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 them
1
Syacrya
A colophon at the end of a little known Sanskrit medieval commentary on a
short text forming one of the three minor Smaveda Brhmanas and counting as
part of the Vedic canon brings with it a rather enigmatic formulation: its author
boasts himself to be an expert (kuala) in fourteen branches of knowledge
(vidy)
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-rahitnm anavabodho na mantr doam vahati| ata evtra lokanyyam
udharanti| naia sthnor apardho yad evam andho na payati purupardha sa bhavati.
2
sakala-vedrtha-prakaka-svata-siddhi-caturdaa-vidy-kuala-rvaa-bhaa-dvi-
jarjabhaa-rvivtmaja-viracita chndogyasahitopaniad-bhya sampta | (Deva-
tdhyya-Sahitopaniad Vaa-Brhmaas, ed. B. Ramachandra Sharma, SHARMA 1983:
144).
142
Cezary Galewicz
just a reference to a traditionally recognized set of so called strongholds of
knowledge (vidy-sthnas) as we know it from a traditional normative text of
Yjavalkyasmti
3
, 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 Veda
4
. But is it
a matter of coincidence that a very similar formula concerning fourteen vidy-
sthnas is given stark prominence in defining the equipment of a true knower
of the Veda (vedrtha-abhija/vedavid) in a work of another commentator and a
man of letters known to Indian intellectual history as Syacrya?
The said colophon, as well as the introductory verses, give as the author of the
little work the name of Dvijarja Bhaa, son of Viubhaa. We dont 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 editors guess is right he must have
written his work a few decades after Syaas death
6
. 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 its authors 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 authors 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
puranyyammsdharmastrgamirit| ved sthnni vidyn dharmasya ca
caturdaa| Yj Smr, 1.3.
4
The number of vidy-sthnas is made here of the following set pura (1)+ nyya (1) +
mms (2) + dharmastra (1)+ aga (6) + ved (3) =14 where three of the four Vedas
constitute the final element f the sequence. The Mms apparently counted as two entities,
otherwise the sum would be 13 only. This is parallel to preamble saying about two Mmmss
commented first before the Veda project. This meaning of the Mms as made of two sys-
tems is here supported by the quotation from Yjavalkyasmti. It was however not always
counted as such a Visiadvaitin (Sudaranasri) acting as a Siddhntin in Appayadkitas
treatise on caturmata points out that in traditional lists of 14 vidysthnas the Mms 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), Syaa 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 Syaas 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 vidysthnas. 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 Syaa alone, and necessarily tantamount to the right of
composing a commentary on the Veda, is another story.
In my opinion the passages in Syaa referring to the idea of vidysthnas
concern and serve also a more general aim: a meticulously designed project to
establish ones 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 narrator
7
. And the work of Syaa
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 Syaas 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 Syaa`s gvedasahit-bhya-
bhmik
8
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 Syaas 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 Im using this name or its short form, i.e. Bhmik, when refer-
ring to the Introduction to Syaas gvedabhya. Some manuscripts and editions use
other names with a general sense of introduction like: -Upodghta, -Upakramaik.
144
Cezary Galewicz
Syaa and political power and religious authority as well as its exploitation in
later Indian historiography.
The work and life of Syaa 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 ones 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 Syaa has been used today to boost historical
narratives constructed in the search for strengthening regional identities
9
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
Fourteen strongholds of knowledge: On scholary Commentaries, Authority and Power...
It is true that the legend of Syaa 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 campaigns
11
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 Bhmani, 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 rjas 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
Syaa`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 Syaas 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 dont have that
many sources which might be termed historical, though Nunizs and Paezs
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 Kaaa 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
Fourteen strongholds of knowledge: On scholary Commentaries, Authority and Power...
with, of course, colophons containing often precious factual information
concerning authors, scribes, patrons, circumstances and intentions.
The numerous works ascribed to Syaa 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 1565
12
. 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 Syaa-Mdhava
13
and today we can still find not only in the stacks
areas of esteemed libraries, but even in contemporary bookstores, re-editions of
Sarvadaranasagraha, 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
Syaas writings.
The shadow of his influential and knowledgeable brother
14
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 Syaa 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
mdhavya, formed from the name of his brother Mdhava which probably
referred not so much to the idea of dedication, as to that of continuing/developing
his brothers ideas in order to legitimate Syaas own. This is the case not only
with the work commonly known by the name of Mdhavyadhtuvtti a vast
grammatical treatise on the traditional list of Sanskrit verbal roots for derivation.
This is also the case of the commentary on the gvedasahit, referred to by the
12
According to a legend , the manuscripts with complete works of Syaa were buried
under the ruins of Vijayanagara and still await unearthing. See MLLER 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 Sarvadaranasagraha, or a Collection of All Philoso-
phical Systems, which evoke this double-headed ghost as its author. Some scholars believe
a son of Syaa to be the author of the same, others claim to have solved the enigma of the
authorship, ascribing it to Cennu Bhaa, a younger contemporary of Syaa nad Mdhava
and son of Sarvajaviu who was also a teacher to both Syaa and Mdhava. See KUNJUNNI
RAJA 1999: V.
14
For a critical evaluation of extant data concerning historical identity of Mdhava see
KULKE 1985.
148
Cezary Galewicz
name of Mdhavya-vedrtha-praka or A light on the message of the Veda in
line with Mdhavas point of view
15
.
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 ofered once by Oertel, is
another reading which shows that Syaa 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 text
16
. 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
Syaas 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, Syaa wrote first Subhita-sudhnidhi (A
Treasure of the Nectar of Proverbs), an anthology of verses from kvya and stra literature
arranged under four topics which represented goals of man that of dharma, artha, kma and
moka a sort of encyclopedic glossary of mainstream Hindu culture of the time. Then came
a learned treatise on poetics and rhetoric, the Alakra-sudhnidhi praised for its valours
by such an authority as Appaya Dkita himself. The quotation basis of the work rests on the
treatise of his younger brother, Bhogantha, a well known alakra scholar of the times.
Its peculiarity is that the younger Bhogantha indulges in flattery, describing the intellectual
and moral values of his older brother Syaa which is in the verses exemplifying rhetorical
figures; he praises Syaa 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,
Syaa 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 AlBi-
runi about Ugrabhti, the teacher of king Anangapla (XI c.) who happened to write a book
on grammar called iya-hit-vtti 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
Fourteen strongholds of knowledge: On scholary Commentaries, Authority and Power...
Kulke,
17
that the success of Syaas 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 Syaa 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 sahits, namely the corpus of the
gveda the oldest of the collections of texts making up the Vedic canon. In fact
the commentary by Syaa was neither the first one, nor the last to come
18
. 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
gveda hymns and the text of the commentary did not cease to exert their
powerful authority half a millennium later when F. Max Mller, while working
on the first printed edition of the Rgveda, could not help but publish it along with
that very commentary by Syaa. In the latter case the author of the commentary
has been given a traditional title of crya 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 Syaas
success has been noted before, but the interest thereto has always been rather
partial and not focused on Syaas texts. According to Kulke, Syaas name
comes only as one of the group of four extraordinary figures behind the plot.
In Kulkes words Vidytrtha, Bhrattrtha, Vidyraya and Syaa formed a
most fascinating group of religious reformers and creators of a new religious
institution
19
. The term new religious institution is used by Kulke as referring
to geri maha a monastery and a new centre of the so called akara tradition
making new Hindu orthodoxy which succeeded in the late XIV century to claim
pan-Indian religious influence.
The career of geri and its akarcryas 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 geri
maha. The fourth one, namely Syaa, drew abundantly but subtly from his
association with the other three and most notably with one of the group his
brother Mdhava, who later on changed his name to Vidyraya, 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 (gad) of geri
20
. By the
time Syaa 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 Syaa 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, etc
22
. Introductory stanzas to one of them, known by
the name of Pururtha-sudhnidhi, contain a story about his brother Mdhava
convincing king Bukka to give ear to Syaas work.
23
And those marks of
versatile erudition on his part left undeniable traces in the work under study
here. The Rgvedabhya-Bhmik
24
or an Introduction to the Commentary on
the Rgveda has been conceived as part and parcel of the Bhya to the gveda
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 (vedrthapraka)
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 akarcrya 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 samnysin 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 geri maha, mostly during the rainy season. See SAWAI 1992.
21
The following list does not include all works attributed to Mdhava-Vidyraya: Purasra,
Pararamdhava, Jaiminya-nyyaml-vistara, (and as Vidyraya:) Anubtipraka,
Pacada, Jvanmukti-viveka, akara-digvijaya, Vivaraa-prameya-sagraha, Adhikara-
a-ratnaml = Vaiysika-nyya-ml (attrib to both Bhrattrtha & Vidyraya), Dk-dya-
viveka (attributed to both Bhrattrtha & Vidyraya).
22
Among those were: Subhitasuddhnidhi (an anthology of verses from kvyas &
stras arranged under 4 heads: dharma, artha, kma and moka), Alakra-sudhnidhi
(unprinted. manuscript in the Oriental Institute Mysore), Ayurveda-sudhnidhi, (Mdhavya)
Dhtuvtti, Yajatantra-sudhnidhi, Prayacitta-sudhnidhi (=Karmavipka), Karma-vipka-
pryacitta-sudh-nidhi (Dridraya-roga-pratikriy see col. Cat. Cat.: 67).
23
Pururtha-sudhnidhi 8-11. See MODAK 1995: 12.
24
Referred to also by the names of upodghta or upakramika.
25
See VBHBHS 1958: 11. Similar declaration is repeated in all versed preambles to the Vedic
commentaries attributed to Syaa.
151
Fourteen strongholds of knowledge: On scholary Commentaries, Authority and Power...
To begin with a reflection on the use of strategies for textual authority in
Syaa it is essential to remind ourselves that the texts commented on by him
constituted primarily what went by the name of ruti, or revealed tradition that
could be listened to and heard
26
; 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 colophons
27
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-praka
(shedding light on the meaning and purpose of the Veda) or Veda-vykhyna
(explanation of, or commentary on the Veda). It is also in the work under
examination here, the gvedasahit-bhya-bhmik, that the Veda as a whole
is stated as a formal object of his work taken as a traditionally acknowledged
genre of vykhyna a scholarly commentary (vykhynasya vykhyeyo vedo
viaya
28
). This is done while discussing the nature of a scholarly commentary as
constituted by four components, or topical tetrad
29
, and proving ones 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 Syaa 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 Syaa.
Thus it is possible for Syaa 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 ruti see a recent study in POLLOCK 2005.
27
On the inner architecture of Syaa`s commentary see G 2005: 335.
28
MLLER p. 17: 36.
29
Im using Ch. Minkowskis rendering of the term anubandhacatuaya [MINKOWSKI 2005:
240], who adds ibidem fn 49 that such a statement was standard for later Vedntic 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
svataprmanya 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 text
30
. 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 Yajurveda
31
.
Now, what has all of that to do with the fourteen strongholds of knowledge?
At a certain moment in his Introduction, Syaa gives a formal definition of
a scholarly commentary and its subject. The definition follows a traditional
exposition of four constitutive elements (anubandha-catuaya): viaya (subject),
prayojana (application), sabandha (the relation linking the commentary and
its subject) and adhikar (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, Syaa 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 Rgvedasahit-bhasya-bhmik
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 (Prva) Mms and
Vednta, Syaa 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 (vedrtha-
rahasya) from the one who can boast of a good capacity of memory recitation
skills only (pha-mtra). Taking a quotation from the ruti text of RS 10.71
30
yath ghaapadidravy svaprakatvbhve `pi sryacandrdn svaprakatvam
avirodha tath manuydn svaskandhrohsabhave py akuhitaakter vedasyetarava
stupratipdakatvavat svapratipdakatvam apy astu. (VBHBHS 1958:15).
31
See MLLER: 1, 27.
153
Fourteen strongholds of knowledge: On scholary Commentaries, Authority and Power...
a favorite passage of his it seems Syaa 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 vidysthnas a meaning entirely
absent in the Vedic passage in question. What is more, such a meaning is absent
also from Yskas Nirukta, a very important source of authority for Syaa. It
is his commentary on the Vedic passage in question that Syaa 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 Yskas
nirvacana, or a method of etymological explanation
32
which, by the way, proves
to be one of the fourteen vidysthnas. According to Syaas (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:
tathya caturdaavidysthnaparilanopeta puruo vedrtha-
rahasya samyak payati
33
| vedokta ca dharmabrahmarprtha
hitabuddhy svkaroti|
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 Syaas 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: svdhyyo `dhyetavya (the private recitation [of ones Veda] should be
practiced [as duty])
34
. It is understood by Syaa as a duty of private training
and appropriation of ones 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 Syaa a matter of an altogether different injunction.
The source for this one is no longer ruti but the tradition of Smrti, identified by
Syaa as Yjavalkyasmiti. And this is is where the expertise in 14 vidysthnas
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 ones own
Veda), one needs to make oneself expert in so called fourteen strongholds of
knowledge :
veda vidvn arthbhija purua| sa ca dvividha arvcnakle
samutpannacaturdaavidysthnakuala purtanakle samutpanno
vysdi 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 Vysa and the like.
Syaa 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 sufciently 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:
aagavat purdnm api vedrthajnopayogo yjavalkyena
smaryate|
pura-nyya-mms-dharma-strga-mirit| ved sthnni
vidyn dharmasya ca caturdaa||Yj. Smr., 1.3||
36
Just as in the case of the six Angas, also the usefulness of Puras and the
like for the knowledge of the meaning of the Veda is established as Smrti by
Yjavalkya:
35
VBHBHS 1958: 44.
36
VBBS 1958: 57.
155
Fourteen strongholds of knowledge: On scholary Commentaries, Authority and Power...
Puras, Nyya, [the two] Mms[s], Dharmastras, [six]
Angas and [three] Vedas are the 14 strongholds of different branches of
knowledge and Dharma
In that way the set is made of Puras, or stories from the time of yore, the
traditions of the logic school of Nyya and the exegetical school of Mms
(most probably in its two sub-schools), the tradition of teachings concerning
norms of social order (Dharmastra), 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 Mms which should
be resorted to in order to decide about the ttparya meaning (the true purport
of a passage), while the science of grammar (Vykaraa) looks most important
when deciding for the particular meanings of the words (pdrtha). But the basis
for the latter proves to be the most essential sthna for Syaas commentary,
namely that of Nirukta, with its method of nirvacana word etymology
38
. Thus
Syaas 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 Syaa does not fail to show himself well conversant.
This carefully woven image of a scholarly commentary prepared by Syaa
in his Bhmik, 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 Bhmik by Syaa
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 Brhmaa. 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 mms 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 Mmmss commented first
before the Veda project. This meaning of the Mms as made of two systems is supported
here by the quotation from Yjavalkyasmti. It was however not always counted as such. See
above fn. 4.
38
tad ida vidysthna vykaraasya krtsnya svrtha-sdhaka ca |Ni 1.15| iti |
tasmd vedrthvabodhyopayukta nirukta [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 Bhmik, in which the imagined opponent of
Syaas arguments expresses his hesitations towards the idea of understanding
the duty of studying the Veda as pertaining to memory perfection only:
nanktantydhyayanasykaragrahanntatve `rthajnam avihita
syt| maiva| vkyntarea tadvidhnt| brhmaena nikrao dharma
aago vedo `dhyeyo jeyaceti
39
tadvidhi|
But isnt 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 Syaa to something which the Opponent of his
arguments understands as memory training only. Syaa 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 ravana-vidhi
40
, 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 (jna) 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 UttaraMms or Vedntic point of view when Syaa
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 Syaa`s Bhmik, reserved for individuals who deserve the appellation of
Paramahasa
41
spiritual teachers and renouncers from public life. Himself a
39
Mahbhya, paspahnike (BALI 1999: 159). Also Srimad Bhgavatam 1.1.6 contains
an episode named ravaavidhi but it concerns puras and itihsas 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
Fourteen strongholds of knowledge: On scholary Commentaries, Authority and Power...
householder and a father of three sons, Syaa could not project his image as that
of a Paramahasa. In order to legitimate his right for composing a valid Vedic
commentary he needed the authority of a Paramahasa behind him. Here the
connection with his brother Mdhava, a charismatic religious figure apparently
qualifying as Paramahasa, 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 quotations
42
from Mdhavas in the body of the
Bhmik. Emphasizing this link, Syaas commentary has been actually called
mdhavya and probably targeted to reach the well educated elite of Brhmanic
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 come
43
.
From the closing words of the introductory part of his commentary to the
gvedasahit we also learn that his commenting upon the textual tradition
of gveda had actually started not from the sahit, or the basic collection of
hymns, as we would most naturally expect, but from the Brhmaa and rayaka
portions of that tradition. The latter were clearly taken by him as constituting
the whole of the gveda understood as a gvedic kh [lit. branch or school
of the Veda], or the tradition of that particular Veda comprised roughly of mantra
and brhmaa kas, just as the Veda understood as one whole. From such point
of view the gveda 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 Syaa, 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 Brhmanical education system. Through this system one could
influence numerous collective bodies of Brahmins holding power over rich and
42
Syaa quotes usually from Jaimnya-nyya-ml and the quotations are in the form of
versed maxims of his brother given in support for his opinions.
43
Im 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 Brhmanical 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
elsewhere
44
, namely that of the authorship of the fringes of Syaas works: I
am not quite sure whether all (if any) of the verses of the opening preambles to
the Vedic commentaries actually come from Syaa himself and not from the
editors of his work
45
. As mentioned above, these verses reappear in all eighteen
different commentarial works of Syaa in a slightly modified shape. A certain
number of them appear also at the end of each important section of the Vedic text
commented upon
46
. The intertextual character of those verses is shown in further
relief, with the evidence of its first stanza being used also in works by Syanas
brother Mdhava
47
. Also other authors make use of it, some even two centuries
later, like the famous grammarian Bhaoji Dkita (in his Vedabhyasra)
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 Syaas, 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 Jaiminya-nyya-ml-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.
139
Fourteen strongholds of knowledge: On scholary Commentaries, Authority and Power...
suppositions hold true, the texts ascribed to Syaa 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 Brhmanical knowledge
the copies of Syaas commentary actually reached. From the extant manuscripts
deposited in modern libraries, it stands to reason that Syaas 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.
Biviiouv.vuv:
Sources:
Jaiminyanyyaml of Mdhavcrya, ed. by Th. Goldstcker, Osnabruck 1970 (1878)
Panchadasi of Vidyaranya with English Translation, by M. Srinivasa Rau, Srirangam 1912
Parara-smti. Parra Mdhava, volume I, chraka with the Gloss by
Madhavchryya, ed. with Notes by M.Ch. Tarkalkara, The Asiatic Society 1974
Purasra of r Vidyraya, ed. by H.S. Pathak, Mysore, ORI, 2000
gveda Sahit, The Sacred Hymns of the Brahmans, together with the commentary of
Syacarya, ed. by F. Max MLLER., Varanasi 1983 (1849-740) [MLLER 1983]
gveda-samhit with the commentary of Syacrya, Vaidik Samshodhan Mandal,
Poona 1933
gveda with the Padapha and the available portions of the Bhya-s by Skandasvmin
and Udgtha, the Vykhy by Vekaa-Mdhva and Mudgala`s Vtti based on
Syaa-bhya, ed. by Vishva Bandhu, Part I, Hoshiarpur 1965
Rgveda with Sayanas Commentary, ed. by Sonatke, N.S., Vaidika Samshodhana Man-
dala, Poona 1933
Vedabhyabhmiksagraha [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 Ca
India in: INDEN, WALTERS, ALI, eds., Querying the Medieval, OUP, pp. 165-223
ALTEKAR, A.S.
1934: Education in Ancient India, Benares
BALI, S.
1999: Syaa`s Upodghta to the Taittirya Sahit and the Rgveda Sahit, Delhi,
Pratibha Prakashan
BIDERMAN, S.
1994: Escaping the paradox of scripture: the Mms solution in: StudinM, pp. 87-
104
BLACKBURN, A.M.
2001: Buddhist Learning and Textual Practice in Eighteenth-Century Lankan Monastic
Culture, Princeton Univ. Press
BRECKENRIDGE, C.A., POLLOCK, S., BHABHA, H.K., CHAKRABARTY, D., ed.
2002: Cosmopolitanism, Duke University Press
BRONKHORST, J.
1997: Philosophy and Vedic exegesis in Mms in: Beyond Orientalism, Pozna,
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. 5-14
2002: Uttaramms in: CracowIS 4-5, pp. 113-120
CHARTIER, 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. ankara and Jagadgurus Today, Delhi, Motilall
Banarsidas
CERTEAU de, M.
1975: Lcriture de lhistoire, Paris, Gallimard
CLOONEY, F.X.
1987: Why the Veda has no Author: language as ritual in early Mms in: JAAR
1987, pp. 659-686
COHN, B.
1996 (1987): An Anthropologist Among the Historian and Other Essays, Oxford Univ.
Press
CROOK, 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): Mms: The Ancient Indian Science of Sentence Interpretation, Delhi
DIRKS, N.
1999(1997): The Study of State and Society in India in: KAVIRAJ 1999, pp. 159-170
FIGUEIRA, D.
1994: The Authority of an Absent Text, w: L.Patton, ed., Authority, Anxiety and Canon,
Albany, SUNY, 1994, s. 201-234.
FILIOZAT, Vasundhara
1973: Lpigraphie de Vijayanagar du dbut 1377, Paris, Ecole Franaise dExtrme-
Orient
2001(1977): Vijayanagar as seen by Domingo Paes and Fernao Nuniz, New Delhi, Na-
tional Book Trust
GALEWICZ, C.
2005: Why Should the Flower of Dharma be Invisible? Syaas 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 dtudes Indiennes, No 21.1 (2003), pp. 239-253
GENETTE, G.
1997: Paratexts: Thresholds of Interpretation, tr. from French by J.E. Lewin, Cambridge
University Press
GODE, P.K.
1947: Vedabhyasra of Bhaoji Dkita in: Bhratiya Vidy Series No. 12, Bombay
GONDA, J.
1975: Vedic Literature, Wiessbaden
GURUMURTHY, S.
1979: Education in South India, Madras
HACKER, P.
1978: (1965) Dharma im Hindismus in: Kleine Schriften, ed. L.Schmithausen,
Wiesbaden, pp. 496-509
HEESTERMAN, J.
1979: The Inner Conflict of Tradition, Chicago
1957: The Ancient Indian Royal Consecration, The Univ. of Chicago Press
INDEN, R.
1990: Imagining India, Oxford, Basil Blackwell
INDEN, R., WALTERS J., ALI D.
2000: Quering the Medieval. Texts and the History of Practices in South Asia, Oxford
University Press
Fourteen strongholds of knowledge: On scholary Commentaries, Authority and Power...
162
KAHRS, E.
1998: Indian semantic analysis. The nirvacana tradition, Cambridge University Press
KANE, P.V.
1941: History of Dharmastra, BORI Poona
KAVIRAJ, S. (ed.)
1999 (1997): Politics in India, Oxford University Press
KLOSTERMAIER K.K.
1999: Sarvadaranasagraha ascribed to Mdhavcrya. Chapter 16..., Chennai, Adyar
Library and Research Center
KRIPACHARYULU, M.
1986: Sayana and Madhava-Vidyaranya, Guntur
KRISHNAMACHARYA, P., (ed.)
1947: Descriptive Catalogue of Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Adyar Library, vol. VI, Ady-
ar Library, Madras
KULKE, H.
1985: Mahrjas, 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 Press
KUNJUNI RAJA, K.
2000 (1963): Indian Theories of Meaning, Chennai, Adyar Library
LACAPRA D.,
1983: Rethinking Intellectual History: Texts, Contexts, Language, Ithaca, Cornell
University Press
2000: History and Reading, University of Toronto Press
LENOIR, T.
1997: Inscription Practices and Materialities of Communication in: Scientific Texts and
Materiality of Communication, ed. by T. Lenoir, Stanford Univ. Press
MALAMOUD, Ch.
1977: Le svdhyya. Rcitation personelle du veda. Taittirya-rayaka Livre II., Paris
Institut de Civilisation Indienne
MATILAL, 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 Nlakahas Mahbhrata
Commentary in F. Squarcini, ed. Boundaries, Dynamics and Construction of Tra-
ditions in South Asia, Firenze Univ. Press
MOGHE, S.G.
1975: Syaa`s equipment of Prvamms 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): Upaniads, Oxford University Press
POLLOCK, S.
1989: Mms and the problem of history in traditional India in: JAOS 109, pp. 603-610
2002: Cosmopolitan and Vernacular in History in: Breckenridge, C.A., Pollock, S. and
others, Cosmopolitanism, Duke University Press
2004: 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 Mmss in: Jour-
nal of Indian Philosophy 32, pp. 769-811
2005: The Revelation of Tradition: ruti, smti 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: Sayanas Introduction to his Vedic Bhashya, Calcutta
SANDAL, M.L.
1999(1925): Mms Stras of Jaimini, Delhi, Motilal Banarsidas
SARMA, R.N.
1988: Mms theory of meaning, SGDOS 75
SARUP, L.
1984 (1920-27): The Nighau and the Nirukta, Delhi, Motilal Banarsidas
SAWAI, Y.
1992 The Faith of Ascetics and Lay Smrtas. A Study of the ankaran Tradition of
geri, Wien
SEARLE, L., F.
2004: Emerging Questions: Text and Theory in Contemporary Criticismin: 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 Press
STEIN, B.
1997(1993): Vijayanagara, Cambridge University Press
VERPOORTEN, J.-M.
1987: Le droit ladhyayana selon la Mms in : IndoIranian Journal 30, pp. 23-30
SCHARFE, H.
1989: The State in Indian Tradition, Leiden, Brill
2002: 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 Press
1990: Listening for the Text. On the uses of the past, University of Pennsylvania Press
Fourteen strongholds of knowledge: On scholary Commentaries, Authority and Power...
TABER, J.
1990: Are Mantras Speech Acts? Mms Point of View in: H. P. Alper , The Mantra,
SUNY 1989
TALBOT, C.
2001: Precolonial India in Practice. Society, Region, and Identity in Medieval Andhra,
Oxford University Press
Cezary Galewicz