Vol 1 No 1

June 2023

Kriti Rakshana

Editor-in-Chief
Dr Sachchidanand Joshi

Editor
Dr Anirban Dash
 © Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts
New Delhi

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, utilised in any
form or by any means, electronic or mechanical methods, including photocopying,
recording or by any information storage and retrieval system without prior
permission of the Chief Editor/Publisher.

Responsibility for statements made and visual provided in the various papers rests
solely with the contributors. The views expressed by individual authors are not
necessarily those of the Chief Editor/Editor or the Publisher.

Kriti Rakshana

The bi-annual journal of National Mission for Manuscripts with a holistic approach
towards the study of manuscripts and rich heritage of India.

ISSN:2319-5304

Editor-in-Chief
Dr Sachchidanand Joshi
Editor
Dr Anirban Dash

June, 2023
Price Rs. 550

Published by Dr Sachchidanand Joshi on behalf of the

Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts,
National Mission for Manuscripts,
Janpath, New Delhi 110001
Printed by Dev Publishers & Distributors, New Delhi
 Table of Contents

Editorial v
Sachchidanand Joshi

1. Silk of Kashmir Triggered Sericulture in Khotan 1

Nirmala Sharma

2. Sanskrit Manuscripts Across Indian Boundaries 9

Shashibala

3. A Study of a Sanskrit Manuscript “Śrī Kavitākāntā-Swayaṁvaraḥ” 25

C. Upender Rao

4. RĀMĀYAṆA:The Story of Rāma in Indian Pāhāri Miniature 31

Paintings
Vikas Gupta, Kavita Suri, Sonika Parihar and Suresh Abrol

5. Five Manuscripts of the Vārāhī Tantra 85

Roberta Prado

6. Varāhamihira and his Pañcasiddhāntikā 97

Somenath Chatterjee

7. Archaeological Importance of Itkhori through Inscriptions 111

Arpita Ranjan

8. Management of the Neonatal and Infantile Disorder in

Unani Medicine 133
Shagufta Rehman and Shariq A. Khan

9. A Textual Criticism of Śāradā Manuscript of the Nītiśatakam 143

Sugyan Kumar Mahanty
10. Śrīla Rūpa Gosvᾱmin’s Contribution to Bhakti Rasa 159
V. Ramakalyani

11. लेखन कला का उद्भव एवं विकास 179

कर्मबीर सिंह रोहिल्ला

12. नत्त
ृ व पिण्डीबन्ध का वैदिक उद्गम 203
भरत गप्तु

13. शारदा लिपि वर्णमाला: एक सक्ं षिप्त परिचय 215

अनिर्वाण दाश

Contributors
235

iv
 Editorial

Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts (IGNCA) is dedicated to promote
awareness of and create sensitivity to a wide range of topics – art, culture, history,
language, grammar, philosophy and the like. We are pleased to present to our readers
the latest issue of Kritirakshana journal (Vol.1, No.1). In all, there are thirteen
articles in this issue, of which three articles are in Hindi and the rest in English. We
hope this issue will generate keen interest among scholars, researchers and students
of a wide spectrum.
The first article “Silk of Kashmir Triggered Sericulture in Khotan” by Prof.
Nirmala Sharma talks about how Khotan, a kingdom founded by the son of
Emperor Asoka, got silk worms and thus started with the production of silk in the
kingdom. The Khotanese rulers had adopted Indian names and culture and Sanskrit
and Prakrit were in use among the Khotanese scholar circle. There is a legend
of the introduction of silk to Khotan by a Chinese princess Punyeśvarā, daughter
of a Chinese king Pu-ñe-śvara. King Vijaya-Jaya, the king of Khotan, desiring to
have the seed of silk-worms in his country, married Princess Punyeśvarā. Due to
her husband’s keen desire to have silk in Khotan, the princess reared silk-worms
in a place called Ma-źa. While the silk-worms were still not mature, some crafty
councilors of the king told him about the rearing of some poisonous snakes in the
palace which might harm his country, and the king ordered to set on fire the worm-
rearing house. On hearing of this, the queen, unable for the moment to explain
the matter to the king , rescued a portion of the worms and reared them in secret.
Afterwards, having procured Kāśmīr silk and silk from flock-silk and men-hdri,
she showed them to the king, and, having shown them, gave an exact account of
them. The paper discusses many accounts, events and stories related to the import
of sericulture to Khotan.
In the article “Sanskrit Manuscripts across Indian Boundaries” Prof. Shashibala
gives an authoritative account of the reach and influence of Sanskrit manuscripts
across the borders of India, including Mongolia, Tibet, China and almost all South
Asian countries. Sanskrit literature, Indian culture, religions, ethics, etc. made

v
an indelible impact on all these countries along with the spread of Hinduism and
Buddhism. Discovery of a huge number of manuscripts in Sanskrit are reflections
of text and tradition that travelled from India. Indian culture, wherever it reached,
added a new dimension and changed the mindset of the people, from the imperial to
the level of masses. All the countries created sacred space by building monasteries,
temples, stupas and gauged out caves. They were embellished by statues and
paintings. Special arrangements were made to copy and translate Sanskrit texts into
local languages. Following the tradition of keeping the sacred texts in Buddhist
monasteries, the Tibetans, Mongolians and Chinese collected the translated texts
into compendia.
In the article “A Study of a Sanskrit manuscript Sri Kavitākāntā-Swayamvaraḥ.”
Prof. Upender Rao presents a detailed study of an interesting poem composed by
Sriman Telkapalli Ramchandra Shastri, a well-known poet of nineteenth century,
Telengana . Here he describes the swayamvaraḥ of Kavitā, the daughter of Saraswatī
and Brahmā, as narrated in the poem- in a most interesting and lucid manner. The
author describes in great detail the meticulous handling of various meters by the
poet. The article will succeed in introducing interested readers and scholars alike,
to this wonderful poem and attract them to study other works of T. Ramchandra
Shastri.
Dr. Suresh Abrol et al. in their paper “Rāmāyaṇa: The Story of Rāma in Indian
Pahari Miniature Paintings” portray forty Pahari miniature scenes from the
Rāmāyaṇa: from the episode of chieftains and other luminaries requesting King
Daśaratha to hand over power to Rāma, his elder son. All the subsequent episodes
from Kaikeyī’s demand to make Bharat as the king, to the departure of Rāma for
fourteen years of vanavāsa, Rama visiting Bhardwaj Muni’s ashram, death of
Daśaratha, Bharata’s return, his visit to Rama at Chitrakoot, to Rāma, Sītā and
Lakṣmaṇa visiting Atri Muni’s ashram find expression in beautiful miniature
paintings of Pahari style. Also, there are an opening image and a Tanjore painting
of Rāma’s darbār. These pictures make a few episodes of the Rāmāyaṇa so vivid,
live and memorable.
Dr. Roberta Prado discusses “Five Manuscripts of the Vārāhī Tantra” in her
article. The Vārāhī Tantra is one of the sixty-four non-dual Tantras, which was
more popular in North East India and in Nepal. A lot of texts are called Vārāhī
Tantra (Vt) during the fourteenth-nineteenth century. Therefore, it is difficult to
say which of the manuscripts found, if any, is that of the Vārāhī Tantra nominated
in the classical lists of the sixty-four non-dual Tantras. Many Tāntric compilations

vi
often refer to a Vārāhī Tantra, and among the quoted verses, a few are found in Vt1
and some others in Vt2. Prado herein talks about five manuscripts found in different
libraries and collections such as Vt1-a, Vt1-b, Vt2, Vt3 and Vt4. It is possible
that Vt1 and Vt2 were equally well known around the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries, but beside this, they are probably two distinct texts. In particular, the Vt1
seems to have spread mostly in Nepal, for the presence of Newārī elements, both
in philosophy and in the script. Since both Vt1 and Vt2 seem to acknowledge the
existence of another text called Vārāhī Tantra, it is possible that there are, or were,
other manuscripts and works bearing the same name.
In “Varāhamihira and His Pañcasiddhāntikā”, Shri Somenath Chatterjee
deliberates the significance of the Pañcasiddhāntikā, an excellent work of
compilation of five siddhāntas by Varāhamihira. The Pañcasiddhāntikā elaborates
on these siddhāntas, i.e. Pitāmaha Siddhānta (also known as Brahmasiddhānta),
Vaśiṣṭha Siddhānta (deals with the sun and the moon, and rāśi, kāla, aṁśa as the
units, and the subject shadow has been considered at length), Romaka Siddhānta
(the astronomical calculations of the Romans), Puliśa Siddhānta (Ahargaṇa,
calculation of the place of the planets, eclipses of the sun and the moon are the
elements) and Sūryasiddhānta (calculation of positions of planets, etc. are the some
of the important elements). Varāhamihira’s compilation of the Pañcasiddhāntikā
is important for Indian astronomy on different fronts. It indicates the development
of astronomical knowledge of ancient and classical period. This compilation
gives the hint of how Indian scholars developed their ideas about cosmos. The
concept of yuga system, which was initiated from Vedāṅga Jyotiṣa, continued up to
Pitāmahasiddhānta, then it had changed in the Siddhāntic age. The Paňcasiddhāntikā
is the evidence of this change. Scholars of later age mention the influence of Western
knowledge in the development of mathematical astronomy. It can be concluded that
Pitāmahasiddhānta is out of this influence. It is suggested to study the history of
astronomy of this period which is still not clear.
In “Archaeological Importance of Itkhori through Inscriptions” Dr. Arpita
Ranjan introduces us to Itkhori, Badhauli village, Chatra district, Jharkhand, a
historical town known for ancient temples and archaeological sites. Buddhist
relics and stupas, and sculptures of Buddhism, Jainism along with Bhrahmanical
deities have been found belonging to a period ranging from 200 bce to 1200 ce.
Prominent among them are the Bhadrakālī Temple, the image of Sheetalanātha, the
tenth Jain Tirthankar and a museum that houses many things associated with all the
three religions. The temple is known for its iconography of Goddess Bhadrakālī,

vii
inscriptions, auspicious symbols, Śiva Liṅga, Nandī and remains of a votive
stupa. It also has many sculptures, relics, statues like that of the Buddha, Viṣṇu,
Garuda, Vāmana, Surya, Śiva -Pārvatī, Agni, Kalyāna Sunder, and a few unknown
sculptures.
In “Management of the Neonatal and Infantile Disorder in Unani Medicine”,
Dr. Shagufta Rehman and Dr. Shariq Ali Khan address Unani procedures in
addressing neonatal and infantile disorders. Any disease affecting the child of less
than two years and more than twenty-eight days is known as infantile disorder,
whereas up to 27 days of age, it is known as neonatal disorder. The neonatal and
infantile mortality underlines the need to understand its causes and their effective
management. The literature of Unani system of medicine is replete with a systematic
and comprehensive description of the disorders usually faced by neonates and
infants. The classics have also produced simple and effective management of these
problems. Rabban Tabri, Ibn Sina, Al-Razi, Akbar Arzani and Azam Khan have
produced very rational management of these disorders. The peculiarity of this
management is that the treatment initially restricted to local applications as well
as regimental approaches, wherever the internal medicines are required, these have
been prescribed of first degree and second degree possessing very soft therapeutic
effects, keeping in view the delicate structures and developmental physiology of the
children viz-a-viz to avoid the potential Iatrogenic threats of synthetic therapeutic
molecules. The paper brings into limelight these details in a scientific manner.
“A Textual Criticism of Śāradā Manuscript of the Nītiśatakam” by Dr. Sugyan
Kumar Mahanty is a critical study. Bhartṛhari, the author of Nītiśatakam, was a
king who abdicated office later and a great grammarian and linguistic philosopher.
The Śṛṅgāraśataka and Vairāgyaśataka are his other two major śatakas. Mahanty
in this paper deals with the authorship, different editions, various manuscripts of
the Nītiśataka. However, the main focus of his paper is on the Kāśmīrī Śāradā
manuscript of the Nītiśatakam. The order of the verses in the MS is not the same as
found in popular editions of the Nītiśatakam. It looks like a copy of any other MS
in Kāśmīrī Śāradā, as there are some scribal errata in the MS. The MS is procured
by Mahanty from a digital source and transcribed into Devanāgarī. The paper lists
the scribal errors found in the MS. It also provides the textual criticism of Kāśmīrī
Śāradā MS of the Nītiśatakam.
“Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmin’s Contribution to Bhakti Rasa” by Dr. V. Ramakalyani
analyses two works of Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmin, a great disciple of Śrī-kṛṣṇa-caitanya,
who is credited with systematizing the supreme religious emotion of bhakti. Rūpa

viii
Gosvāmin, a sixteenth century poet, write two Sanskrit works on the Vaiṣṇava
Rasa-śāstra, the Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu (BRS) and the Ujjvala-nīla-maṇi (UNM),
by which the poet elevated the religious sentiment of bhakti to the supreme relish
of literary enjoyment, known as rasa. The love of Kṛṣṇa (kṛṣṇa-rati) was installed
as the dominant feeling (sthāyī-bhāva) which, through its appropriate excitants
(vibhāvas), as well as ensuants (anubhāvas) and auxiliary feelings (vyabhicāri-
bhāvas), was raised to a supreme relishable condition in the susceptible mind of a
devotee as the Bhakti-rasa. Rūpa Gosvāmin finds delight in elaborate definitions,
fine distinctions and minute classifications of the devotional sentiment in its varied
moods, colours, phases, adjuncts and situations. In these two works, the poet details
all the Bhakti Rasas. Says Rūpa Gosvāmin “Staying in the bank of this ocean of
Madhura-rasa, I have just touched the Bhakti Rasa. I am not able to enter into it
because this ocean of rasa is unique, has no end, cannot be crossed, unfathomable
and this cannot be measured by human intellect.”
The article “Lekhan Kalā Kā Udbhav Evam Vikās” by Shri Karmavir Singh
Rohilla explains that Art is a natural expression of human emotions. Art is the mother
of well-being. The name of the aesthetic expression of imagination is art itself. The
expression of imagination can take various forms and can be done through different
mediums. The birth of a great work of art occurs through the collaboration of both
the subconscious and the conscious mind. Such art can never be unethical because
it contains the sentiments of social welfare and altruism.
Prof. Bharat Gupt, in his article “Nritta va Pindibandha kā Vaidik Udgam”
has given the rational explanation of the necessity of Dance, the importance of
a Nātyagriha and inclusion of Dance in the Drama. But the main focus of this
article is Pindibandha. “Pindibandha” as a term used in the Nātyaśāstra, specifically
in the Fourth Chapter, has been a subject of misinterpretation for very long time.
The prevailing notion among dancers is that “Pindibandha” denotes choreographic
movement which uses group dances or many dancers. But actually, “Taking on
or tying in the elements of a single devatā’s shape, armaments, flag, vehicle, and
temperament etc. in the body of the dancer while dancing is called Pindibandha.” It
is the origin of creating a divine shape of Vedic gods first in body and then in any
other medium.
The article “Śāradā Lipi Varnamālā- Ek Sanksipta Parichay” by Dr. Anirban
Dash vividly portrays the origin and growth of the Śāradā script from its inception
to its growth to the development of its variants such as Gurumukhi and Tākri. Going
by King Meru Varma of the eighth century CE, Śāradā script had its origin from the

ix
Kutila script that was prevalent in the Punjab. According to al-Biruni, who visited
Kashmir in 1030 CE, the Pundits of Kashmir and Varanasi more or less used the
same script for writing in Sanskrit. He did not name Śāradā script, rather, named it
as Siddhamātrikā. Here the author states that Śāradā script got developed from the
variants of the Siddhamātrikā script and was widespread in the north-western part
of India, which later on spread to Pakistan and Afganisthan as well. The Horyuji
temple in Japan houses a palmleaf manuscript of the Usnisavijaya- dhārani, a
Buddhist text of fifth century CE, written in Śāradā scripts. It endorses the fact that
this script was very much in vogue in the remote past. The paper also presents the
chart of each and every alphabet of Śāradā script along with unique characteristics
and peculiarities of some alphabets.
Our effort is to bring hidden treasures of our manuscripts to the knowledge of
scholars and researchers through articles / papers by erudite experts. It is necessary
that we take care of our treasure by educating the academic fraternity.
Hope this issue of Kritirakshana is useful for the Scholars and Researchers.
 Dr. Sachchidanand Joshi
Editor-in-Chief

x
 9
A Textual Criticism of Śāradā Manuscript
of the Nītiśatakam

Sugyan Kumar Mahanty

Introduction
Bhartṛhari nowhere mentions of any person or incident, either contemporary or
preceding. He has also not been referred to by any other contemporary author. Much
has been floating in the shape of folk-lore tradition about Bhartṛhari, to whom the
three Śatakas, i.e. The Nītiśataka, Śṛṅgāraśataka and Vairāgyaśataka have been
attributed. Some speculative conjectures and antique efforts have been made by
modern scholars to discover about the time, place and social status of the author.
The question of authorship of three Śatakas and their date has been a topic of debate
through centuries. Unlike epics, dramas, or stories, there is no guiding thread of
narrative here in these Śatakas, for omission of the interpolations and inclusion
of the primary text to fill the broken filament of the contexts. Therefore, to arrive
at the conclusion, external evidences are equally important as the internal ones, to
support our arguments.
Traditionally, Bhartṛhari has been proclaimed as the elder brother of Vikramāditya,
the epoch maker king of Ujjain. The Vikrama Saṁvat, that begins 56 years before
Christ, has been named after none other the king Vikrama, who has been accepted
as the younger brother of Bhartṛhari in Indian folk lore traditions. If we accept this
traditional view, then the date of Bhartṛhari can be fixed to the 1st Century B.C.
According to folklores, Bhartṛhari had won over the large part of India, and along
with such splendor, he acquired a high position in literature also. Equally his
asceticism was of also a high order. All conflicting conditions, regal splendor along
with learning, power and abstinence, centered in one individual, reflect his super
human qualities. Additionally, he had been endowed with personal beauty, coolness
of temper, as well as justice and mercy. There are couplets, which manifest his
qualities:
Sugyan Kumar Mahanty

विक्रमविरागविभवद्तयु िभिः स्तुतिपात्रमेव भर्तृहरिः ।

एकोऽपि यश्चतुरश्चतुरोऽपि हरिं स्वयं समतिशेते ॥
Meaning: The wise Bhartṛhari who outstrips the four Haris, i.e. Vishnu, The Son
of Rishabha, Indra and the Sun, by his valor, asceticism, wealth and splendor
respectively, deserves all praise. In the beginning/ benedictions / colophons of the
manuscript-copies and commentaries of his Śatakas he has been alluded as:

1. इह खलु राजर्षिप्रवरः भर्तृहरिः …… शतकत्रयात्मकं ग्रन्थं चिकीर्षुः…

2. अथ भर्तृहरिभपू तिकृतवैराग्यशतकप्रारम्भः।
3. इति महामनु ीन्द्रभर्तृहरिकृतौ…
4. इति महाकविचक्रचडू ामणिना भर्तृहरिणा विरचितं…..
5. इति भर्तृहरियोगीन्द्रेण विरचिते…..
6. श्रीमहाराजाधिराजसामन्तचडू ामणिकविशेखरयोगीन्द्रमक ु ु टमणिराजर्षिश्रीभर्तृहरिविरचितं.……….
According to scribes of these Śatakas, in the above citations it is transparently
depicted that the poet Bhartṛhari was not an ordinary individual, rather he was a
great sage, an imperial monarch as well as a celebrated poet.
To discover the internal evidences in support of the date of Bhartṛhari, some scholars
tell that Śatakas are interspersed with vedāntic philosophy, and accordingly his date
may be decided. But, simply the reflection of the Vedāntic doctrines in the Śatakas
of Bhartṛhari, may not be a strong evidence to decide his time, as in the history,
there has been no any specific period, when a specific doctrine of philosophy has
been echoed in the contemporary literature. Similarly, some others tell that there is
the mention of Purāṇa in the Śatakas, and accordingly, the date may be decided.
This argument also could be refuted analogously. Therefore, mere manifestation
of Vedāntic doctrine or the mention of Purāṇas in a work can not substantially
evidence to fix its time.
Some scholars cite few external evidences to ascertain the date of Bhartṛhari.
Bhartṛhari has hundreds of commentators, but most of them are silent to discuss on
his date. Following verse, found in the Abhijñānaśākuntalam of Kālidāsa, has left
behind some inklings about the date of Bhartṛhari.

भवन्ति नम्रास्तरवः फलोद्गमैर ्

नवाम्बुभिर्भूमिविलम्बिनो घनाः ।

144
 A Textual Criticism of Śāradā Manuscript of the Nītiśatakam

अनद्ध
ु ताः सत्पुरुषाः समृद्धिभिः
स्वभाव एवैष परोपकारिणाम ् ॥ 1
They say that the mention of this verse in the Abhijñānaśākuntalam, clearly helps
to reach to a conclusion that Bhartṛhari must be existed prior to Kālidāsa and hence
the date of Bhartṛhari may be assumed in the 1st Century A.D.
Again, Mr. M.R. Kale, in the introduction to the seventh edition of his “Nītiśataka
and Vairāgyaśataka” published by Motilal Banarasidass in 1971, mentions that a
passage in a Persian work “kalila-u-Dimnah” that closely resemblances with a verse
from a Pañcatantra, that has been borrowed from Bhartṛhari. The verse is as under:

शशिदिवाकरयोर्ग्रहपीडनम्
गजभजु ङ्गमविहङ्गमबन्धनम् ।
मतिमतां च विलोक्य दरिद्रतां
विधिरहो बलवानिति मे मतिः ॥92॥
Further, in his discussion, he states that the Persian work named “kalila-u-Dimnah”
was written for the King of Persia in between 531 to 579 AD. And hence, the date
of Pañcatantra must be dated not before than 5th C.E. With the resemblance of
the above verse of Nītiśataka with a passage from Panchatantra, he tells that the
theme might have been borrowed from the Nītiśataka. But, in the śāradā ms of
Nītiśataka, recently discovered and transliterated by me, this verse is not available.
Śārṅgadhara also rejects this view that this verse is borrowed from Nītiśataka.
The readings of very recently discovered śāradā ms of Nītiśataka reveals that the
poet Bhartṛhari had command over Paniniya grammar. He was also versatile in
various other śāstras like āyurveda, kāvyaśāstra etc.

The Authorship
It is reflected in his works that Bhartṛhari possessed instinctive poetical faculty to
an outstanding degree. His learning and erudition have been far widely appreciated
among the scholars of the globe. It is also speculated easily that the Nītiśataka, and
the Vairāgyaśataka must have been composed after the abandonment of all kingly
power and regal splendor.

1
M. R. Kale, Abhijnanashakuntalam, 5.12, Motilal Banarasidas, Varanasi, 1969.

145
Sugyan Kumar Mahanty

It has been stated earlier that according to the popular traditions, antiquarians and
legendary lore, Bhartṛhari was the elder brother of Vikramāditya, the well-known
ruler of Ujjaini, and the founder of the Saṁvat Era. He was an exception to the
general rule that the erudition and affluence are not co-existent. He was not an
ordinary king or an insignificant chief, but a sovereign monarch, ruling over a large
part of Indian territory. A rare combination of regal splendor with an esteemed
position in literature was found in very exceptional personalities like Bhartṛhari.
His asceticism was also extraordinary. It is very surprising, but genuine that all the
conflicting attributes like, royal splendor, scholarship, power as well as asceticism
were centered in one individual.
In the synoptic chart of major versions shown by Mr D. D. Koshambi, the above
verse (भवन्ति नम्रास्तरवः फलोद्गमैर ् ) is found in almost all the available mss; numbered as
N76, N80, N81, N79, N77, N80, N78, N70, N62, N61 in both southern and northern
recension in almost all archetypes. There is no single ms where this verse is not
available in his synoptic chart as shown by Mr D. D. Koshambi.2 The position of
the verse in the text is almost close to each other. The general rule of finding the
primary text is that when a verse is found identical and in the same position in all the
recensions, then it is assumed that the verse is a literal inheritance from the original.
Similarly some verses of Bhartṛhari are found in Tantrākhyāyikā, Abhijñānaśā-
kuntalam, Mudrārākṣasa. In the colophons of a large number of mss, the three
Śatakas, are ascribed to none other than Bhartṛhari. Therefore, it could be set
down that three Śatakas are the works of single authorship. We have considerable
evidences to refute the statement in favor of the anthological character of these
three Śatakas.
There are neither sufficient literary evidences nor legendary lore to support attempted
identification of Bhartṛhari with the author of the Bhaṭṭikāvya and the Vākyapadīya.
It has been discussed above that the three Śatakas are not a mere compilation or
anthology. But the differences in the chronological orders, variations in readings and
the number of verses in the large collection of manuscripts of these three Śatakas
quite apparently establish the fact that although these three Śatakas have been
the original testimonies ascribed to the poet Bhartṛhari, but have been tampered
with unrestrained freedom by the copyists and the editors with interpolations and

2
Introduction, p. 48 synoptic chart of major versions, The Epigrams Attributed to Bhartṛhari,
Vol-23 (1948) by D D Koshambi, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Mumbai, 1948.

146
 A Textual Criticism of Śāradā Manuscript of the Nītiśatakam

alterations. The very nature of the work and the lack of common thread in the
compositions, have facilitated the unscrupulous editors and copyists to palm off
either their own or others’ verses in the primary text.
There is not even a little doubt in the convention that these three Śatakas belong to
that class of highly esteemed works in didactic literature and have been retaining
their status for the last two thousand years and due to their universally applicable
features, these three Śatakas have been translated into many foreign languages.
Abraham Roger translated these three Śatakas far back in the midst of 17th CE.
Kṣemendra of 11th Century AD quotes Bhartṛhari in his Suvṛttatilakam as:

“उपपत्रपरिच्छेदकाले शिखरिणी मता ।

औदार्यरुचिरौचित्यविचारे हरिणी वरा ॥
उपपत्रपरिच्छेदे यथा भरतृ्हरेः-
भवन्तो वेदार्थप्रणिहितधियामत्रगरु वो
विचित्रालापानां वयमपि कवीनामनुचराः ।
तथाप्येवं ब्मरू ो न हि परहितात्पुण्यमपरं
न चास्मिन् संसारे कुबलयदृशो रम्यमपरम् ॥
औदार्येणास्यैव –
विपल
ु हृदयैरन्यैः कै श्चिज्जगज्जनितं परु ा
विधृतमपरै र्दत्तं चान्यैः विजित्य तृणं यथा ।
इह हि भुवनान्यन्ये धीराश्चतुर्दश भञु ्जते
कतिपयपरु स्वाम्ये पंसु ां क एष मदज्वरः ॥3
These are the verses from Śṛṅgāraśataka, 56,57. These references sufficiently
approve the argument in favor of the authorship of these śatakas attributed to
Bhartṛhari only.

The Editions of the Nītiśataka

The New Catalogus Catalogorum, Volume-X, Edited by K. Kunjunni Raja,
University of Madras, 1978 mentions about following Printed Editions: 1.

3
Suvṛttatilakam, 3, Manuscript Collection of Bhau Daji Memorial.

147
Sugyan Kumar Mahanty

Nītiśataka with English Translation Vavilla Press, Madras, 1957; 2. With Metrical
Tamil Translation and English, Tanjore, Saraswati Mahal Library, Series 115, 1967;
3. Śatakatrayādisubhāṣitasaṅraha, Singhi Jain Ser. 23, 1967; 4. Metrical English
Translation by C. H. Tawney, India, Ant. V. 1876; 5. English Translation by N. C.
S. Narasimhasuri, Madras 1924. Apart from these printed editions there is mention
of several commentaries by Dhanasāra & Maheśvara.
The New Catalogus Catalogorum, Volume-XVI, Edited by Dr. Siniruddha
Dash, University of Madras, 2007, mentions about following Printed Editions
of Bhartṛharitriśatī: 1. Serampore Press, 1804; 2. Edited with metrical Hindi
Translation, Omkar Press Allahabad, 1906; With Hindi and English Translation,
Venkateshwar Press, Bombay, 1914, 4. Hindi Translation, Omkar Press Allahabad,
1926; 5. Singhi Jain Ser. 23, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Bombay, 1948; 6. With
Telugu Translation, Madras, 1949; 7. Sanskrit Sansthan, Bareily, 1974; With
English and Hindi Translation, nag Publishers, Delhi, 1989. Apart from these printed
editions there is mention of several commentaries, by name, Avacūrī, Ṭippaṇī;
Bālāvavodha, & Sarvārthasiddhamaṇimālā, commentary by Dhanasāra pāṭhaka,
commentary by Kavīndrācārya, commentary by Pratāpasiṃha, commentary by
Maheśvara, commentary by Rāmacandra, commentary by Rāmarṣi, commentary
by Śrīnāthavyāsa, commentary by Harilāla etc.
Apart from above mentioned editions, few prominent editions of The Nītiśataka
are:
1. B
 hartriharis sententiae et carmen quod Chauri nomine circumfertur eroticum,
Sanskrit text with introduction, translation and notes in Latin, by Peter von
Bohlen (1833)
2. Die Sprüche des Bhartriharis, by Peter von Bohlen August Campe, German
verse translation of all three śatakas, based on Bohlen’s edition, 1835.
 ītiśataka and Vairāgyaśataka, Ed. Kashinath Trimbak Telang, Govt. Central
3. N
Book Depot, Bombay, 1874
4. Two centuries of Bhartrihari, (Rhyming translation of the Nīti and Vairāgya
Śatakas) by Charles Henry Tawney, Thacker, Spink and Co. 1877.
 es stances érotiques, morales et religieuses de Bhartrihari, French prose
5. L
translation of all three śatakas, Paul Regnaud, E. Leroux, Les classiques de
l’Inde ancienne, 1875

148
 A Textual Criticism of Śāradā Manuscript of the Nītiśatakam

6. Ś atakas of Bhartṛhari Translated by B. Hale Wortham, ISBN 0-415-24510-

9 Pub. Trubner and Co, London, 1886.
7. Ś atakatrayam, Edited With Sanskrit commentary by Kr̥ṣṇa Śāstrī
Mahabala, Nirnaya Sagara Press (1888)
8. Nīti-Sṛṅgāra-Vairāgyaśatakatrayam, saṃpādaka – Bhāgīrathātmaja
Hariprasāda, Nirṇayasāgarapresa- 1890
9. The Nîtiśataka Śringâraśataka and Vairâgyaśataka, Hindi and English
translation Khemraj Shrikrishnadass, Bombay, 1896
 he Nîtiśataka and Vairâgyaśataka, Moreshvar Ramchandra Kāle; M. B.
10. T
Gurjar, Gopal Narayan and Co. Bombay, (1898)
 century of Indian epigrams: chiefly from the Sanskrit of Bhartrihari (Rhyming
11. A
translation of 100 verses) by Paul Elmer Mor, Houghton Mifflin, mostly
from Bhartṛhari. 1898.
 iti and Vairagya Shatakas with notes, translation, a critical introduction
12. N
by Joglekar, K.M., Joshi, B.R. Pub. Ramchandra Govind, 1900
 hartṛhari’s Nīti & Vairagya Śataka - Ed by K M Joglekar, Oriental
13. B
Publishing Company-Bombay, 1911
 he Satakas; or, Wise sayings of Bhartrihari, (Prose translation of all three
14. T
śatakas, by J M Kennedy, London, 1913.
 īti-Sṛṅgāra-Vairāgyaśatakatrayam, Khemaraj Shrikrishna Das, Venka-
15. N
teshwar Press, Mumbai, 1906
16. Nītiśataka, Bhāratīya Śruti Darśana Kendra, Mathura, 1920
 hartṛhariśatakatrayam - Mr. Ganga Vishnu, Laxmi Venkateshwar Press,
17. B
Kalyan, Mumbai, 1924
 he Century of Life, (Verse translation of the Nīti Śataka) by Sri Aurobindo,
18. T
1924.
 ītiśatakam, sampādaka – Tāriṇīśa Jhā, Rāmanārāyaṇa Vijayakumāra,
19. N
Kaṭarā Road, Allahabad, 1926
 hartṛhariśatak, Ramji Sharma ‘Madhuvani’ Shyamlal Varma Arya Book
20. B
Seller, Baraili, 1926.

149
Sugyan Kumar Mahanty

21. The Epigrams Attributed to Bhartṛhari, Vol-23 (1948) by D D Koshambi,

Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Mumbai, 1948
22. N
 ītiśatakam, Mahābalopāhvakṛṣṇaśāstrikṛta-arthadyotanikāvyākhyopetam,
saṃpādaka – Nirṇaya Sāgara Press, 1949
23. Nītiśatak - Ed. Babu Haridas Vaidya, pub. haridas and Company, 1949.
 hartrihari: Poems, by Barbara Stoler Miller, Columbia University Press,
24. B
ISBN 978-0-231-02999-5, 1967.
25. B
 hartṛhariśatakatrayam, Gopinath Purohit and N S Singh, ISBN 10:
8170811945 / ISBN 13: 9788170811947, Pub. Nag Publishers, 1989.
 hartṛhariśatakatrayam, Dr. Dadan Upadhyay, Chaukhamba Surbharti
26. B
Prakashan, Varanasi, 2013.
 hartṛhariśatakatrayam, Tr. By Kiran Singh, New Bharatiya Book
27. B
Corporation, ISBN:9788183152693, 8183152694, 2015.
28. T
 hree Hundred Verses: Musings on Life, Love and Renunciation, by A N D
Haksar, Penguin ISBN 978-0670090068, 2017.
Mr. D.D. Koshambi mentions that the earliest Indian printed edition was in Telugu
script, brought out in 1848 followed by a lithographed edition published at Benaras
in 1960.4
We have mentioned earlier that Abraham Roger was the oldest known among the
Europeans who translated these three Śatakas far back in the midst of 17th CE.
Followed by another European printed edition of Bhartṛhariśatakatrayam including
Nītiśatakam was that published by Serampore Press in 1803-04 with Hitopadeśa
by William Carey.5 The New Catalogus Catalogorum, Volume-XVI, Edited by Dr.
Siniruddha Dash, University of Madras, 2007, also confirms this printed edition of
Serampore brought out in 1804.

Manuscripts of the Nītiśatakam

There are about 100 mss of the Bhartṛhariśatakatrayam including Nītiśatakam
mentioned in The New Catalogus Catalogorum, Volume-X and XVI. Mr.

4
Editor’s preface, p.6, The Epigrams Attributed To Bhartṛhari, Vol-23 (1948) by D D Koshambi,
Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Mumbai, 1948
5
Ibid, p.4

150
 A Textual Criticism of Śāradā Manuscript of the Nītiśatakam

D.D. Mr. D.D. Koshambi says that there would be not less than 3000 mss of
Bhartṛhariśatakatrayam, most of which are hidden away in private collections.6
Koshambi, in his The Epigrams Attributed to Bhartṛhari, mentions that he has
procurred as many as 377 manuscripts of Bhartṛhariśatakatrayam in various
forms, i.e. original, photostat, michrofilm, direct copy and in pratīka index.7 He has
collected these mss from various sources, like, Library of Theosophical Society,
Adyar, Madras (22 palm leaf mss in Granta and Telugu scripts), Anandashrama
Foundation, Poona (14 mss), Andhra sahitya Parishad, Coconada (22 palm leaf mss
in Telugu), The gaekwad’s Oriental Institute, Baroda (12 mss), The Royal Asiatic
Society, Bombay (3 mss from Bhau Daji Collection), Govt. Oriental College,
Benares (10 mss), Anup Sanskrit Library, Bikaner (14 mss), British Museum (3
mss), Bhandarkar Oriental Institute, Poona (25+ mss), Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan,
Bombay (12 mss), Gujrat Vernacular Society, Ahmedabad (5 mss), Muniraja
Shri Hansha Vijayaji Jain Bhandar, Baroda (6 mss), Widener Library of Harvard
University, USA (14 microfilmed mss), Bharata Itihasa Samshodhaka Mandala,
Poona (2 mss), Archeological Dept. Jodhpur, Rajasthan ( 5+ mss), Jnanamandir,
Jain Bhandar, Kathiawar (8 mss), Dept. of Oriental Studies, University of Madras
(4 mss in Devanagari and Grantham scripts), Govt. Oriental Library, Mysore (4
palm leaf mss), Nagpur University (4 mss), Department of Public Instruction,
Kathmandu, Nepal (2 mss), Nirnaya Sagar Press, Bombay (2 mss), Bibliothique
Nationale, Paris ( 1 microfilm copy of ms of Grantham palm leaf codex), University
of Pennsylvania Collection (5 mss), University of Punjab Library, Lahore (8 mss),
Sanskrit Pathashala, Rajapur, Ratnagiri (5 mss), Royal Asiatic Society, Bengal,
Calcutta (12 mss), Library of Shringeri Math, Shringeri, Karnatak (2 mss), Saraswati
Mahal Library, Tanjore (37 mss), Saraswati Mandir, Udaipur (7 mss), Scindia
Oriental Institute, Ujjain (19 mss), (22 palm leaf mss in Granta and Telugu scripts),
Vangiya Sahitya Parishad, Calcutta (3 mss), Prajna Pathashala, Wai (3 mss).8
Mr. D.D. Koshambi, in his The Epigrams Attributed to Bhartṛhari, has collated
852 verses from the different recensions of Nītiśataka, Sṛṅgāraśataka and
Vairāgyaśataka. But, the common verses in the accessible mss of śatakatrayam, he
has discovered, fall below 300.

6
Editor’s preface, p.10, The Epigrams Attributed To Bhartṛhari, Vol-23 (1948) by D D Koshambi,
Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Mumbai, 1948
7
Ibid p. 2
8
Introduction, pp. 13-17, The Epigrams Attributed To Bhartṛhari, Vol-23 (1948) by D D Koshambi,
Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Mumbai, 1948

151
Sugyan Kumar Mahanty

Farther, he mentions that no ms had been found in Kāśmīrī Śāradā out of 377
accessible mss, from those Mr. D.D. Koshambi had procured.9

Kāśmīrī Śāradā Manuscript of the Nītiśatakam:

In my recent research I have procured a Kāśmīrī Śāradā Manuscript of The
Nītiśataka, from Oriental Research Library, university campus, Hazaratbal, Srinagar,
Kashmir having acc no. 1006-I, manuscript ID DSO 0000110071 with size 16ⅹ10
cms of 15 folios on paper (including another ms), in which there are 86 verses with
a colophon as “इति भर्तृहरिकृतं नीतिशतकं सम्पूर्णम्”. Following verse is mentioned in the
beginning of the ms as the benediction (maṅgalācaraṇ):

ॐ ब्रह्मा येन कुलालवन्नियमितो ब्रह्माण्डभाण्डोदरे

विष्णुर्येन दशावतारगहने क्षिप्तो महासङ्कटे ।
रुद्रो येन कपालपाणिरनिश भिक्षा
ं टनं कारित-
स्सूर्यो भ्राम्यति यद्वशेन गगने तस्मै नमः कर्मणे ॥ १॥
The order of the verses in the ms is not the same as found in popular editions of
Nītiśatakam. The ms looks like a copy of any other ms in Kāśmīrī Śāradā, as there
are some scribal errata in the ms. The ms is procured by me from a digital source
and transcribed by myself in to Devanāgarī. Following scribal errors are found in
the ms:
1. In the verse number 3 - क्षुत्क्षामोऽपि जराकृ शोऽपि … किं जीर्णं तृणमत्ति मानमहतामग्रेसरः
के सरी ॥ ३ ॥ “मान मान repeated in मानमहतामग्रेसरः ”.
2. In the verse number 14 या साधन्ू प्रखलान् करोति .....प्रत्यक्षं कुरुते...... ॥१४ ॥ “रु is omitted
in कुरुते ”.
3. In the verse number 19 सुवृत्तस्यैकरूपस्य परप्रीत्यै धृतोन्नतेः । साधोः स्तनयगु स्येव पतनं कस्य
तुष्टये ॥ १९ ॥ “सुवृत्तस्यैकरूपस्य परप्रीत्यै धृतोन्नतेः” this line is repeated”.
4. In the verse number 25 खल्वाटो दिवसेश्वरस्य किरणैः.... दैवहतकस्तत्रैव यान्त्यापदः ॥ २५॥
(बिल्लस्य is written in stead of बिल्वस्य”.
5. In the verse number 29 एके सत्पुरुषाः परार्थनिरताः... ॥ २९ ॥ “3rd and 4th quarters are
interchanged as ये तु घ्नन्ति निरर्थकं परहितं ते के न जानीमहे, ते मे मानुषराक्षसाः परहितं निघ्नन्ति
ये ॥”.

9
Ibid, p.57.

152
 A Textual Criticism of Śāradā Manuscript of the Nītiśatakam

6. In the verse number 38 मज्जत्वम्भसि यातु मेरुशिखरं ..... “कृशिसेवनादि is written in place
of कृषिसेवनादि , and “सर्वाः कलाः” is ommited in शिक्षन्तु सर्वाः कलाः ।”.
7. In the verse number 39 वरं प्राणच्छेदस्समदमघवन्मुक्तकुलिश .... “म omitted in स्समद ”.
8. In the verse number 40 नेता यत्र बृहस्पतिः प्रहरणं ... “स्वर्गं – is written in ms in place of
स्वर्गो ”.
9. In the verse number 47 सन्त्यन्येऽपि बृहस्पतिप्रभृतयः सम्भाविताः पञ्चषा …… “पञ्चश is
written in place of पञ्चषा and it could be assumed that this copy is scribed on
ditection”.
10. In the verse number 57 आरम्भगुर्वी क्षयिणी क्रमेण लघ्वी परु ा वृद्धिमती च पश्चात।् ..... “परा is
written in the place of परु ा ”.
11. In the verse number 65 वरं शृङ्गात्ङ तु ् गाद्गुरुशिखरिणःक्वापि विषमे ….. वरं न्यस्तो हस्तः
फणिपतिमख े ीक्ष्णदशने .... “फणिपतिमखे is scribed in place of फणिपतिमख
ु त ु े ”.
12. In the verse number 67 यदचेतनोऽपि पादैः स्पृष्टः .... “ल omitted in प्रज्वलति ”.
13. In the verse number 69 व्यालं बालमृणालतन्तुभिरसौ रोद्धुं समजु ्जृम्भते .... “क्षाराम्बुधीरे हते - is
seen in ms in place of क्षाराम्बुधरे ीहते ”.
14. In the verse number 70 स्वायत्तमेकान्तहितं विधात्रा .. “सर्वविदां समारे is seen in the ms in
place of सर्वविदां समाजे ”.
15. In the verse number 72 विद्या नाम नरस्य रूपमधिकं .... “विद्या बन्धुजने is written in stead
of विद्या बन्धुजनो and राजसु पजित ू े is written in the place of राजसु पजित ू ा ”.
16. In the verse number 73 दाक्षिण्यं स्वजने .... “ये चवै ं परुु षः (singular number) is wrongly
written in place of ये चवै ं परुु षाः (plural number)”.
17. In the verse number 78 लज्जागुणौघजननीं.... “शद्ध ु हृदयामनुवर्तमानः (singular number) is
scribed in place of शद्ध ु हृदयामनुवर्तमानाः (plural number)”.
18. In the verse number 79 किं कूर्मस्य भरव्यथा न वपुषि ...... “क्ष्मा (nominative case
न क्षिपत्येष is written in the place of क्ष्मां (accusative case) न क्षिपत्येष ”.
19. In the verse number 80 सिहं ः शिशरु पि निपतति..... “प्रकृतिरियं सत्यवत्तां न खल यवस्तेजसो हेतुः
is scribed in place of प्रकृतिरियं सत्त्ववतां न खलु यवस्तेजसो हेतुः”.
20. In the verse number 81 दरू ादर्थं घटयति परं … “द omitted in दरू ादर्थं and त्यक्तं भयू ो in
place of त्यक्त्वा भयू ो ”.
21. In the verse number 81 दरू ादर्थं घटयति परं….. “द omitted from दरू ादर्थं ”, त्यक्तं
भयू ो भवति निरतः सत्सु भापादनेषु is scribed in place of त्यक्त्वा भयू ो भवति निरतः सत्सभारञ्जनेषु ”
and “खेदभारे ण सन्तिः is seen in ms in place of खेदभारै रमुक्तः ”.

153
Sugyan Kumar Mahanty

22. In the verse number 84 अभिमख ु ं पतितस्य रणे शरू स्य जयोऽथवा स्वर्गः .. “शशू रू स्य – शू
repeated in place of शरू स्य”.
23. In the verse number 86 यत्रोदकं तत्र चरन्ति हस
ं ाः ...” न is missing in हसं तुल्येन ”.
Textual criticism of Kāśmīrī Śāradā ms of Nītiśatakam
Textual criticism is the technique of restoring texts as nearly as possible to their
original form. Texts in this connection are defined as writings other than formal
documents, inscribed or printed on paper, parchment, papyrus, or similar materials.
Textual criticism, properly speaking, is an ancillary academic discipline designed to
lay the foundations for the higher criticism, which deals with questions of authenticity
and attribution, of interpretation, and of literary and historical evaluation.
Texts have been transmitted in an almost limitless variety of ways, and the criteria
employed by the textual critic—technical, philological, literary, or aesthetic—are
valid only if applied in awareness of the particular set of historical circumstances
governing each case. Transmitted texts have been mutilated and defaced by the
laxity or ignorance of scribes. The technique of Textual criticism helps to get
behind this corruption in the endeavour to recover the autograph, i.e. the text as
originally written by the author. It is clear, therefore, that before the textual critic
approaches the work of Recension (i. e. the critical examination of all the documents
in which a text is preserved) and Emendation (i.e. the attempt to restore the corrupt
passages which remain in a text after the work of recension is complete) he is bound
to consider the history of the text upon which he is working. He must diagnose the
disease, or else he may be attempting to correct errors which are of such ancient
standing as to be incurable by modern methods, or he may be questioning a text
which can be traced back to the original author. In the process of emendation, the
text is restored with more or less probability. It is a crucial task that how to estimate
the degree of probability that an emendation possesses, and how to decide between
rival suggestions. There are two ways by invoking (i) Transcriptional Probability
and (2) Intrinsic Probability, the primary text is decided among variant readings of
apparently equal authority. The emendation must be intrinsically probable, i. e. it
must be something that the author is likely to have written. It must suit the context,
the author’s style and vocabulary, and any general laws which have been proved to
apply to his work.
In spite of these scribal errors this Kāśmīrī Śāradā ms of Nītiśatakam appears to be
very close to the primary text of Bhartṛhari’s Nītiśatakam. Bhartṛhari himself was a
profound scholar of Sanskrit. The closeness to the primary text of this ms is apparent

154
 A Textual Criticism of Śāradā Manuscript of the Nītiśatakam

in his multifaceted erudition, reflected in this copy of the ms of Nītiśatakam. The

interpolations, prejudiced alterations and transcriptional probabilities have made
so many variations in the copies of mss of Nītiśatakam. In my appendix “Notes
on variant readings in the Śāradā manuscript” I have critically examined how this
Śāradā reading is closer to the primary text. I want to cite some examples here
under:
1. In the verse number 7

“स्वायत्तमेकान्तगुणं विधात्रा विनिर्मितं छादानमज्ञतायाः ।

विशेषतः सर्वविदां समाजे विभषण ू ं मौनमपण्डितानाम् ॥7॥”
Here the reference of maunam, meaning silence, is as an advantage to a fool, but
never as a simply trait. Therefore, the reading “स्वायत्तमेकान्तहितम् ” found in Śāradā
ms appears to be primary one.
2. In the verse number 9

कृमिकुलचितं लालाक्लिन्नं विगन्धि जगु ुप्सितं

निरुपमरसं प्रीत्या खादन्नरास्थि निरामिषम् ।
सरु पतिमपि श्वा पार्श्वस्थं विलोक्य न शङ्कते
न हि गणयति क्षुद्रो जन्तुः परिग्रहफल्गुताम् ॥9॥
Here कृमि means a insect in general but क्रिमि means desease spreading worm,
and hence to imply disgust the word क्रिमि must have been applied by the author
instead of कृमि . Similarly, to suggests hatred शितं meaning emaciated or declined
is the appropriate word than चितं meaning accumulated together. The compounded
word ‘निरुपमरसप्रीत्या ’ implies the incomparableness of the taste. But if the words are
used separately like ‘निरुपमरसं प्रीत्या ’ then the incomparableness of the taste is not
suggested.
3. In the verse number 14

वरं पर्वतदुर्गेषु भ्रान्तं वनचरै ः सह ।

न मर्ख
ू जनसम्पर्कः सरु े न्द्रभवनेष्वपि ॥14॥
The Śāradā reading in place of “न मर्खू जनसम्पर्कः” is “न मर्ख
ू जनसंसर्गः ”. Meaning of सम्पर्कः
is coming in contact and that of संसर्गः is “emiting / sheding / effusing / pouring fourth
one’s attitude on another”. By the way of contact, the attitude is not transmitted in to

155
Sugyan Kumar Mahanty

another, but by emiting it happens so. Therefore, the Śāradā reading “न मर्ख
ू जनसंसर्गः ”
appers to be the primary text.
4. In the verse number 15

अम्भोजिनीवननिवासविलासमेव,
हसं स्य हन्ति नितरां कुपितो विधाता ।
न त्वस्य दुग्धजलभेदविधौ प्रसिद्धां,
वैदग्ध्यकीर्तिमपहर्तुमसौ समर्थः ॥ 15
Here the Śāradā reading is “अम्भोजिनीवननिवासविलासशस्यम् ” is found in place of “
अम्भोजिनीवननिवासविलासमेव ”. “अम्भोजिनीवननिवासविलासशस्यम् ” is the adjective of the swan,
that implies destroying swan’s most desirable luxury of residing in beds of lotuses.
This reading efficiently suggests about the ability of Bramhā is limited in just
destruction of swan’s most desire only, but not the later’s skill.
5. In the verse number 29

क्षुत्क्षामोऽपि जराकृ शोऽपि शिथिलप्राणोऽपि कष्टां दशाम्

आपन्नोऽपि विपन्नदीधितिरपि प्राणेषु गच्छत्स्वपि ।
मत्तेभन्े द्रविभिन्नकुम्भपिशितग्रासैकबद्धस्पृहः
किं जीर्णं तृणमत्ति मानमहतामग्रेसरः के सरी ॥29॥
Here the Śāradā reading is “विपन्नधीधृतिरपि” is found in place of “विपन्नदीधितिरपि ”.
Splendour or brightness has nothing to do with its diet. But one who has lost his
predisposion and perseverance can take a wrong diet. But in case of a dignified
personality like a lion inspite of loosing his splendour or brightness can never eat
grass. Therefore, in this perspective the reading “विपन्नधीधृतिरपि ” is appropriate. Again
here the Śāradā reading is “उन्मत्तेभविभिन्नकुम्भकवलग्रासैकबद्धस्पृहः ” is found in place of “
मत्तेभन्े द्रविभिन्नकुम्भपिशितग्रासैकबद्धस्पृहः ”. As flesh in the temples is not recognised in the
poetry, so “उन्मत्तेभविभिन्नकुम्भकवलग्रासैकबद्धस्पृहः ” is acceptable reading here.

Conclusion
The poet Bhartṛhari is not an ordinary scholar. He is a versatile and erudite scholar
not only of poetics, but also of Grammar, Philosophy, Āurveda and so on. Without
applying intrinsic probability, the amendments, made in the text of Nītiśatakam
by transcriptional probability, have brought serious corruption in the text and
repelled it far from the primary text. Other causes of the variations in the reading

156
 A Textual Criticism of Śāradā Manuscript of the Nītiśatakam

are prejudiced alterations and interpolations. The interpolators have successfully

handled this text to manipulate hysterically as well as intensely, as there is not a
guiding thread in the story unlike that of Pañcatantra or Mahābhārata, to prevent
any manipulation.
Although there are only 86 stanzas in this Śāradā manuscript, still it appears close
to the primary text. As we have discussed earlier that Mr. D.D. Koshambi, in his
“The Epigrams Attributed to Bhartṛhari”, has collated 852 verses from the different
recensions of Nītiśataka, Sṛṅgāraśataka and Vairāgyaśataka. But, the common
verses in the accessible mss of śatakatrayam, he has discovered, fall below 300.
This finding of Mr. D.D. Koshambi upholds that these 86 stanzas as appear in the
Śāradā manuscript of Nītiśataka, originally authored by Bhartṛhari.

157