, i.e. Bhūmikā, when refer-

ring to the Introduction to Sāyaňa’s Ŗgvedabhāşya. Some manuscripts and editions use other names with a general sense of “introduction” like: -Upodghāta, -Upakramaňikā.

144

Cezary Galewicz

Sāyaňa and political power and religious authority as well as its exploitation in later Indian historiography.

The work and life of Sāyaňa belongs to that class of texts and narratives which happened to live in the collective memory of different communities several contradicting lives that often bordered on legend and drew from the need to support one’s cultural or national identity through the iconic use of such representations. Having this in mind, let me draw the attention of the reader to a historical South Asian empire which succeeded in substituting its history with a legendary image thereof, and to the person of a scholar and a minister in service of that empire who succeeded in substituting his individual identity with a few conflicting images thereof, and to a text, or a book of texts, which managed to substitute its textual identity with several competing images and ideas thereof. The first of the three – that of the Vijayanagara empire — has been taken hold of and used by contemporary historians from culturally and linguistically different macroregions of South India in order to support their own historical narratives. It has been used as well to counterbalance the powerful image of the XVII century Mughal empire constructed by other historians and politicians to legitimate hegemonic ambitions of North India in a rather difficult effort of shaping a single national identity out of a conglomeration of historically distinct and in themselves complex identities of peoples populating the vast Indian peninsula. The second image — that of the person of Sāyaňa — has been used today to boost historical narratives constructed in the search for strengthening regional identities9 that could do without a single hegemonic one. The third one — the “book” of texts, namely the Veda — has a genuine history of use and abuse of its own. It had been used and continues to be used for a number of purposes. And more often than not this would impart to its users the kind of authority that could be styled as that of the “authority of an absent text”. The formulation is not mine but that of Dorothy Figueira who studied several instances of, I would say, a recycled authority of the sacred text which ceases to be read but continues to be held in utmost respect. The formulation in her study refers primarily to the story of the so called False Veda , le Ezourvedam, which, though never read, yet happened to put its spell on several distinguished minds, like that of Voltaire while “it existed in the European imagination and in speculative thought well before its appearance in translation.”10 There is an interesting relation among the substrata of the three images: the early rulers of the first one used the person of the second in order to appropriate the power of the third for an ambitious imperial project.

9 See for instance KRIPACHARYULU 1986.10 FIGUEIRA 1994: 201.

145


It is true that the legend of Sāyaňa began very early with the ascribing to him of several historical roles such as those of a minister, an adviser, an army general successfully leading military campaigns11 and a scholar of the type that could earn for him the title of polymath.

His story is bound to the early days of the empire of Vijayanagara, whose rulers held changing power over an impressive stretch of the South and Central Indian Peninsula from the middle of the XIV to the second half of the XVI centuries, and in a limited degree still up to the late XVII century. These were the times of tremendous historical changes in South Asia. In Northern India new Muslim rulers consolidated their power in the sultanate of Delhi and several skillful and merciless chiefs or generals led their swift horse-mounted troops way down South into the Peninsula, mostly for booty and plunder, lured by hearsay about fabulously rich Hindu temples and cities. Rarely did they move in to settle and build and even if some established themselves for some time, like in XIV century Madurai, their rule was short lived. Only to the north of Tungabhadra river, with its meanders among huge basalt boulders, did Muslim rulers construct policies that had much independent and individual life and character, made interesting by fusing elements of Turkish and Persian Islamic cultures with those of local blends. At first the sultanate of Bāhmani, and then five different Muslim kingdoms, competed with one another while fighting never-ending wars among themselves as well as with Hindu rajas and chiefs. All of them kept changing alliances time and again in ever-shifting relationships of power, and mostly irrespective of religion or predominant cultural pattern that might be easily assigned to them by modern historians looking for a neat narrative giving an easy account of history along the Hindu-Muslim divide.

This was a time of increasingly flourishing sea trade, which brought South India within a much broader frame of cultural reference than that of the Indian peninsula, as ships from Arabia, soon joined by those from Europe, flocked to the harbors by the growing cities of Quilon, Cochin and Calicut for cargo of spices, pepper and cardamom, or to the South and East of the peninsula for pearls. This developments gave rise to small but very rich sea-trade- centred kingdoms like that of Calicut (prob. from the name of calico) and Cochin. No wonder it is there that the first European traders came. Pedro Cabral, who lost the opportunity of christening newly discovered lands in Latin America to his more lucky apprentice Amerigo Vespucci, came here twice by the very turn of XVI century. So did Vasco da Gama, the Portuguese soon to establish trading factories competing for privileges from local rājas with their Dutch, and later British, rivals. With them the missionaries came, only to find that Christians were

11 See MODAK 1995:12.

146

Cezary Galewicz

already there, well established, with a historical myth and legend of their own, in many instances a few centuries longer than that of their European brethren. With new players the lucrative sea trade flourished as never before with ships often waiting for their cargo short of supply, as we are told by the extant reports of their captains. This important source of revenue did not escape the notice of Vijayanagara rulers in need not only of steady taxation-money but also of a commodity much in need in times of war – Arabian horses. It was the latter which attracted to the city of Vijayanagara, way out from the seaside into the heartland of Deccan plateau, two Portuguese horse-traders named Domingo Paes and Fernao Nuniz, who sensed new opportunities for their profession. They left us their accounts of the Vijayanagara capital as a thriving, cosmopolitan city with markets overflowing with choice commodities from different parts of the world. Their accounts, however, come from early the 1500s, a century and a half after Sāyaňa`s death. The spirit of a thriving multi-cultural empire was at its peak when Paez and Nuniz made their inland trip towards high plateau over Tungabhadra river. During Sāyaňa’s time it must have been much more of a project, in its inception, in a process that could be very much understood as a formative one in terms of the huge imperial project to come. Unfortunately we don’t have that many sources which might be termed historical, though Nuniz’s and Paez’s accounts frequently bordered on fantasy too. The extant sources contain royal inscriptions, often inscribed on copper plates fixed to the walls of influential, powerful and rich temples. We also have sources that are termed hagiographical, of varying historical value, but generally underestimated or misrepresented by modern historians and over-depended on by those native historians who prefer a regional national touch. All in all, we have very few “ready made” historical sources and a confusing custom of similar or identical names in the inscriptions leading to contradictory narratives constructed by historians on hastily agreed identifications. On the other hand we are left with a tremendous, overwhelming amount of literary production of the period of Vijayanagara, both in cosmopolitan Sanskrit as well as in vernacular Kaňňađa and Telugu. These, however, are often difficult to interpret in historical terms due to the characteristic convention that preferred a timeless perspective to that which we would be inclined today to call a historical one. Yet in certain examples it is not as bad as that if we pay more attention to phenomena which at first look extra-textual: like the framing of the text within a customary, ready made formula considered to properly suit a given occasion, like auspicious formulas of beginning, invocatory stanzas in praise not only of deities but of kings, patrons, teachers, spiritual preceptors, ancestors, etc. There are also versed preambles of formulaic style stating the circumstances and rationale for the text which is to be exposed. And finally the concluding formulas

147


with, of course, colophons containing often precious factual information concerning authors, scribes, patrons, circumstances and intentions.

The numerous works ascribed to Sāyaňa still await that kind of evaluation. Their author remains an elusive being despite the standard icon made of him by later historiography. His legend built up as time passed, working over several centuries after the splendid city of Vijayanagara, the imperial capital, was suddenly laid to ruin in 156512. History used to confuse his person with that of his elder brother, formerly a more important figure and a prolific writer in his own right. Both of them happened, even, to be fused into one two-headed creature named Sāyaňa-Mādhava13 and today we can still find not only in the stacks areas of esteemed libraries, but even in contemporary bookstores, re-editions of Sarvadarśanasaņgraha, or a “Collection of All Philosophical Systems”, which evoke this double-headed ghost as its author. This confusion had its roots in the very beginning of the story forming a complex context to the textual authority of Sāyaňa’s writings.

The shadow of his influential and knowledgeable brother14 proved in the course of history to be at first well calculated and beneficial, later on rather detrimental to his own career as an author and prolific and extraordinarily versatile intellectual. A search for the titles of works ascribed to Sāyaňa in contemporary manuscript collections brings dubious results: part of the works that we know to be credited to his name are actually ascribed to his brother – perhaps due to the adjective mādhavīya, formed from the name of his brother Mādhava – which probably referred not so much to the idea of dedication, as to that of continuing/developing his brother’s ideas in order to legitimate Sāyaňa’s own. This is the case not only with the work commonly known by the name of Mādhavīyadhātuvŗtti – a vast grammatical treatise on the traditional list of Sanskrit verbal roots for derivation. This is also the case of the commentary on the Ŗgvedasaņhitā, referred to by the

12 According to a legend , the manuscripts with complete works of Sāyaňa were buried under the ruins of Vijayanagara and still await unearthing. See MÜLLER 1983: Intro.

13 Even today we can still find not only in the stacks area of esteemed libraries but in con-temporary bookstores re-editions of Sarvadarśanasaņgraha, or a “Collection of All Philoso-phical Systems”, which evoke this double-headed ghost as its author. Some scholars believe a son of Sāyaňa to be the author of the same, others claim to have solved the enigma of the authorship, ascribing it to Cennu Bhaţţa, a younger contemporary of Sāyaňa nad Mādhava and son of Sarvajñavişňu who was also a teacher to both Sāyaňa and Mādhava. See KUNJUNNI RAJA 1999: V.

14 For a critical evaluation of extant data concerning historical identity of Mādhava see KULKE 1985.

148

Cezary Galewicz

name of Mādhavīya-vedārtha-prakāśa or A light on the message of the Veda in line with Mādhava’s point of view15.

It is an introduction to this commentary which forms a scholarly treatise in itself and which is the prime interest of mine here. And what is aimed at in this short study in contradistinction to the reading offered once by Oertel, is another reading which shows that Sāyaňa was not so much, or at least not only, engaged in Vedic apologetics as he was anxious to establish the authority of his own textual work and, secondarily, of the cultural policy of his patrons.

Scholarly works put to political use by ambitious rulers or deft ministers have never been anything unusual. The history of India is no exception here. More than one scholarly treatise owed its success to the remunerative support of a royal or other influential protector, who would have reasons of his own while assisting its circulation or establishment as an authoritative text16. The purpose of this short study lies not so much in indicating and defining the means of gaining textual authority, as in contributing to a better understanding of their mutual relationship with the historical and socio-political context. In other words, in showing the nature of textual engagement with power in medieval South Asia.

The case of the work in question here falls certainly into a definite variety of examples. It was noticed a few decades ago by Paul Hacker, and later on by

15 Sāyaňa’s work includes no less than 18 learned and voluminous Vedic commentaries but he started his career with treatises on quite different topics, and their distribution over time and localities seems telling. It appears that during his early service for Kampa and Sangama II in the Eastern capitals of Nellore and Udayagiri, Sāyaňa wrote first Subhāşita-sudhānidhi (“A Treasure of the Nectar of Proverbs”), an anthology of verses from kāvya and śāstra literature arranged under four topics which represented goals of man – that of dharma, artha, kāma and mokşa – a sort of encyclopedic glossary of mainstream Hindu culture of the time. Then came a learned treatise on poetics and rhetoric, the Alaņkāra-sudhānidhi praised for its valours by such an authority as Appaya Dīkşita himself. The quotation basis of the work rests on the treatise of his younger brother, Bhoganātha, a well known alaņkāra scholar of the times. Its peculiarity is that the younger Bhoganātha indulges in flattery, describing the intellectual and moral values of his older brother Sāyaňa which is in the verses exemplifying rhetorical figures; he praises Sāyaňa as a “great warrior”, “liberal householder” and “erudite scholar” at the same time. Perhaps moved by other canons of modesty than most of us would share today, Sāyaňa himself amply quotes from his younger brother and the quotations are in praise of his own name and in a highly ornate style.

16 Cf. for instance an evidence of Al’ Biruni quoted in ALTEKAR: 143. Among Scanty infor-mation concerning economic aspects of manuscript distribution, there is an account of Al’Bi-runi about Ugrabhūti, the teacher of king Anangapāla (XI c.) who happened to write a book on grammar called Śişya-hitā-vŗtti and sent it to Kashmir, but the Kashmiri scholars refused to accept it. To support the project, his royal disciple “sent a sum of 2000.000 dirhams (Rs 60.000) to Kashmir for distribution among those who would study the book of his master”.

149


Kulke,17 that the success of Sāyaňa’s commentaries on the Veda, written in the second half of the XIV century, must have been heavily influenced by the royal Kulturpolitik of the rulers of the early Vijayanagara. Whatever be the reason, at least one of a number of works produced by Sāyaňa under the kingly order managed eventually to establish itself as a sort of a canonical commentary. This is his commentary to one of the four main Vedic saņhitās, namely the corpus of the Ŗgveda – the oldest of the collections of texts making up the Vedic canon. In fact the commentary by Sāyaňa was neither the first one, nor the last to come18. Yet not many more had chances to survive and come down to our times. Moreover, the links established once between the basic work – that is the collection of Ŗgveda hymns – and the text of the commentary did not cease to exert their powerful authority half a millennium later when F. Max Müller, while working on the first printed edition of the Rgveda, could not help but publish it along with that very commentary by Sāyaňa. In the latter case the author of the commentary has been given a traditional title of ācārya which from early times was attached to his name, indicating the highest respect and social prestige. This however may not have been, and probably was not, the case at the time of the composition of the commentary itself. An unusual set of circumstances accompanying Sāyaňa’s success has been noted before, but the interest thereto has always been rather partial and not focused on Sāyaňa’s texts. According to Kulke, Sāyaňa’s name comes only as one of the group of four extraordinary figures behind the plot. In Kulke’s words “Vidyātīrtha, Bhāratītīrtha, Vidyāraňya and Sāyaňa formed a most fascinating group of religious reformers and creators of a new religious institution19.” The term “new religious institution” is used by Kulke as referring to Śŗģgeri maţha – a monastery and a new centre of the so called Śaģkara tradition making new Hindu orthodoxy which succeeded in the late XIV century to claim pan-Indian religious influence.

The career of Śŗģgeri and its Śaģkarācāryas appears however both in epigraphical and literary sources to have developed simultaneously with the political career of the first rulers of Vijayanagara kingdom and their imperial vision. Three out of the four-person group are closely related to this very place and its ideology. All of them acted in their respective turn as heads of the Śŗģgeri maţha. The fourth one, namely Sāyaňa, drew abundantly but subtly from his association with the other three and most notably with one of the group — his brother Mādhava, who later on changed his name to Vidyāraňya, according to the

17 KULKE 1985: 135.18 For an overview of Vedic commentaries see for instance GONDA 1975: 39-42.19 KULKE 1985:136.

150

Cezary Galewicz

custom of new pontiffs elected to the spiritual throne (gadī) of Śŗģgeri20. By the time Sāyaňa took to Veda commentary and started composing, after Bukka I came to power in 1356 and called upon him around 1365, his first Vedic commentaries — among them the work being the subject of the present study — his brother must have already been a well known religious figure and the author of a number of influential religious and philosophical treatises.21 By that time Sāyaňa too must already have proved himself as a skilful author of scholarly works in several different disciplines, such as poetics, medicine, grammar, religious literature, the science of ritual, ethics, etc22. Introductory stanzas to one of them, known by the name of Puruşārtha-sudhānidhi, contain a story about his brother Mādhava convincing king Bukka to give ear to Sāyaňa’s work.23 And those marks of versatile erudition on his part left undeniable traces in the work under study here. The Rgvedabhāşya-Bhūmikā24 or an Introduction to the Commentary on the Rgveda has been conceived as part and parcel of the Bhāşya to the Ŗgveda collection, one of an impressive number of regular commentaries to different texts comprising Vedic canon. The scale of such a project clearly made a claim to completeness on the part of the author and his mighty protectors. This claim was most probably communicated through the wording of the declaration inserted in the opening preamble, which spoke about a commentary to [the whole of] the Veda (vedārthaprakāśa)25. As such it may have been perceived as an impressive royal act of cultural promotion. And this probably was its aim.

20 Election to the title of Śaģkarācārya and Jagadguru (The teacher of the World) entailed an initiation during which a change of name must have indicated breaking with the world outside and becoming a samnyāsin in the true sense of the word – a renouncer – whose duties however encompassed not only the itinerary life but also certain religious duties for the community of believers executed in Śŗģgeri maţha, mostly during the rainy season. See SAWAI 1992.

21 The following list does not include all works attributed to Mādhava-Vidyāraňya: Purāňasāra, Parāśaramādhava, Jaiminīya-nyāyamālā-vistara, (and as Vidyāraňya:) Anubūtiprakāśa, Pañcadaśī, Jīvanmukti-viveka, Śaģkara-digvijaya, Vivaraňa-prameya-saņgraha, Adhikara-ňa-ratnamālā = Vaiyāsika-nyāya-mālā (attrib to both Bhāratītīrtha & Vidyāraňya), Dīk-dŗśya-viveka (attributed to both Bhāratītīrtha & Vidyāraňya).

22Among those were: Subhāşitasuddhānidhi (an anthology of verses from kāvyas & śāstras arranged under 4 heads: dharma, artha, kāma and mokşa), Alaņkāra-sudhānidhi (unprinted. manuscript in the Oriental Institute Mysore), Ayurveda-sudhānidhi, (Mādhavīya) Dhātuvŗtti, Yajñatantra-sudhānidhi, Prayaścitta-sudhānidhi (=Karmavipāka), Karma-vipāka-prāyaścitta-sudhā-nidhi (Dāridraya-roga-pratikriyā see col. Cat. Cat.: 67).

23 Puruşārtha-sudhānidhi 8-11. See MODAK 1995: 12.24 Referred to also by the names of upodghāta or upakramāňika.25 See VBHBHS 1958: 11. Similar declaration is repeated in all versed preambles to the Vedic

commentaries attributed to Sāyaňa.

151


To begin with a reflection on the use of strategies for textual authority in Sāyaňa it is essential to remind ourselves that the texts commented on by him constituted primarily what went by the name of Śruti, or revealed tradition that could be “listened to and heard26”; the Veda as a whole, and only secondarily particular Vedic texts in themselves. This perspective is consciously put into relief and, I would say, played upon in the opening verses and chapter/section ending colophons27 of his commentaries to particular Vedic texts. The inner architecture of his works secures that the reader meets time and again the formula of declaring commentary on the whole of the Veda: Veda-artha-prakāśa (“shedding light on the meaning and purpose of the Veda”) or Veda-vyākhyāna (“explanation of, or commentary on the Veda”). It is also in the work under examination here, the Ŗgvedasaņhitā-bhāşya-bhūmikā, that the Veda as a whole is stated as a formal object of his work taken as a traditionally acknowledged genre of vyākhyāna – a scholarly commentary (vyākhyānasya vyākhyeyo vedo vişayaų28). This is done while discussing the nature of a scholarly commentary as constituted by four components, or “topical tetrad”29, and proving one’s expertise in meeting requirements as well as declaring formal elements of a valid scholarly commentary as such. Assuming the whole of the Veda to be a unity capable of being commented upon needs, however, a definition somehow coming to terms with the existence of a multitude of different Vedic texts. First of all, the constant reference to the project of commenting on the Veda as a whole must have been implying an intention of completeness – a fact which could impress prospective readers. Secondly, each and every versed preamble to each and every commentary by Sāyaňa contains a short narrative relating the sequence in which subsequent Vedic texts were taken by him in order to be commented upon. The sequence had been given each time a rationale with reasons behind the precedence of commenting on one text over the other. In that way a certain hierarchy is introduced among the Vedic texts, which gives the reader an impression of a well planned project and a deep knowledge of the whole of the Veda behind it, notwithstanding the fact that all Vedic texts were never and probably could never be commented upon by Sāyaňa.

Thus it is possible for Sāyaňa to give a reason for a choice of hierarchy in the order of commenting, for instance a reason for commenting first on the text of

26 On the meaning of Śruti see a recent study in POLLOCK 2005.27 On the inner architecture of Sāyaňa`s commentary see G 2005: 335.28 MÜLLER p. 17: 36.29 I’m using Ch. Minkowski’s rendering of the term anubandhacatuşţaya [MINKOWSKI 2005:

240], who adds ibidem fn 49 that „such a statement was standard for later Vedāntic works.”

152

Cezary Galewicz

Rgveda, on the basis of a quotation from Rgveda itself, which from our point of view amounts to an anachronism, but from his is meeting the rules declared as governing the valid commentary on the Vedas. One basic rule is the presumed svataųprāmanya of the Veda as a whole – the unquestionable source of authority in the matters of Dharma. It is understood also as the inner capability of the Veda to explain not only things external to it but also — “as the example of moon and the sun shows” — to elucidate its own text30. From this perspective a passage from — what is in our view — the historically earlier collection of Rgveda may well be interpreted as referring to the later collection of Yajurveda31.

Now, what has all of that to do with the fourteen “strongholds of knowledge”? At a certain moment in his Introduction, Sāyaňa gives a formal definition of a scholarly commentary and its subject. The definition follows a traditional exposition of four constitutive elements (anubandha-catuşţaya): vişaya (subject), prayojana (application), saņbandha (the relation linking the commentary and its subject) and adhikarī (the person implied as eligible for the explanation offered by the commentary). As the aim of the commentary is the explanation of the artha (meaning and purpose) of the Veda, Sāyaňa reflects on the problem of who on the one hand has the authority to produce this knowledge and, on the other, who is eligible for it. A fairly complicated sequence of the arguments and counterarguments comprising the texture of the Rgvedasaņhitā-bhasya-bhūmikā leads to the point of dramatic differentiation between one and the other. Moreover, in his desperate move towards somehow reconciling two points of view cherished in this respect by two different schools of thought, namely (Pūrva) Mīmāņsā and Vedānta, Sāyaňa deconstructs the knowledge of the (meaning) of the Veda into the knowledge coming from the appropriation of the Vedic text on one hand and the knowledge of artha on the other. The point of interest is that he believes it highly necessary to defend the view according to which the study of the Veda is enjoined as the right and duty of the “twice-born” ones while the same injunction does not presuppose studying with the purpose of understanding. On the other hand he defends equally fervently the point of view advocating a thorough effort towards understanding of the meaning of the Veda. This effort, supported by the right method, is supposed to bring about something differentiating one who is versed in the treasured secret knowledge of the Veda-meaning (vedārtha-rahasya) from the one who can boast of a good capacity of memory recitation skills only (pāţha-mātra). Taking a quotation from the Śruti text of RS 10.71

30 yathā ghaţapaţādidravyāňāņ svaprakāśatvābhāve `pi sūryacandrādīnāņ svaprakāśatvam avirodhaņ tathā manuşyādīnāņ svaskandhārohāsaņbhave ‘py akuňţhitaśakter vedasyetaravastupratipādakatvavat svapratipādakatvam apy astu. (VBHBHS 1958:15).

31 See MÜLLER: 1, 27.

153


— a favorite passage of his it seems — Sāyaňa states in an enigmatic way that the artha of the Veda is a secret (rahasya), which can be seen in the proper way only by one who professes the fourteen vidyāsthānas — a meaning entirely absent in the Vedic passage in question. What is more, such a meaning is absent also from Yāska’s Nirukta, a very important source of authority for Sāyaňa. It is his commentary on the Vedic passage in question that Sāyaňa takes over and recycles, so to speak, as a legitimizing medium through which he makes an exposition of his own ideas and whose words he employs to illustrate his own method of Vedic interpretation. This strategy puts his commentary apparently in line with a well established and appreciated exegetical method of Yāska’s nirvacana, or a “method” of etymological explanation32 which, by the way, proves to be one of the fourteen vidyāsthānas. According to Sāyaňa’s (quasi) nirvacana interpretation of the passage in question, not everyone has equal chances in grasping the message and meaning of the Veda and only serious study of the said fourteen knowledge-disciplines can make one ready to locate the meaning. This, however, does not amount to an individual looking for the meaning in his own free way. For the meaning to be looked for in the Veda is pre-classified as two-fold: that of Dharma and that of Brahma:

tathāyaņ caturdaśavidyāsthānapariśīlanopetaų puruşo vedārtha-rahasyaņ samyak paśyati33| vedoktaņ ca dharmabrahmarūpārthaņ hitabuddhyā svīkaroti|

Only such a man who has undertaken the study and application of fourteen strongholds of knowledge sees properly the secret of the meaning of the Veda. And [it is him who] appropriates with friendly intention the me-aning voiced in the Veda and having the form of Dharma and Brahma.

This formulation underscores Sāyaňa’s position, as concerns the implied audience of his commentary as well as those who were traditionally eligible for Veda-knowledge and knowledge-inquiry.

Studying the Veda in its practically textual dimension is enjoined by the vidhi-enjunction contained in the Veda itself: it is the well-known passage of TA 2.10: svādhyāyo `dhyetavyaų (“the private recitation [of one’s Veda] should be practiced [as duty]”)34 . It is understood by Sāyaňa as a duty of private training and appropriation of one’s own family Vedic textual tradition. But acquiring the knowledge of the meaning of the Veda (in its two-fold form) is – according to

32 More about the method of nirvacana see KAHRS 1998.33 So, to understand the meaning of the Veda amounts to “properly see the mystery of the

Vedic meaning/message with the help of fourteen sciences”, not to interpret it freely.34 On the implications of different understanding of this Vedic injunction see MALAMOUD

1977.

154

Cezary Galewicz

the opinion supported by Sāyaňa — a matter of an altogether different injunction. The source for this one is no longer Śruti but the tradition of Smrti, identified by Sāyaňa as Yājñavalkyasmŗiti. And this is is where the expertise in 14 vidyāsthānas is enjoined as part of the same: if one aspires to be a vedavid, or the knower of the knowledge of the Veda (which is not the same as the knower of one’s own Veda), one needs to make oneself expert in so called “fourteen strongholds” of knowledge :

vedaņ vidvān arthābhijñaų puruşaų| sa ca dvividhaų arvācīnakāle samutpannaścaturdaśavidyāsthānakuśalaų purātanakāle samutpanno vyāsādiś ca|35

e knower of the Veda is the one who possesses the understanding of the meaning and purpose [of the Veda]. ere are two kinds of such persons: one is a modern expert in the fourteen strongholds of knowledge, the other is [a sage] of yore like Vyāsa and the like.

Sāyaňa does not furnish his reader with any information which we could call precise as far as the content of the set of 14 “strongholds of knowledge” is concerned. is does not seem to be the point of his exposition. What he does instead, however, is a survey of the main tenets of some of them. is shows on the one hand their usefulness in deciding about practical ritual applications of particular parts of the Veda, and their being absolutely indispensable for se-curing the pure transmission of the Vedic corpus in an unspoiled form on the other. What is more important in the context of the present short study is rather that he proves himself to be sufficiently conversant with all of them, showing his intertextual dexterity in serving his reader with a number of mutually sup-porting quotations from the domain of traditionally acknowledged literature. No statement remains unsupported, no argument without the backing of the authority of either the “scripture” or wise men of the past. e list of the fourte-en disciplines of knowledge is made up with the elements given in the following quotation:

şađañgavat purāňādīnām api vedārthajñānopayogo yājñavalkyena smaryate|

purāňa-nyāya-mīmāņsā-dharma-śāstrāģga-miśritāų| vedāų sthānāni vidyānāņ dharmasya ca caturdaśa||Yāj. Smr., 1.3||36

Just as in the case of the six Angas, also the usefulness of Purāňas and the like for the knowledge of the meaning of the Veda is established as Smrti by Yājñavalkya:

35 VBHBHS 1958: 44.36 VBBS 1958: 57.

155


“Purāňas, Nyāya, [the two] Mīmāņsā[s], Dharmaśāstras, [six] Angas and [three] Vedas are the 14 strongholds of different branches of knowledge and Dharma”

In that way the set is made of Purāňas, or “stories from the time of yore”, the traditions of the logic school of Nyāya and the exegetical school of Mīmāņsā (most probably in its two “sub”-schools), the tradition of teachings concerning norms of social order (Dharmaśāstra), six so called “limbs” of the Veda, i.e. phonetics, grammar, the science of ritual, astrology, etymology and metrics, and — surprisingly for the context of a Vedic commentary — the Vedas themselves.37

And just as in the case of particular Vedic traditions put into a hierarchical order, these source branches of knowledge also appear not to be equally important for the Vedic commentary: a picture emerges in which it is Mīmāņsā which should be resorted to in order to decide about the tātparya meaning (the true purport of a passage), while the science of grammar (Vyākaraňa) looks most important when deciding for the particular meanings of the words (pādārtha). But the basis for the latter proves to be the most essential sthāna for Sāyaňa’s commentary, namely that of Nirukta, with its method of nirvacana – word etymology38. Thus Sāyaňa’s choices of interpretation in his commentary to follow are announced and declared to be supported by what was then the “scientific” background of the fourteen “knowledge-disciplines” with their appropriate methodologies, with which Sāyaňa does not fail to show himself well conversant.

This carefully woven image of a scholarly commentary prepared by Sāyaňa in his Bhūmikā, or Introduction, appears almost complete. The only thing which remains is to legitimize his own commentary as the only possible choice for his readers. In the ideological framework constructed in the Bhūmikā by Sāyaňa the study of the Veda is the right of every member of the twice-born class who underwent due formal initiation, and it is a duty especially of a Brāhmaňa. So is the effort of gaining access to the knowledge of its meaning. But there seems no

37 The number is made here of the following set 1+1+2+1+6+3=14. The mīmāņsā ap-parently counted as two elements, otherwise the sum would come up to 13 only. This is in accordance with the verses of the preamble which speak of two Mīmāmsās commented first before the Veda project. This meaning of the Mīmāņsā as made of two systems is supported here by the quotation from Yājñavalkyasmŗti. It was however not always counted as such. See above fn. 4.

38 tad idaņ vidyāsthānaņ vyākaraňasya kārtsnyaņ svārtha-sādhakaņ ca |Ni 1.15| iti | tasmād vedārthāvabodhāyopayuktaņ niruktaņ [VBBS 1958: 56] : “is very discipline [of Nirvacana] is the foundation of knowledge of grammar and it is capable entirely of bringing about particular meanings [of words]. And this is why Nirukta is applied for the understan-ding of the meaning of the Veda.”

156

Cezary Galewicz

room for what we would call free-interpretation here – if there were, there would not be a need for an authoritative commentary of his. At least this seems to be the tenet of the following lines from the Bhūmikā, in which the imagined opponent of Sāyaňa’s arguments expresses his hesitations towards the idea of understanding the duty of studying the Veda as pertaining to memory perfection only:

nanūktanītyādhyayanasyākşaragrahanāntatve `rthajñānam avihitaņ syāt| maivaņ| vākyāntareňa tadvidhānāt| brāhmaňena nişkāraňo dharmaų şađaģgo vedo `dhyeyo jñeyaśceti39 tadvidhių|

But isn’t it like that: if we say that the duty to study has the aim of appropriating the sounds only, then the knowledge of the meaning would not be enjoined at all. Not so-we say! Because they are enjoined by other sayings, like the vidhi “A Brahmana should study and understand the Veda along with its six Angas as the disinterested Dharma”.

The well known and accepted injunction to study the Veda pertains within the perspective adopted by Sāyaňa to something which the Opponent of his arguments understands as memory training only. Sāyaňa takes the same as a necessary text appropriation and textual mastery through an exclusively oral experience of the education in close contact between teacher and pupil; a mastery indispensable for further study with the help of the fourteen “strongholds of knowledge”. According to the commentator it is another injunction, this time called śravana-vidhi40, which pertains to the duty of acquiring access to the knowledge of the meaning of the Veda. As its very name suggests however, it is injunction to “hear” , i.e. to acquire the knowledge (jñāna) from someone else rather than directly from the textual experience. From someone who is eligible for investigating into to knowledge himself on his solitary way to the “secret of the Veda meaning.” For whom then is the search for the knowledge reserved?

It is in line with the UttaraMīmāņsā or Vedāntic point of view when Sāyaňa admits that the knowledge of the Veda is not the same as the knowledge about the meaning and message of the Veda. The latter proves to be composed of a lower level corresponding to the knowledge of Dharma and a higher one – corresponding to the knowledge of Brahma – the ultimate principle of reality. Any personal investigation into the Brahma portion of the meaning of the Veda is, according to Sāyaňa`s Bhūmikā, reserved for individuals who deserve the appellation of Paramahaņsa41 – spiritual teachers and renouncers from public life. Himself a

39 Mahābhāşya, paspaśāhnike (BALI 1999: 159). Also Srimad Bhāgavatam 1.1.6 contains an episode named śravaňavidhi but it concerns purāňas and itihāsas only.

40 VBBS 1958: 43.41 The prestigious title meaning literally “the high flying [wild] goose” and symbolising a

person committed to a solitary pursuit into the realm of highest spiritual knowledge.

157


householder and a father of three sons, Sāyaňa could not project his image as that of a Paramahaņsa. In order to legitimate his right for composing a valid Vedic commentary he needed the authority of a Paramahaņsa behind him. Here the connection with his brother Mādhava, a charismatic religious figure apparently qualifying as Paramahaņsa, comes to the fore as a cleverly designed strategy. It is worked upon through constant textual projection of the link by the way of declarations and authoritative quotations42 from Mādhava’s in the body of the Bhūmikā. Emphasizing this link, Sāyaňa’s commentary has been actually called mādhavīya and probably targeted to reach the well educated elite of Brāhmanic circles. In a project actively promoted by the rulers of early Vijayanagara it aimed at influencing the interplay of power and religious authority in distant provinces of the empire to come43.

From the closing words of the introductory part of his commentary to the Ŗgvedasaņhitā we also learn that his commenting upon the textual tradition of čgveda had actually started not from the saņhitā, or the basic collection of hymns, as we would most naturally expect, but from the Brāhmaňa and Āraňyaka “portions” of that tradition. The latter were clearly taken by him as constituting the whole of the Ŗgveda understood as a Ŗgvedic śākhā [lit. “branch” or “school” of the Veda”], or the tradition of that particular Veda comprised roughly of mantra and brāhmaňa kāňđas, just as the Veda understood as one whole. From such point of view the Ŗgveda represents and reflects the structure of one and coherent Veda, systematized and rationalized by the commentary aiming at showing its mastery over the Vedic ‘scripture’. This unitary Veda is presented by the commentary as a source of unquestioned authority in the matter of Dharma meant not only as the order of the Vedic sacrificial system but also as an ideal cosmic order and its mundane reflection strived after by the dharmic ruler – the king consciously shaping his domain with reference to the ideal order of Dharma rooted in the Veda itself. In this totalizing project of commenting upon the whole of the Veda a sort of representation of this whole by the parts had been adopted, textualised and presented by Sāyaňa, in a way meant to impress the reader with the mastery over the powerful source of authority rooted in the concept of one homogenous Veda. To show oneself as a master of this representation meant to wield power at least over those textual communities of Vedic teachers who played important social roles in the Brāhmanical education system. Through this system one could influence numerous collective bodies of Brahmins holding power over rich and

42 Sāyaňa quotes usually from Jaimīnīya-nyāya-mālā and the quotations are in the form of versed maxims of his brother given in support for his opinions.

43 I’m developing this idea in my A Commentator in the Service of the Empire, Vienna, forthcoming.

158

Cezary Galewicz

powerful temple complexes, temple towns and monasteries, as well as those rural areas administered by Brāhmanical groups directly and those others for the administration of which it was up to them to set the standards and rules.

At the end let me briefly indicate one problem to which I refer more extensively elsewhere44, namely that of the authorship of the “fringes” of Sāyaňa’s works: I am not quite sure whether all (if any) of the verses of the opening preambles to the Vedic commentaries actually come from Sāyaňa himself and not from the editors of his work45. As mentioned above, these verses reappear in all eighteen different commentarial works of Sāyaňa in a slightly modified shape. A certain number of them appear also at the end of each important section of the Vedic text commented upon46. The intertextual character of those verses is shown in further relief, with the evidence of its first stanza being used also in works by Sāyana’s brother Mādhava47. Also other authors make use of it, some even two centuries later, like the famous grammarian Bhaţţoji Dīkşita (in his Vedabhāşyasāra)48. These complex phenomena await further study in the context of general editorial practices in medieval India which may shed interesting light on the pre-modern Indian concepts of textual integrity and authorship. In the perspective of this short study they must be taken into account as further evidence of the complex character of the process of constructing the textual authority of scholarly commentary like that of Sāyaňa’s, a process to which the person of the author contributes in a relatively limited part, the rest being supplied by editorial work, text production process, dissemination and circulation, and perhaps also promotion. If these

44 See my A Commentator in the Service of an Empire, forthcoming.45 The ‘fringes’ of the text and the way in which it is framed by them is in my opinion one

of the underestimated phenomena of medieval Sanskrit intellectual production. A theoretical possibility of analysing similar phenomena was some time ago proposed by G. Genette accor-ding to whom “paratextuality” is one of the “threshold” phenomena situating themselves on the crossroads of the book production and the readers and mediating between the world of the text and the world of publishing. It includes such “liminal devices and conventions, both wi-thin and outside the book, that form part of the complex mediation between the book, author, publisher, and reader” [GENETTE 1997 (1987): Frontispiece] as titles and subtitles, pseudo-nyms, forwards, dedications, epigraphs, prefaces, intertitles, notes, epilogues, and afterwords. All these are classed as peritext variety belonging to the inside of the book, and contrasted to epitext class represented by the outside the book “devices and conventions” such as various elements in public and private history of the book.

46 For reference see also GALEWICZ 2005:335-337.47 For instance in his Jaiminīya-nyāya-mālā-vistara with an important remarks on it by

the author himself in the nitro to the commentary section of the work. For discussion see my A Commentator in the Service of the Empire, forthcoming.

48 See my A Commentator in the Service of an Empire, forthcoming.

159


suppositions hold true, the texts ascribed to Sāyaňa and other authors of the time should be seen as revealing of the actual working of contemporary editorial ideology and accordingly given more study for this very reason.

Unfortunately we grope in the dark when trying to assess the actual effects of this early Vijayanagara imperial project of composing an extensive commentary to the whole of the Veda. Due to the lack of sufficient historical data it can not be determined which and how many influential centers of Brāhmanical knowledge the copies of Sāyaňa’s commentary actually reached. From the extant manuscripts deposited in modern libraries, it stands to reason that Sāyaňa’s works were copied in different Indic scripts. We may infer from this fact that his commentaries must have been distributed over several linguistic areas of the once vast empire. Whether the fact that the Vedic commentaries and the name of their author succeeded over time and history to establish themselves as “canonical” was actually a matter connected to imperial cultural Politik or other circumstances is, naturally, open to criticism. It goes without saying, however, that the impressive work meant to support the legitimation of the early Vijayanagara rulers and itself legitimized by the imperial idea survived the empire itself. So did the “fourteen strongholds” of knowledge.

B:

Sources: Jaiminīyanyāyamālā of Mādhavācārya, ed. by Th. Goldstücker, Osnabruck 1970 (1878)Panchadasi of Vidyaranya with English Translation…, by M. Srinivasa Rau, Srirangam 1912Parāśara-smŗti. Parŕśāra Mādhava, volume I, Āchārakāňđa with the Gloss by

Madhavāchāryya, ed. with Notes by M.Ch. Tarkalāģkara, The Asiatic Society 1974 Purāňasāra of Śrī Vidyāraňya, ed. by H.S. Pathak, Mysore, ORI, 2000Ŗgveda Saņhitā, The Sacred Hymns of the Brahmans, together with the commentary of

Sāyaňācarya, ed. by F. Max MÜLLER., Varanasi 1983 (1849-740) [MÜLLER 1983]Ŗgveda-samhitā with the commentary of Sāyaňācārya, Vaidik Samshodhan Mandal,

Poona 1933Ŗgveda with the Padapāţha and the available portions of the Bhāşya-s by Skandasvāmin

and Udgītha, the Vyākhyā by Veģkaţa-Mādhva and Mudgala`s Vŗtti based on Sāyaňa-bhāşya, ed. by Vishva Bandhu, Part I, Hoshiarpur 1965

Rgveda with Sayana’s Commentary, ed. by Sonatke, N.S., Vaidika Samshodhana Man-dala, Poona 1933

Vedabhāşyabhūmikāsaņgraha [VBhBhS], ed. by Pt. Baladeva Upadhyaya, Varanasi, Chawkhamba, 1958

160

Cezary Galewicz

Secondary:ALI, D.2000: “Royal Eulogy as World History: Rethinking Copper-plate Inscriptions in Cōĺa

India” in: INDEN, WALTERS, ALI, eds., Querying the Medieval, OUP, pp. 165-223ALTEKAR, A.S.1934: Education in Ancient India, BenaresBALI, S. 1999: Sāyaňa`s Upodghāta to the Taittirīya Saņhitā and the Rgveda Saņhitā, Delhi,

Pratibha PrakashanBIDERMAN, S.1994: “Escaping the paradox of scripture: the Mīmāņsā solution” in: StudinM, pp. 87-

104 BLACKBURN, A.M.2001: Buddhist Learning and Textual Practice in Eighteenth-Century Lankan Monastic

Culture, Princeton Univ. PressBRECKENRIDGE, C.A., POLLOCK, S., BHABHA, H.K., CHAKRABARTY, D., ed.2002: Cosmopolitanism, Duke University PressBRONKHORST, J.1997: “Philosophy and Vedic exegesis in Mīmāņsā” in: Beyond Orientalism, Poznań,

Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities, vol. 59, 1997, pp. 359-372

1998: “Does the Veda have one Author?..” in: Asiatische Studien 52, pp. 5-142002: “Uttaramīmāņsā” in: CracowIS 4-5, pp. 113-120CHARTIER, R.2004: “The Text between the Voice and the Book” in: in: Voice Text Hypertext. Emerging

Practices in textual Studies, ed. by R. Mondiano, L.F. Searle, P. Shillingsburg, Univ. of Washington Press, pp. 54-71

CENKNER, W.1995(1983): A Tradition of Teachers. Śankara and Jagadgurus Today, Delhi, Motilall

BanarsidasCERTEAU de, M.1975: L’écriture de l’histoire, Paris, GallimardCLOONEY, F.X.1987: “Why the Veda has no Author: language as ritual in early Mīmāņsā” in: JAAR

1987, pp. 659-686COHN, B.1996 (1987): An Anthropologist Among the Historian and Other Essays, Oxford Univ.

PressCROOK, N.2001 (1996): The Transmission of Knowledge in South Asia, Oxford University Press

161

DEUTSCH, E.1989: “Knowledge and the Tradition Text in Indian Philosophy” in: E. Deutsch, G. Larson,

ed., Interpreting Accross Boundaries: New Essays in Comparative Philosophy, Delhi

DEVASTHALI, G.V.1991(1959): Mīmāņsā: The Ancient Indian Science of Sentence Interpretation, DelhiDIRKS, N.1999(1997): “The Study of State and Society in India” in: KAVIRAJ 1999, pp. 159-170FIGUEIRA, D.1994: “The Authority of an Absent Text”, w: L.Patton, ed., Authority, Anxiety and Canon,

Albany, SUNY, 1994, s. 201-234.FILIOZAT, Vasundhara1973: L’épigraphie de Vijayanagar du début à 1377, Paris, Ecole Française d’Extrème-

Orient2001(1977): Vijayanagar as seen by Domingo Paes and Fernao Nuniz, New Delhi, Na-

tional Book TrustGALEWICZ, C.2005: “Why Should the Flower of Dharma be Invisible? Sāyaňa’s Vision of the Unity of

the Veda” in : F. Squarcini, ed., Boundaries Dynamics and Constructions of Tradi-tions in South Asia, Firenze University Press-Motilal Banarsidas

2003: “A Keen Eye on Details. Reviving Ritual Perfection in Trichur Somayaga 2003” in Bulletin d’Études Indiennes, No 21.1 (2003), pp. 239-253

GENETTE, G.1997: Paratexts: Thresholds of Interpretation, tr. from French by J.E. Lewin, Cambridge

University PressGODE, P.K.1947: “Vedabhāşyasāra of Bhaţţoji Dīkşita” in: Bhāratiya Vidyā Series No. 12, Bombay GONDA, J.1975: Vedic Literature, WiessbadenGURUMURTHY, S.1979: Education in South India, MadrasHACKER, P.1978: (1965) “Dharma im Hindismus” in: Kleine Schriften, ed. L.Schmithausen,

Wiesbaden, pp. 496-509HEESTERMAN, J.1979: The Inner Conflict of Tradition, Chicago1957: The Ancient Indian Royal Consecration, The Univ. of Chicago Press INDEN, R.1990: Imagining India, Oxford, Basil BlackwellINDEN, R., WALTERS J., ALI D.2000: Quering the Medieval. Texts and the History of Practices in South Asia, Oxford

University Press


162

KAHRS, E.1998: Indian semantic analysis. The ‘nirvacana’ tradition, Cambridge University PressKANE, P.V.1941: History of Dharmaśāstra, BORI Poona KAVIRAJ, S. (ed.)1999 (1997): Politics in India, Oxford University PressKLOSTERMAIER K.K.1999: Sarvadarśanasaņgraha ascribed to Mādhavācārya. Chapter 16..., Chennai, Adyar

Library and Research CenterKRIPACHARYULU, M.1986: Sayana and Madhava-Vidyaranya, GunturKRISHNAMACHARYA, P., (ed.)1947: Descriptive Catalogue of Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Adyar Library, vol. VI, Ady-

ar Library, MadrasKULKE, H.1985: “Mahārājas, Mahants and Historians. Reflections on the Historiography of Early

Vijayanagara and Sringeri” in: Dallapiccola A.L., ed., Vijayanagara-City and Em-pire. New Currents of Research, Stutgart

1995: The State in India 1000-1700, Delhi, Oxford University PressKUNJUNI RAJA, K.2000 (1963): Indian Theories of Meaning, Chennai, Adyar LibraryLACAPRA D., 1983: Rethinking Intellectual History: Texts, Contexts, Language, Ithaca, Cornell

University Press2000: History and Reading, University of Toronto PressLENOIR, T.1997: “Inscription Practices and Materialities of Communication” in: Scientific Texts and

Materiality of Communication, ed. by T. Lenoir, Stanford Univ. PressMALAMOUD, Ch.1977: Le svādhyāya. Récitation personelle du veda. Taittirīya-âraňyaka Livre II., Paris

Institut de Civilisation IndienneMATILAL, B.K. & SEN, P.K.1988: “The concept principle and some Indian controversies over meaning” in: Mind 97,

pp. 73-97 MINKOWSKI Ch.2005: “What Makes a Work Traditional? On the Success of Nīlakaňţha’s Mahābhārata

Commentary” in F. Squarcini, ed. Boundaries, Dynamics and Construction of Tra-ditions in South Asia, Firenze Univ. Press

MOGHE, S.G.1975: “Sāyaňa`s equipment of Pūrvamīmāņsā” in: JOI 24, pp.257-268.OERTEL, von H.1930: Zur Indischen apologetik in: Beitrage zur Indischen Sprachwissenschaft und

religionsgeschichte, ed. by J.W. Hauer

Cezary Galewicz

163

OLIVELLE, P.1998 (1996): Upanişads, Oxford University PressPOLLOCK, S.1989: “Mīmāņsā and the problem of history in traditional India” in: JAOS 109, pp. 603-6102002: “Cosmopolitan and Vernacular in History” in: Breckenridge, C.A., Pollock, S. and

others, Cosmopolitanism, Duke University Press2004: „Forms of Knowledge in Early Modern South Asia: Introduction” in: Comparative

Studies in South Asia, Africa and Middle East, 24:2 (2004) pp.19-21. 2004: “The meaning of Dharma and the Relationship of the two Mīmāņsās …” in: Jour-

nal of Indian Philosophy 32, pp. 769-8112005: “The Revelation of Tradition: śruti, smŗti and the Sanskrit Discourse of Power” in:

F. Squarcini, ed., Boundaries, Dynamics and Construction of Traditions in South Asia, Firenze Univ. Press

RAY, K.1961: Sayana’s Introduction to his Vedic Bhashya, CalcuttaSANDAL, M.L.1999(1925): Mīmāņsā Sūtras of Jaimini, Delhi, Motilal BanarsidasSARMA, R.N.1988: Mīmāņsā theory of meaning, SGDOS 75SARUP, L. 1984 (1920-27): The Nighaňţu and the Nirukta, Delhi, Motilal BanarsidasSAWAI, Y.1992 The Faith of Ascetics and Lay Smārtas. A Study of the Śankaran Tradition of

Śŗňgeri, Wien SEARLE, L., F.2004: Emerging Questions: Text and Theory in Contemporary Criticism”in: Voice Text

Hypertext. Emerging Practices in textual Studies, ed. by R. Mondiano, L.F. Searle, P. Shillingsburg, Univ. of Washington Press, pp. 3-21

SQUARCINI, F., (ed.)2005: Boundaries, Dynamics and Construction of Traditions in South Asia, Firenze Uni-

versity PressSTEIN, B.1997(1993): Vijayanagara, Cambridge University PressVERPOORTEN, J.-M.1987: « Le droit ā l’adhyayana selon la Mīmāņsā » in : IndoIranian Journal 30, pp. 23-30SCHARFE, H.1989: The State in Indian Tradition, Leiden, Brill2002: Education in Ancient India, Leiden, Brill SILVERSTEIN, M. and URBAN, G.1996: Natural Histories of Discourse, The University of Chicago Press STOCK, B.1987: The Implications of Literacy, Princeton University Press1990: Listening for the Text. On the uses of the past, University of Pennsylvania Press


TABER, J.1990: “Are Mantras Speech Acts? Mīmāņsā Point of View” in: H. P. Alper , The Mantra,

SUNY 1989TALBOT, C.2001: Precolonial India in Practice. Society, Region, and Identity in Medieval Andhra,

Oxford University Press

Cezary Galewicz

GALEWICZ Fourteen Strongholds

Documents

Transcript of GALEWICZ Fourteen Strongholds