रूपमण्डन एवं देवमूर्त्ति-प्रकरणम् (मण्डन सूत्रधार - प्राचीन मूर्तिकला एवं देव-प्रतिमा लक्षण सटीक)

[ 31 ] (17) Śukra and (18) Bṛhaspati are the chief eighteen preceptors of the Vāstuśāstra. Lord Matsya had explained briefly the Vāstuśāstra to the King Vaivasvata Manu ; 2—4. Which I will now relate to you.” The Agni-Purāṇa⁸⁴ list of twenty-five authoritative texts, quoted before is interpreted thus :— “Hayagrīva said :—O, Brahman, hear me speak about the consecration of the images of Vishṇu and other gods—(1). I have already dealt with the principles of Pancharātra⁸⁵ and Saptarātra schools of philosophies which are classed by the Munis under twenty-five different heads as discussed in the following books or Tantras, viz. : 84. Agni-Purāṇam, Engl. prose transl. by Manmathanath Dutt. Cal., 1903. Chapter XXXIX. In the Introduction Mr. Datta writes :— “The contents of this Purāṇa clearly show that it has no sectarian leaning. It impartially treats of Vaiṣṇava, Śaiva and Śākta forms of worship. It is more a compendium of Sanskrit learning than the advocacy of any particular form of religion. It is classed among the Tāmasa or the delusive division of the Purāṇas”. Professor Wilson thus remarks on the general character of this Purāṇa. ‘......it is evident that it is a compilation from various works ; that consequently it has no claim in itself to any great antiquity, although from the absence of any exotic materials, it might be pronounced earlier, with perhaps a few exceptions, than the Mahomedan invasion. From the absence also of a controversial or sectarian spirit, it is probably anterior to the struggles that took place in 8th and 9th centuries of our era between the followers of Śiva and Viṣṇu’. 85. “The word Ratra signifies knowledge, and the Naradapancha- ratra, which is one of the standard religious works upholding the principles of the Pancharatra School of Philosophy, defines the term as meaning the sum total of the five distinct sorts of knowledge we have, of the external world through our senses :— रात्रञ्च ज्ञानवचनं ज्ञानं पञ्चविधं स्मृतम् । तेनेदं पञ्चरात्रञ्च प्रवदन्ति मनीषिणः ॥ अः १।१, नारदपञ्चरात्रम् ।

[ 32 ] (1) The Hayacirsa Tantram, which is the first and original book of the Pancharatra School, (2) the Trailokya Mohan Tantram, (3) the Baibhabum Tantram, (4) the Pouskaram Tantram, (5) the Prahlad Tantram, (6) the Garga, (7) the Galabum, (8) the Naradiya Tantram, (9) the Sampracnum Tantram, (10) the Sandilya Tantram, (11) the Vaishvakam, (12) the Svatatum, (13) the Shounakum Tantram, (14) the Vashistam, (15) the Gayansagar Tantram, (16) the Shaimbhubam, (17) the Kapil Tantram, (18) the Tarksa Tantram, (19) the Nārāyanikum, (20) the Atrayaum, (21) the Narasinha Tantram, (22) the Anandaksa, (23) the Arun Tantram, (24) the Boudhayan Tantram, (25) the Arsam or the Bicvoktam tantram which is a synopsis of the preceding one—(2)." Inspite of the many imperfections that have crept in through ages, and the ignorant mis-interpretation resulting apparently It may be safely asserted here that Vaiṣṇavism owes its origin to this school of philosophy, which, with the aid of several subsequent accretions of an article of faith or practice from the sister schools, has determined the nature and formation of its namesake in modern times. Śaṅkarācārya once questioned the soundness and orthodoxy of the tenets of Pāñcarātra School, and even attempted to prove their incompatibility with the principles of the Vedas. (Vide Śārīraka-Bhāṣya,—2-2-43, 2-2-44 and 2-4-25). Rāmānuja, however, held a contrary view and quoted ślokas from the Mahābhārata and other tantras to show that not only the Pāñcarātra School embodies within itself the highest principles of Indian Spiritualism, but that it is quite in harmony with the revelations of the Vedas like the Sāṅkhya Philosophy which too was denounced by Śaṅkara on account of its heterodoxy :— सांख्यं योगः पञ्चरात्रं वेदाः पाशुपतं तथा । किमेतान्येकनिष्ठानि पृथङ्गिष्ठानि वा मुने ॥ एवमेकं सांख्यवेदां(?) वेदारण्यकमेव वा । परस्पराङ्गान्येतानि पञ्चरात्रन्तु कथ्यते ॥ सांख्यं योगः पञ्चरात्रं वेदाः पाशुपतं तथा । आत्मप्रमाण्येतानि न हन्तव्यानि हेतुभिः ॥

( 33 ) from loss of traditions in North India, the Āgneya list of the Pāñcarātra Āgamas is conclusively proved to be authentic. “Now, in the case of the Pāñcarātra, tradition mentions one hundred and eight Saṃhitās, and in a few, texts about this number are actually enumerated. Such lists, coquetting with the sacred number 108, are, of course, open to suspicion.” “The fact, however, that none of the available lists of Saṃhitās, including those which pretend to give 108 names, actually conforms to this number but all of them enumerate either more names or less, is one thing telling in their favour ; and when, as is the case, it can further be shown that a respectable number of the texts enumerated are still available, while not a few of the others are found to be quoted or summarised in the later literature, and that a number of Saṃhitās which are not included in any of the lists, are either extant or quoted—then the value of the latter can no longer be denied. We have, consequently, collated those lists, four in all, and with them a fifth list found in the Agni- Pūrāṇa, and as a result offer the...table in which all the names... have been arranged in alphabetical order.” “The Kapiñjala list...comprises 106 names, the list of Pādma Tantra...112, that of Viṣṇu Tantra...141, that of Haya- śīrṣa Saṃhitā...34, and that found in the 39th adhyāya of Agni (Āgneya)-Purāṇa only 25. A still shorter list, namely that of the apocryphal Nāradīya, has not been taken into account.” The literature of the Pāñcarātras, like other sectarian literatures, falls into two broad divisions comprising respectively of works of inspired or divine origin and of human authorship The latter class,...treats chiefly what are called vidhi and prayoga and consists of digests, commentaries, extracts and studies on special subjects, and the like. The former class,...consists of the Saṃhitās or “compositions” (compendia), that is, metrical works D—5

( 34 ) dealing,...with a number of topics, if not the whole, of the Pāñca- rātra system.⁸⁶ “......of the principal subjects treated in the Pāñcarātra, the scientific student will probably find it best to distinguish the following ten :— (1) Philosophy ; (2) Linguistic occultism (mantra-śāstra) ; (3) Theory of magical figures (yantra-śāstra) ; (4) Practical magic (māyā-yoga) ; (5) Yoga ; (6) Temple-building (mandira-nirmāṇa) ; (7) Image-making (pratiṣṭhā-vidhi) ; (8) Domestic observances (saṁskāra, āhnika) ; (9) Social rules (varṇāśrama-dharma) ; (10) Public festivals (utsava)⁸⁷.” An examination of the principal subjects, treated in the Pāñca- rātras, will easily show the close relationship of many of these, with the Vāstu and the Śilpa-śāstras. In the evolution and the development of the Building, the Plastic and the Graphic Arts of India, —— the Vedāṅga Jyotiṣa and the Kalpa (Śulva) Sūtras, the Śaiva Āgamas and the Śākta Tantras, the Purāṇas and the Pāñcarātras, etc., have, among the Brāhmaṇic Texts, made similar contributions. Even the Jainas and the Buddhists, did not lag far behind. It will, however, be out of place to make any discussion of the latter sources, here.

86. Otto Schrader, Op. cit. pp, 2-3 ff.
87. Ibid. p. 26.

CHAPTER IV THE PRESENT EDITION The preparation of critical Editions of the Sanskrit Texts on Śilpa (or, Tantra) is beset with many difficulties some of which are of a very serious character. The language is, on the one hand, obscure and full of techni- calities ; extraneous aids—in the shapes of explanatory comments and notes which are fortunately so abundant in the cases of other branches of Indian Literature are sadly wanting in the cases of the Śilpa (and the Tāntrik) Texts. On the other hand, the Manuscripts of these branches of Sanskrit, are mostly corrupt or in mutilated state, due, not only to the loss of art traditions but also among other reasons, to the indifference of the hereditary craftsmen and artists themselves to the literary works on the subject. There, however, prevails an unfortunate and regrettable attitude of mind which looks down upon these hereditary craftsmen and artists who have carried on with love and veneration even when there were no encouragements, the sacred duty of keeping up for generations, the flames of Indian artistic tradition alive. The Brāhmaṇic theologians have cast down the artists and the craftsmen⁸⁸. The Nītiśāstra-kāras have enumerated

88. Compare Brahma-vaivarta Purāṇam, Brahma Khaṇḍa, Adh. 10, Jātimālā. (From a MS., collected by the late Prof. Satishchandra Mitra), for the Daulatpur Hindu Academy, “জাতিমালা।” (?) অর্থাৎ পদ্মপুরাণ ও বহুবিধ পুরাণ শাস্ত্র হইতে সংগৃহীত। শ্রীমহেশ্চন্দ্র ( sic ! ) বিদ্যারত্ন কর্তৃক অনুবাদিত। হরিহর যন্ত্র। চিৎপুর রোড, বটতলা। সন ১২৭৪ সাল,৩২ আষাঢ়। Reprinted. বেঙ্গল রায় প্রেস। সন ১৩৩০ সাল। “জাতিকৌমুদী ও জাতিসঙ্কর।” শ্রীবেণীমাধব ন্যায়রত্ন কর্তৃক সঙ্কলিত। কুমুদবন্ধু যন্ত্র। সন ১২৯৩ সাল, ফাল্গুন।

( 36 ) the musicians along with the cut-throats, charlatans and rascals.⁸⁹ And, yet the Śilpa, the Saṅgīta and the Nāṭya etc., which have all reputed Ṛṣis of hoary antiquity, as their founders, owed their birth to divine inspiration. We have, therefore, here, another set of apparent paradoxes of Indian culture, which should provoke serious enquiry. Very elaborate descriptions are given of the merits (Phala- śruti and Artha-vāda) for raising pious foundations, or erecting sacred structures such as the dedication of an image that would accrue on the part of the donor, (dānapati).⁹⁰ Arts of music and “सूत्रधरो द्विजानान्तु शापेन पतितो भुवि। शीघ्रञ्च यज्ञकाष्ठानि न ददौ तेन हेतुना॥” १, ३ ‘পয়ার। যজ্ঞকাষ্ঠ শীঘ্র দান না করে ব্রাহ্মণে। শাপে সূত্রধর সে পতিত এ কারণে॥’ ২ “व्यक्ति(ति)क्रमेण चित्राणां सदयश्चित्रकरस्तथा। पतितो ब्रह्मशापेन ब्राह्मणानाञ्च कोपतः॥” १, ३ ‘পয়ার। ক্রমভিন্ন চিত্রদোষে জানি চিত্রকরে। শাপ দিয়া পতিত করিল বিপ্রবরে॥’ ২ 98. For example, see the rare old Nīti-Śāstra, Cākṣuṣīyam, fragments of which have been traced and published for the first time—A. S. Ramanath Ayyar : Chaksusiyam—an Arthasastra. JBORS Vol. XI, pp. 81—84. 90. तथा हि—श्रीगोपालभट्टकृते ‘श्रीहरिभक्तिविलासे’—१८ विलासे—श्रीमूर्चाविर्भावमाहात्म्ये— ‘विष्णुधर्मोत्तरे। देवस्य प्रतिमायान्तु यावन्तः परमाणवः; तावद्वर्षसहस्राणि विष्णुलोके महीयते।’ तथा—‘श्री हरि०— १८ विलासे—श्रीमूर्ति प्रतिष्ठामाहात्म्ये— ‘मात्स्ये। प्रतिष्ठायाः सुराणां च देवतार्चातृकीर्त्तनात्। दैवयज्ञोत्सवाच्चापि बन्धनेन विमुच्यते॥’ तथा—‘संबुद्धाभाषित-प्रतिमालक्षण-विवरणम्’ यावन्तः परमाणवो भगवत्तत्त्वेषु बिम्बेषु वा। तत्क्षणाद्दिंवि भूतले च नियतं तावन्ति—॥ ――――संपदोऽखिला भुक्त्वा च सर्वं सुखम्। प्रान्ते जन्मजरावपत्तिरहितं प्राप्नोति बौद्धं पदम्॥

( 37 ) dancing have similarly been glorified⁹¹ although the artists and craftsmen themselves, curiously enough, occupy only degraded positions in society. Thus the preservation of Śilpa Texts in the hands of the hereditary artists and craftsmen who were looked down upon, was beset with some difficulty. But mistakes and lapses in the Mss. are fortunately seldom, errors of commission, and not a few, may be due to inexpert scribes. Unless and until better readings, supported by substantial grounds, can be suggested, it is not allowable to reject altogether the only available texts which bear the stamp of tradition through a long succession of generations. It is, therefore, very necessary to sift very thoroughly the apparently corrupt and contradictory readings with the entire critical apparatus at our disposal.⁹² And when there is a great paucity of materials in the form of Mss., as is the case with the present text Devata-mūrti- Prakaraṇam, it is necessary to formulate some general laws, or, to deduce some principles for future guidance, in preparing a critical edition. Secondly, it is also very urgent to devise ways and means, for interpreting the texts of Śilpa, when all extraneous aids are so inaccessible.

91. Compare Nandikeśvara's Abhinayadarpaṇam (Critical Ed. of the Text with Introd., Transl., Notes and Illustrations. By Manomohan Ghosh., Cal. Skt. Series, No. V.), [Nāṭyapraśaṁsā], śl. 7b—11a (and Engl. Transl.). For the Saṅgīta-śāstra etc., also, it is possible to give numerous examples, of such eulogy.
92. It would not be, out of place, to compare here, for example, the immense help, which the present writer derived, by subjecting the apparently confusing readings to Epigraphic and Palaeographic Tests, elsewhere, while preparing his edition of the important Śilpa Text : The Buddhapratimā-lakṣaṇam. The Sarasvatī Bhavana Sanskrit Texts, No. 48. (Benares, 1933). Out of a hopeless medley and confused jumble of data, careful scrutiny and repeated efforts enabled the present writer, to deduce a number of most important principles.

( 38 ) In close analogy to the rules of interpretations, the Pari- bhāshās of Vyākaraṇa and Mīmāṁsā Śāstras, we must formulate some rules, for these Śilpa Texts, too. As the (Śilpa) Vāstu Śāstras are technical and obscure in language, no violent corrections or half-hazard emendations of texts are warrantable. Similar is the case with the Tāntrik and Kindred Texts. Some of the first rules, that should be made, may be as follows :— (a) Not a single syllable should be ommited or even a half, in the (Śilpa) Vāstu and the Tāntrik Texts. मात्रालाघवो नाऽनुमन्तव्यो वास्तु-शिल्प-तन्त्रशास्त्रादिषु । (b) As in the Mīmāṁsā Śāstra, we should try to account for and harmonise any apparent contradictions. When some of the texts are really contradictory, they may be considered to be due to differences in recensions, sections or topics. सति भिन्नवाक्यत्वे शाखाभेदः प्रकरणभेदो विषयभेदो वाऽवगन्तव्यः । (c) Corrections should be reduced to the minimum e. g., like addition of an Akṣara, as a-kāra or anusvāra. स्तोकमात्रा संशुद्धिः । योगोऽकाराऽनुस्वारादीनाम् । (d) For determining the correct readings not only the metrical and the grammatical considerations should be regarded as important but also the Epigraphic data are equally valuable. पाठनिर्णये छन्दोव्याकरणवत् प्रामाण्यं लिपिशास्त्रस्य । Besides these four main principles, other important ones might suggest themselves or be evolved. Now, we must turn back to the important question of the interpretation of texts. As has been stated before, there is a great paucity of aids to explanation. Commentaries, notes, so far as both the (Śilpa) Vāstu and the Tantra Śāstras are concerned, are

( 39 ) very few. Yet these subjects are of so great importance, that some methods must be found out for the correct understanding of these texts. Speaking from personal experience, the present writer can confidently recommend two very certain methods. I. The first method is to compare Texts kindred, or, parallel and to compare, them again and again. By kinship, must be understood similarity as regards essence and spirit, and proximity in point of time and place. For there can be no real comparisons between subjects which have no points of similarity e. g., between a donkey and a mush-room. Sādṛśya, similarity, in the most rigorous technical sense, is defined as follows⁹³ :— तद्भिन्नत्वे सति तद्गतभूयोधर्मवत्त्वं सादृश्यम् । Two objects, though they be different, if they have a sufficient number of common characteristics, might be regarded as Similar. The essence of similarity, Sādṛśya is this common characteristic Sāmānya dharma. Some notable examples of objects with such common features are the Abhinaya-hastas, the Nāṭya-hastas or Karaṇas, the Śilpa-hastas and the Tāntrika Mudrās, which may be compared with one another. But it would be useless waste of time and energy to try to compare heterogeneous objects and such comparisons will be impossible when kinship etc., are lacking. II. The second important method of interpretation of obscure passages is to trace these back, if possible, to the Source Books. Especially, when we have to do with compilations, (as is the case, with the present work, the Devatāmūrti-Prakaraṇa) which are based entirely on earlier texts, this method is very effective; and it is at once corroborative and corrective; for all citations can be thus checked at once and with absolute certainty. 93. See Annambhaṭṭa's Tarkasaṃgraha : See Mm. Bhīmācārya Jhalaḳīkar : Nyāyakośa (Bombay Skt. Series) S. V. सादृश्यम्.

( 40 ) By tracing back to their sources, at least about half of the entire text of the Devatāmūrti-Prakaraṇa could be thus dealt with. The limited time at the disposal of the present writer has unfortunately rendered it impossible to trace and to locate every passage with equal success, though such an eventuality may not be impossible. Once for all, our lines of action have been determined, and the ways and means devised, we can proceed with greater hopes of success, in preparing the critical edition of the Devatā- mūrti-Prakaraṇa. Though rigorous adherence to these above principles for guidance, and the methods of interpretation, may have drawbacks, conjectures and assumptions without sufficient data will be reduced to minimum. Moreover, imagination has little scope for any outlet in the specialised branches of study. The Muses of archaeology and history are too old to mount the Pegasus. With these preliminary remarks, it would now be possible, to discuss the readings of the Devatāmūrti-Prakaraṇa. The passages within inverted commas are due to the present writer.

[ 41 ] CHAPTER V DISCUSSION OF THE READINGS. पाठविचारः । Devatāmūrtiprakaraṇa (DM.). प्रथमोऽध्यायः । (Chapter I.) Ślokas, 2, 3 correspond to Mayamata (MM.), Chapter 33, ślokas 8, 9. Śl. 4 corresponds to MM., Ch. 33, śl. 10. Śl. 5 corresponds to MM., Ch. 33, śl. 11a, 12a. षण्डोपलेन कर्तव्ये (?) ब्रह्मकूर्मशि(ले)लैस्त(त)था । प्रासादाऽनलकुण्डादि कर्म कुर्याद्विचक्षणः ॥ ५ ॥ यदि च "प्रासाद-तल-कुड्यादि" पाठोऽपि संभवेत् तथापि "प्रासादाऽनलकुण्डादि" पाठः साधीयान् इति मतिरस्माकम् । Śl. 8. विमलमिति पाठश्चिन्तनीयः । मन्ये—"सबिलम्" इति भवितव्यम् । वर्णविपर्ययस्य, सकार-मकारयोः परस्परभ्रान्तेश्च सर्वत्र आदर्शपुस्तके सम्भवात् । मयमते "नबिलावयवा" पाठोपलम्भात्, सबिलशिलायाः प्रतिमादावनुपयोगाच्च । अपरं पारिभाषिकं 'विमल'मप्यस्ति । किन्त्वेतत् विशेष्यवाचि, न तु विशेषणम् । एतच्छब्द- स्यर्थस्तावत् 'विष्णुधर्मोत्तरे', तृतीयखण्डे, ९०अध्याये द्रष्टव्यः । मन्ये—तद्ग्रन्थी य-३य-खण्डस्य ९०अध्यायस्य ८, ९श्लोकद्वयात् अस्य श्लोकस्य च उद्धारः कृतः । तथा 'विमल'-पदव्याख्यानम्— अग्राह्यां ज्वलनालीढां — —॥ — — — ॥ ६ ॥ — — — ॥ तिलैः सम्भूषिता* या तु विचित्रैर्बिन्दुभिर्मिश्रिता ॥ ७ ॥ रेखामण्डलसङ्कीर्णां विद्धां विमलसंयुताम् ॥ विमलं त्रिविधं ज्ञेयं लोहं कांस्यं च हेमजम् ॥ ८ ॥ या लोहविमलैर्जुष्टा सा जनक्षयकारिणी ॥ कांस्याभविमलोपेता जनमानविनाशिनी ॥ ९ ॥ हैमेन युक्ता दुर्भिक्षं तथा कुर्यादवग्रहम् ॥"

• 'बिलैः सन्दूषिता' इति वा पाठः । D 6

[ 42 ]

Śl. 9 corresponds to विष्णुधर्मोत्तरम्, ३य-खण्डम्, २१—२३क-श्लोकाः । “श्वेतश्च पद्मवर्णश्च कुसुमोपलसन्निभः ॥ पाण्डुरो मुद्गवर्णश्च कापोतो भृङ्गसन्निभः ॥ २९ ॥ ज्ञेयाः प्रशस्ताः पाषाणाः अष्टावेते न संशयः” ॥ Śl. 15—19a correspond to Śilparatnam (ŚR.), Uttara- bhāga (Part II), Chapt. 4, Śl. 1—8. Śl. १९ क । श्लोकार्धं परित्यक्तमिति मन्ये । तस्य “द्वारं विभज्य दशधा भाग- मेकं परित्यजेत् ।” इत्येवंरूपो हि पाठो भवितुमर्हति । Śl. १९ ख । महाप्रतिमादीनां भूयशः, श्मशाने, चतुष्पथे च पूजाविधिः शास्त्रेषु लौकिकव्यवहाराच्च दृश्यते । कोषेषु च वर्त्मवाचकस्य “पद्या”शब्दस्य सत्त्वात्तथा लिपिशास्त्रानु- रोधात्, “चतसॄणां पद्यानां समाहारः चतुष्पद्यम्” इति पाठः संघटते । तथा शिल्पशास्त्रादौ भूयशः धातूनां विकरण-व्यत्ययदर्शनात् “पूजयेत्” इत्यत्र “पूज्येत्” इति च पाठः सम्भवेत् । तेनास्य श्लोकार्धस्य पाठ एवञ्जातः— “बाणवेदकरान् यावच्चतुष्पद्ये पूज्येत् सुधीः ॥ १९ ॥” ‘महाप्रतिमा’प्रमाणं च शिल्पग्रन्थान्तरे, नेपालदेशादस्मदुपलब्धे ‘आत्रेयतिलके’⁹⁴ एवमुपदिष्टम् :— “महाप्रतिमाविन्यासं प्रवक्ष्याम्यधुना शृणु ॥ दशपञ्चाधिकैर्हस्तैः प्रतिमा कन्यसी स्मृता ॥ द्विगुणा मध्यमा ज्ञेया ज्येष्ठा तु त्रि[गु]णा स्मृता ॥ अतः परन्न कुर्वीत यदि(दी)च्छेत् श्रेयआत्मनः ॥” तथा ‘शुक्रनीतौ’, “क्रूर-ऽसुरी-पैशाचीमूर्त्तिव्यवस्था”ऽपि द्रष्टव्या⁹⁵ ॥ Śl. 26—31. ‘मत्स्यपुराणी’याः, अ० २९९ श्लो० १८—२०, एते । Śl. 36—43. एते, सर्वेऽपि श्लोकाः ‘बृहत्संहिता’तो यथा-यथम् उद्धृताः । बृ० सं० BS. (Bibliotheca Indica) अ० ४६ (लिङ्गवैकृते) श्लो० १—८. Also, herewith compare VD. (Viṣṇudharmottaram) II, Adh. 134, Śl. 5-9, 13,4-5.

94. For detailed information regarding the Ātreya-tilakam see the present writer's Buddha-pratimā-lakṣaṇam. The Sarasvatī Bhavana texts Series No. 48. Benares, 1933. Introduction, pp. 5—8.
95. Unfortunately, this text is not accessible for the present, so quota- tion cannot be given, Śukranīti, Ch. IV, Section 4.

[ 43 ] Śl. 44. मन्येऽत्र, 'वृक्षवैकृतमधिकृत्य किञ्चिदुक्तमासीत् । Cf. VD. II, Adh. 136, Śl. 4, 5 ; 6, 40 etc. ; and BS. Adh. 46, Śl. 25 etc. तथास्य श्लोकस्य प्रथमाद्धेस्य पूरणमेवं भवितुं शक्यते—“स्वदेशध्वंसः स्फोटे भवेत्तथा देवपादपानाम् ॥ ४४ ॥” Śl. 45—47. Compare VD. II, Adhyāya 135, Śl. 1-5, and II, Adh. 144 Śl. 1-2. Śl. 50—57. Cf. also VD. II, Adh. 135, Śl, 13. 'बृहत्संहिता’- मनुसृत्य संशोधनं कार्यमिति पुनः पाठप्रदर्शनेनाऽलम् । एतेऽत्र श्लोकाः अपपाठबहुलाः । 'विशाख’स्तावत् स्कन्दस्यैव चतुर्भेदस्याऽन्यतमः । See VD. III, Adh. 71, Śl. 3. Śl. 58. मन्ये—“वत्से नाऽभिमुखे कुर्याद् यात्रामद्वारे च वास्तुनः ।” इति भवितव्यम् । तथा “गुर्विणीनाम्” इति, 'गृहारम्भे वत्सचक्र'विचारस्योपयोगात् । तथा यात्राकाले, “धेनुर्वत्सप्रयुक्ता”द्विवचनेन धेनुवत्सप्रभृतिदर्शनस्य च माङ्गलिकत्वात् । Compare, also ŚR. II, Adh. I, Śl. 6 ff. तथा वास्तुराजवल्लभे १९शाध्याये “गृहारम्भे वत्सचक्रम् । सौरादिकं त्रितयमस्य शिरःप्रयुक्तं भानां ततो द्वितयमग्रपदे च दक्षे । कुक्षौ चतुष्कमपि दक्षिणगे प्रशस्तं पृष्ठे त्रयं त्रितयमप्यथ पुच्छभागे ॥ २३ ॥ पाश्चात्यपादयुगले द्वितयं द्वयं स्याच्चत्वारि भानि च ततः खलु वामकुक्षौ । द्वे चाग्रवामचरणे द्वितयं च वक्त्रे त्वेवं वदन्ति मुनयः खलु वत्सचक्रम् ॥ २४ ॥ शीर्षस्थिते सुखनिवृत्तिरथाग्रपादे शून्यं च दक्षिणककुक्षिगते धनं स्यात् । पृष्ठे शुभं भयकरं खलु पुच्छगे मे पाश्चात्यपादयुगले विविधा गुणाः स्युः ॥ २५ ॥ दुःखं भयं स्यात्किल वामकुक्षौ भयं विनाशश्च मुखेऽग्रपादे । विद्वद्भिरुवं खलु वास्तुखाते वत्सस्य चक्रेण निरीक्षणीयम् ॥ २६ ॥” Śl. 59b. “विशेषकाश्च” इति भवेत् । द्वितीयोऽध्यायः । ( Chapter II. ) Śl. 1. Cf. Vāsturājavallabha, Adh. 10, Śl. 1 छाया-वा-णू-रेणु-केशाग्र-लिक्षा- यूका प्रोक्ता स्याद्यवस्त्वङ्गुलश्च । छायादिभ्योऽष्टघ्नमानस्य वृद्धिः प्रोक्तो हस्तो जैनसंख्याङ्गुलैश्च ॥ १ ॥

[ 44 ] Śl. 2 corresponds to ŚR. II, Adh. 4, Śl. 51 Śl. 4. “कीर्त्तिमुखं त(ता)लुमुखम्” इत्यपि पाठो भवितुमर्हति। कीर्त्तिमुखं तावत् “नरसिंहमिवापरम्”, व्यात्तमुखोऽलङ्करणविशेषः। तस्योत्पत्तिः प्रयोगश्च शिल्पशास्त्रेष्वनु- सन्धेयः$^{96}$। Śl. 4-13 a. Compare ŚR., Part II, Adh. 4, Śl. 37—50. Śl 7b. “नीला” इति भवितव्यम्, ‘लीले’ति नाम्न्याः देव्याः कुत्रापि अनुपलब्भात्। तथा “पाञ्चरात्रागमे$^{97}$ नीला, श्रीः, पुष्टिश्च” पर-विष्णोः शक्तिरूपेण निर्दिष्टाः। नामैकदेशग्रहणेन यदि च ‘नीला’शब्देन ‘नीलसरस्वतीति नाम्न्याः तारायाः’ ग्रहणं भवेत् तथापि तान्त्रिकदेवतानां नास्ति अत्र प्रसङ्गः। सत्यं ‘बृहद्ब्रह्मसंहिता’यां २य-पादे ४थेऽध्याये १४४—१५५श्लोकेषु ‘लीला’देव्याः(?) प्रसङ्गोऽस्ति। तत्राऽपि ‘लोला’-पदस्य ‘नीला’ इति पाठान्तरं दृश्यते $^{98}$। Śl 9a. “जिनेन्द्राश्च” इति पाठः स्यात्, ‘तकार’-‘नकार’योर्भ्रमसम्भवात्; अत्रैव ग्रन्थे जिनप्रतिमानां च स्थापनविधानात्। ४र्थाध्याये २९-श्लोके द्रष्टव्यम्। तृतीयोऽध्यायः। (Chapter III.) Śl. 1-2 correspond to MM. Adh. 33, śl. 38-40. Śl. 9-17. अथ देवतादृष्टिस्थानम्। Compare MM. Adh. 7, śl. 30ff, पददेवताविन्यासः। “समानि यानि भागानि चतुःषष्टिवदाचरेत्। असमान्यपि सर्वाणि चैकाशीतिपदोक्तवत् ॥ ३० ॥” इत्यारभ्याध्यायान्तरपर्यन्तं द्रष्टव्यम्। 96. O. C. Ganguly : The Kīrtimukham, in the Rūpam (now defunct), No. 1. The Ind. Soc. of Oriental Art, Calcutta. 97. See F. Otto Schrader : Introduction to the Pāñcarātra and the Ahirbudhnya-Saṃhitā. Adyar, 1916, pp. 53—55. 98. बृहद्ब्रह्मसंहिता। नारदपञ्चरात्रान्तर्गता। Ānandāśram Skt. Series, No. 68, 1912. PP. 68—69. तत्रैव १७३-श्लोकः— “गोपायती जनान्वत्सात् प्रपन्नानिव दोषतः। अतो गोपीति विख्याता १लीलाख्या परदेवता ॥” १नीला०।

[ 45 ] Śl. 18b. “वाक्यभेदो न कर्तव्यः” इति मनसि निधायैकवाक्यताञ्च अनुसन्ध्यायैवं संशोधनं कृतम् ॥ १८ ॥ Śl. 24-27. [ देवतास्थापने दिङ्निर्णयः ] Compare Mānasāra, IX, 387 ff. ; also, Vāsturājavallabha, IV, 13. “ब्रह्मविष्णुशिवेन्द्रभास्करगृहाः पूर्वापरास्याः शुभाः प्रोक्तौ सर्वदिशामुखौ शिवजिनौ विष्णुर्विधाता तथा । चामुण्डाग्रहमातरो धनपतिर्द्वैमातुरो भैरवो देवा दक्षिणदिङ्मुखाः कपिवरो नैर्ऋत्यवक्त्रो भवेत् ॥ १३ ॥” Śl. 28. यथाशक्ति पाठशुद्धिः प्रदर्श्यते लिपिशास्त्रादीननुसृत्य । “ज्ञात्वा सर्वं(म)स्थापि येन रीत्या देवा दैत्या मानुषाद्याश्च सर्वे । ह(ह्या)त्मानं व्यापकं सृष्टिकारं स्थापी(पि)-दृष्ट्वा (द्रष्टा)-विश्वकर्मां(र्माणं) श(तं) वन्द्याः ॥ २८ ॥ दृष्टः, आत्मा येन तम् । स्थापी स्थापकः, शिल्पी । द्रष्टा कविः, विश्वकर्मा । हं वन्द्याः वन्दनं कुर्युः । सर्वत्र शिल्पशास्त्रेषु विकरणव्यत्ययः पदव्यत्ययश्च । चतुर्थोऽध्यायः । ( Chapter IV. ) Śl. 1. दृष्टं शिवस्यैव चन्द्रशेखरत्वम् । तथा मन्ये, ग्रन्थमध्ये कुत्र कुत्रचित् ‘द’-कार- ‘र-’कार-योर्भ्रान्तिदर्शनात् , “स्तोकमात्रा संशुद्धि”-रिति न्यायात् , “चारुशेखरः” इति पाठः साधुत्तरः । Śl. 2. सत्यं ‘रूपमण्डने’⁹⁹ ‘प्रभेदेने’ति पाठोऽस्ति । तथापि ग्रन्थकारः यथेच्छं परिवर्तनं कृतवानिति मत्वा ‘प्रभेदोक्त्या’ इति पाठोऽस्माभिरङ्गीक्रियते । Śl. 3-4 correspond to ‘रूपमण्डनम्’— “दक्षिणाधः करात् स्रष्टा जपमालां तथा स्रुचम् । पुस्तं कमण्डलुं धत्ते सकूर्चः कमलासनः ॥” 99. The Rūpamaṇḍanam has been quoted at length by T. A. Gopi- natha Rao : Elements of Hindu Iconography. We have depended chiefly on these quotations, they being authentic and providing another version.

: After रु: There is a letter with े: it has द् and... wait, it looks like द्धे or द्वे. Wait, what about रुद्वहेद्भवः? Wait, look at हे: Does it have an e-matra? Wait, where IS the e-matra? The e-matra is slanted to the left: े. Where is its base? Its base touches the top of... wait! It touches the top of the letter right before द्भवः! Wait! The e-matra is on the letter right before द्भवः! Then what is before THAT? Between रु and that letter: There is a letter! Wait, what is that letter? It has a curve... wait, is it द्? Let's look at: रु + द् + धे + द्भवः -> रुद्धेद्भवः? Or रु + द् + हे + द्भवः -> रुद्हेद्भवः? Wait, look at करतलैरुद्धेद्भवः or करतलैरुद्वहेद्भवः? Let's look at: Letter 1: क Letter 2: र Letter 3: त Letter 4: लै Letter 5: `

[ 47 ] भवन्मूर्त्ति- । (३२) स्रुचं च — होमजकालिकाम् । —भजेत्सा स्यात् पद्म— ॥ (३३) एषा स्याद् — ॥ (३४) — सविता दशमस्मृतः ॥ एकादशस्तथा त्वष्टा विष्णुर्द्वादश उच्यते । अत्र ग्रन्थे ‘विश्वकर्मशास्त्रा’त् कुत्र कुत्रचित्पाठभेदो दृश्यते । तेन अस्माकं मते, (२२श्लोके) सुधा (श्री) तथा (३२) होमज-नीलकम् इति पाठभेदौ भविष्यतः, ‘ल’-कार- ‘न’-कारयोर्भ्रमदर्शनात् । Śl. 38-39. यथाशक्ति श्लोकयोः पाठोद्धारः क्रियते । ‘हेरम्ब(म)तङ्गकृष्णाः ॥ ३८ ॥ श्रीकण्ठसूर्यौ रुद्रस्तथाम्बिका (उ)(त्तर) — । ——ते (द)न्ति विघ्नानि परसंस्था ॥ ३९ ॥’ एते देवाः स्वस्थानस्थाः अभीष्टानि परस्थानस्थाः विघ्नानि प्रयच्छन्ति इत्यर्थः ॥ Śl. 42—46. ‘रूपमण्डन’ात् किञ्चित् परिवर्त्तिताः । (४४श्लोके) तर्जनी द्वौ व(ञ)ानां—— । (४५) तर्जन(ी)द्वौ पद्मानां—चित्रको— । (४६) तर्जनी द्वौ किरणं दण्डमक्षकिरणो भरेत् । इति संशोधनानि क्रियन्ते ‘रूपमण्डन’मनुसृत्य । Śl. 47—57. ‘शिल्परत्ने’ उत्तरभागे २९अध्यायस्यैते १४१क—१९२श्लोकाः । कुत्र कुत्रचित् भेदा अपि दृश्यन्ते । तद्यथा— (४८श्लोके) — पृथुदरीम् । (५०) पुस्तकं— । (५३) ततो — शुक्रश्च— । (५५) सौरिं नील — चतुर्भुजम् । तत्र (४९श्लोके) ‘मेषंगमः’ इति पाठो भवितुमर्हति । Śl. 58. ‘शिल्परत्ने’ उत्तरभागे २९अध्यायस्य १५७श्लोकः । तत्र ‘गृध्राः — कार्या— ।’ इति पाठभेदौ । ‘गृध्राः’ पाठात् ‘ग्रहाः’ साधुतरः । इति नवग्रहाः । Śl. 59—66. ‘रूपमण्डन’ात् कुत्र कुत्र विशेषाः सन्ति । मन्ये, सर्वेऽपि श्लोकाः तस्मादेव उद्धृताः । (६२श्लोके) —— कत्तिकां — । —श्वानारूढं— । (६३) नक्रा— ॥ इति पाठभेदाः प्रधानाः, सर्वत्र कारकव्यत्ययश्च । इति दश दिक्पालाः ।

[ 48 ] पञ्चमोऽध्यायः । (Chapter V. ) Śl. 8—13. Compare Padma-purāṇam, Pātālakhaṇḍa, Adhy. 10, Uttarakhaṇḍa, Adhy. 127; Brahmavaivarta-P., Prakṛti- khaṇḍa, Adhy. 19; Garuḍa-P., Adhy. 45; for descriptions of the Caturviṁśati-mūrtis of Viṣṇu.¹⁰¹ Śl. 18—20. Quoted from Skanda-purāṇam,¹⁰² with minor changes. Śl. 21. Quoted from Brahma-purāṇam,¹⁰² with minor changes. Śl. 22. Quoted from Skanda-purāṇam,¹⁰² with minor changes. Śl. 26. From the Vaiśvānara-saṁhitā, Purāṇasaṁgraha, Nṛsiṁha-purāṇa, Brahmāṇḍa-purāṇa.¹⁰² “शुक्राभश्चातिशोभन इति क्वचित् पाठः । नान्तरीयके संलग्ने ।” Śl. 27. Quoted from Brahmavaivarta-purāṇam.¹⁰² Śl. 28. Quoted from Padma-purāṇam.¹⁰² Śl. 29. Quoted from Brahma-purāṇa ; Brahmāṇḍa-P.¹⁰² “रेखात्रयपरिवृतो देवः पद्मेन लाञ्छितः ।” इति पाठः । Śl. 30-31. “हेमाद्रौ विष्णुप्रोक्तो”¹⁰³ । इति स्तोकमात्रं ग्रन्थान्तरेभ्यो दर्शितम् । मन्ये, आकरग्रन्थानुसन्धानकोविदैः सर्व्वेऽपि श्लोकाः प्राप्स्यन्ते । समयाभावात्, बाहुल्यभिया च, अलमधिकेन । 101. See Rādhākāntadeva's Śabdakalpadruma, under Śālagrāma. 102. See Prāṇatoṣaṇī (PT.), a modern but authoritative Tāntrika Nibandha, by Rāmatoṣaṇa Vidyālaṅkāra under the patronage of Prāṇakṛṣṇa Viśvās of Khaṛdaha, on the Ganges (Bhāgīrathī). Rāmatoṣaṇa was the great-grandson (vṛddha prapautra) of the celebrated Āgamavāgīśa Kṛṣṇānanda, the author of Tantrasāra, one of the best existent Tāntrika Nibandhas, compendiums on Worship and Rituals. See PT., Pañcama- kāṇḍa, Caturtha Pariccheda, Śālagrāmaprakaraṇa, (Vasumatī Ed.), pp. 348—57. 103. See PT., p. 357. “एवमेवात्र वर्णभेदेन पूजने मूर्त्तिविशेष उच्यते हेमाद्रौ विष्णुप्रोक्तौ ।”

[ 49 ] तथा, 'मत्स्य'संबन्धीय-५१श्लोकस्थले 'जनार्दन'संबन्धीय-५२श्लोकपाठे क्रमभङ्गदोषस्य परिहारो भवेत् । Śl. 64, 65, 67, 68. Taken from the VD. III, Ch. 54. Also, compare Hemādri, Dānakhaṇḍam.103A तथा 'विष्णुधर्मोत्तरे' पाठभेदाः ( वि० ध० । ३ख० । अ० ५४ । ) “— मारकत०— — — । — — — — स्ततः॥ ६४ ॥ (२ वि० ध०) — — — —०द्वयविभूषणः। (३ ?) — — — कलापेन विवर्जितः ॥ ६५ ॥ (४क) — पूर्णकुम्भञ्च — — ॥ ( ४ख ) —०द्वये तु — — तथास्य रचिता०— ॥ ६७ ॥ (५क) तथास्य १ भगवान् — — ०धरौ करौ । (५ख) १(यदा इति पाठः । ) [ न कर्तव्यौ कर्तव्यौ देवपादधरौ । ६क ] किञ्चि०— — — — ॥ ६८ ॥ (६ख)” तथा 'हेमाद्रौ दानखण्डे' उद्धृताः पाठाः — “भूम्यजानूर्ध्व जानुश्च — — । प्रभासंस्था तु सौवर्णकलापेन विवर्जितः* ॥ ६५ ॥

• विवर्धितः क्वचित्पाठः । छत्रन्ते — — । विष्णुः पुरश्चैत् कार्योऽसौ द्विभुजो रचिताञ्जलि”रिति पाठः । एवं पाठान् विचार्य (६५श्लोके) “कलापैर्न विवर्जितः” इत्यस्माभिः शुद्धत्वेन परि- कल्पितः । 'पक्षद्वयविभूषितः,—०विभूषणो' वा गरुडः कथं 'कलापेन विवर्जितः' स्यात् । एवं सति च तस्य सौन्दर्यहानिर्भवेत् । न हि गरुडो दुर्दर्शनश्च कदापि, पक्षान्तरेऽसौ भीम- कान्तश्च दृश्यते । एतद्विचार्य्यं, एकवाक्यतां चानुसन्धाय, अस्माकं मते “कलापैर्न विवर्धितः” इति पाठ एव साधुः । तथा “यदास्य — — ( ६८ क )” पाठः साधुः । तदनन्तरं श्लोकार्धः परित्यक्तः—“ [ न कर्तव्यौ कर्तव्यौ देवपादधरौ । ] ।” समीचीन- 103A. Hemādri : Caturvargacintā-maṇi (Bibliotheca Indica), A. S. B, D—7

[ 50 ] मेतत्, यदा गरुडो विष्णुमुद्वहेत् तदा चाऽस्य पादौ ध्रियेतेति । द्विहस्तस्य गरुडस्य युगपत् छत्रकुम्भधारणं विष्णोर्भारवहनं च हस्तसाहाय्यं विनाऽसम्भवात् तेनैवमन्वयो भवितुमर्हति— 'यदास्य पृष्ठे भगवान् भवति, तदा गरुडस्य करौ छत्रकुम्भधरौ न कर्तव्यौ' इति । Śl. 71. Taken probably from ŚR.,¹⁰³ᴮ Part II, Ch. 25, śl. 111, 112a. तत्र पाठभेदाः “—०जिन्युपवीती — कृतकमण्डलुः । — — महोदरः¹⁰³ᶜ ॥ ७१ ॥ पुरुषो वामनाकारस्तथा ( ब्राह्मण-)वटुः महोदरः एव भवति । Śl. 72. 'रूपमण्डने' ¹⁰³ᵃ रामस्य दाशरथेस्तथा बलरामस्य एवं वर्णनं प्राप्यते— 'रामश्शरेषुकृच्छ्यामः ससीरमुसलो बलः ।' तेनाऽस्माकं मते 'राम'स्य श्लोकार्था- दनन्तरं ( ७२श्लोके ) बलरामस्य अनन्तबलरामस्य वा वर्णनमासीत् । तस्य च श्लोकार्थं भ्रमात् परित्यक्तं, मन्ये । बलरामस्यैव आयुधौ सीरमुसलौ । Śl. 72-74. 'शिल्परत्ना'दुद्धृतं¹⁰³ᵇ मन्ये । ŚR. II, Adhy. 25, Śl. 112-115. तत्र पाठभेदाः— (७२) —शोभितम् । (७३) —०फुल्लोचनां । Śl. 76. 'शिल्परत्ने' ¹⁰³ᶜ ७५श्लोकान्त्यानन्तरं श्लोकोऽयं विन्यस्तः । तेन प्रमाणा- न्तरमिदम्, अस्माकं मते स्थानव्यत्यासस्य । ŚR. II, 25, Śl. 116. Śl. 77-80, 82. 'शिल्परत्ना'दुद्धृताः । ŚR. II, 25, Śl. 117-121a. Śl. 83-85. “शिल्परत्नसंयोजिते कस्मिंश्चिद् ग्रन्थे” ¹⁰⁴. तत्र पाठभेदाः— (८३) प्रमत्तवदने०— । (८४) — ०लम्बिनौ — । — वामे शंखं — ॥ (८५)—( गदां रम्यां ) लिखेच्चित्रविशारदः ॥ 103B. Śrī Kumāra : Śilparatnam, Trivandrum Skt. Series, No. XCVIII. Part II. 103C. These quotations are also given in T. A. Gopinatha Rao : op. cit., presumably from another version of ŚR. 103a. See T. A. G. Rao : Op. cit. 103b. Quoted, also, by T. A. G. Rao : Op. cit., apparently from another version of ŚR., which sometimes gives better readings. —०लोचनां should really refer to the Devī, who is astonished, with her Lord's Prowess. Also, in ŚR. 103c. Both, in T. A. G. Rao : Op. cit., and ŚR. 104. Quoted in T. A. G. Rao : Op. cit.