365bet娱乐

The second part of manuscript Ms.or.oct. 348 contains the 碍丑补濒补惫补办迟谤补肠补辫别峁璱办补, which is probably not the only text included in it.

The first folio begins with:

艣r墨 r膩dh膩vallabh膩艣rita艣膩str墨 yadun膩thami艣ra-辫补峁囜笉颈迟补varyo hi vijayaty-迟补谤腻峁�, and on f. 26 we find iti 艣r墨mad r膩dh膩vallabhacara峁嘺艣ara峁嚹伵況ay膩pannayadun膩tha艣膩stri峁嚹佱箖 sa峁僩峁沨墨t膩 sarv膩rth膩vabh膩sik膩 nir峁嘺yad墨pik膩 sam膩ptim aph膩峁噄t 摆鈥�] 蝉补峁僾补迟 1908.^[1]

It seems that this 笔补峁囜笉颈迟 Yadun膩thami艣ra collected (蝉补峁僩峁浱ヌ�-) several different works in a compendium named 狈颈谤峁嘺测补诲墨辫颈办腻. 狈颈谤峁嘺测补- is a specific term meaning 鈥榙eduction鈥� in logic and 鈥榥arration of events鈥� in rhetoric; maybe the latter meaning should be preferred in this case. It may come from the root 苍颈谤苍墨-, in the meaning 鈥榯ake away鈥� (perhaps a malevolent insinuation about the 艢膩kadv墨p墨ya 叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺蝉?) or 鈥榠nvestigate鈥�. This 笔补峁囜笉颈迟 was probably a devotee of the god 碍峁涐梗峁嘺 (谤腻诲丑腻-惫补濒濒补产丑补-, 鈥�搁腻诲丑腻鈥檚 lover鈥�), who assembled various texts about the Magas and their legend.

From folio 1, we have the real 碍丑补濒补惫补办迟谤补肠补辫别峁璱办腻, ending in folio 19 with:

 摆鈥�] 艣r墨m膩m r膩javallabhami艣ra-辫补峁囜笉颈迟补-惫颈谤补肠颈迟腻 办丑补濒补惫补办迟谤补肠补辫别峁璱办腻-蝉补尘腻辫迟腻 摆鈥�].

Therefore, we have another declaration of authorship. The name of the text itself, 碍丑补濒补惫补办迟谤补肠补辫别峁璱办腻, which Weber translates as 鈥楳aulschelle fu虉 r die Bo虉 sen鈥�, is actually open to various interpretations; 肠补辫别峁璱办腻- is 鈥榓 slap鈥� and vaktra- is 鈥�face鈥�, and so the work claims to be a 鈥榮lap in the face鈥�, without any doubt. Khala- is a more controversial term, because it can mean 鈥榩lace, earth鈥�, 鈥榖attle, contest鈥� or 鈥榤ischievous man鈥�; it can also stand for 鈥榯he sun鈥� (cf. Monier-Williams鈥� (A Sanskrit-English Dictionary) 338, I). Maybe it is a slap in the faces of those mischievous men, who do not recognize the greatness of the 艢膩kadv墨p墨yas. On the other hand, it could be the final word (a metaphorical slap) in a rhetorical contest. In any case, the text itself explicitly declares to have a purpose, probably consisting of the customary defence and legitimization of this class coming from 艢腻办补诲惫墨辫补.

The 碍丑补濒补惫补办迟谤补肠补辫别峁璱办腻 consists of two parts: from ff. 1鈥�10, we find the description of the seven 诲惫墨辫补s and of the classes of each of them. Interestingly, following a variant also adopted in the 叠丑腻驳补惫补迟补-辫耻谤腻峁嘺 (V. 20, 28), the text lists the castes of 艢腻办补诲惫墨辫补 as 峁泃补惫谤补迟补, Satyavrata, 顿腻苍补惫谤补迟补 and Anuvrata, and locates the Magas, Masakas, 惭腻苍补蝉补蝉 and Mandagas in Plak峁�a诲惫墨辫补 (f. 4; cf. WEBER 1880: 53; CLARK 1919: 224). Moreover, the god worshipped in 艢腻办补诲惫墨辫补 is not 厂奴谤测补, but 痴腻测耻. Then, in ff. 5鈥�7b, we find a long quotation from the 叠丑补惫颈峁�y补辫耻谤腻峁嘺, on the story of 厂腻尘产补鈥檚 healing. It is also stated that they were brought to 顿惫腻谤补办腻 by the will of 碍峁涐梗峁嘺, who summoned them, learned in 膧测耻谤惫别诲补, to cure his son; they had the opportunity to attend 搁腻尘补鈥檚 补艣惫补尘别诲丑补 in 础测辞诲丑测腻, too. Folios 7b鈥�8 are taken from the 痴颈峁ａ箛耻-辫耻谤腻峁嘺 (II. 4), precisely the description of 艢腻办补诲惫墨辫补 and its four classes, Maga, 惭腻驳补诲丑补, 惭腻苍补蝉补 and Mandaga; the sun is worshipped in the form of 痴颈峁ａ箛耻 there. The phrase 尘补驳腻 vr膩hma峁嘺-bh奴yi峁ａ弓h膩^[2] (掳岣�) is also added, highlighting the importance of these 叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺蝉.

The second part is an investigation into the nature of the 叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺; the text also provides an etymological and lexical explanation of the word itself, as well as synonyms (cf. WEBER 1880: 56). Even in this second part, the Magas are the 叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺蝉 of 艢腻办补诲惫墨辫补. The core of this section consists in the affirmation that all 叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺蝉 are notable and deserve to be honoured. An etymology of the name Maga is presented in f. 15: the explanation ends in defining them as vedasvar奴pi峁嘺岣� s奴ryyar奴p膩 v膩, i.e. they embody the Veda or have the form of the sun.

In ff. 15b鈥�16, the Bhojakas are mentioned in relation to food; quoting the 叠丑补惫颈峁�y补-辫耻谤腻峁嘺, it is stated that they keep silent while eating, like the 峁涐梗is (cf. 叠丑补惫颈峁�y补-辫耻谤腻峁嘺 I. 140), and that they are called Bhojakas because they feed the sun god (cf. 叠丑补惫颈峁�y补-辫耻谤腻峁嘺 I. 144). Then the author returns to the subject of the Magas, and explains their name as being 艣腻办补诲惫墨辫墨测辞 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺岣�, even though in the first section he had asserted that the 叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺蝉 of 艢腻办补诲惫墨辫补 were called 峁泃补惫谤补迟补. Quotations from the 厂腻尘产补-辫耻谤腻峁嘺 follow, but the main source seems to be the 叠丑补惫颈峁�y补辫耻谤腻峁嘺.

Another interesting piece of information is in f. 18b: the 艣腻尘惫腻(蝉) are mentioned here. The explanation of this name is 尘补驳腻 尘耻峁ａ弓颈办腻 尘补濒濒腻岣�, i.e. despised people. In fact, these Magas, who are clearly different from the 叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺蝉, are raw flesh-eaters, who abide in the forests east of the Ga峁単膩s膩gara, near the sea. In any case, this association is one of the most condemning, and may lead to misunderstandings.

We have already stated that the 碍丑补濒补惫补办迟谤补肠补辫别峁璱办腻 ends in f. 19 with the declaration of its authorship. In the closing (f. 18b), it is stated that this 搁腻箩补惫补濒濒补产丑补mi艣ra (once again we have 惭颈艣谤补 linked to the 艢膩kadv墨p墨ya context) stayed in 碍腻艣颈^[3] (Varanasi). Then he mentions 14 other names, presumably those of the 笔补峁囜笉颈迟as in the city, probably with the intent to inflate the importance of his work and to underline the fact that he was actually part of the Varanasi intelligentsia. From this perspective, the previously discussed rhetorical meaning of khala- would be suitable. 搁腻箩补惫补濒濒补产丑补 is labelling his work as being an argumentative text.^[4] The identification of this author and the other scholars is far beyond our knowledge; a 搁腻箩补惫补濒濒补产丑补 is mentioned in the 惭耻丑奴谤迟补诲墨辫补办补 by 惭补丑腻诲别惫补 in 1661.^[5]

After the 碍丑补濒补惫补办迟补肠补辫别峁璱办腻, in the manuscript we find a discussion of the gotras and the marriage policies in 惭补丑腻谤腻峁ａ弓谤补 and Gurjara.

Finally, in ff. 26鈥�26b, we once again find the names of the Maga families in the Magavyakti:

uru岣� kha峁璭nu岣� k峁�eri艣 ca makhap膩 ca kur膩ya ca dekul墨 bhalun墨 caiva 岣島mvar墨 (add. pa岣峚r墨) tath膩 // 5
aday墨 ca (add. pa)bh(e)r墨sy膩d o峁囜笉ar墨 puty ata岣� param / e 艣iv膩r墨 sarai 办峁�a迟谤补 惫腻谤腻 vadhy oni jambu ca // 6
sik膩r墨 mada岣嵞乺墨 ca rahadaul墨ti n膩mata岣� / 摆鈥�] 7
诲惫腻诲补艣腻诲颈迟测腻 devas te v膩su峁嚹乺ko vin膩艣ava岣� mahur膩艣ir devad墨ho 岣島varauro gu峁嚹伵沘va岣� // 8
办耻峁囜笉腻 tath膩 malau峁囜笉膩艣 ca ga峁囜笉膩va岣� sapah膩pi ca arih膩sir dehul膩sir jayanty ete jayaprad膩岣� /
摆鈥�]
摆鈥�] pa峁�艣�� ca峁囜笉aro峁璱艣 ca 岣峣h墨 kajha kapitthakau // 10
sy膩 teraha-par膩艣o [鈥榏pi kha峁囜笉as奴pas tath膩 辫补谤补岣� /
p膩liv膩dha岣� khajurah膩 bhe岣嵞乸膩karir ity api // 11
vipuro va岣峚s膩ra艣 ca g墨rv膩峁嚹� iva 辫奴箩颈迟腻岣� / 摆鈥�]
摆鈥�] ulla岣� pu峁囜笉ro m膩rka峁囜笉eyo v膩lo 濒辞濒补岣� 办辞峁嘺艣 肠补峁嘺岣� 摆鈥�] //

The ending, at f. 27, is:

// iti magavyaktau sapt膩rk膩岣� //.

Some of the names of the families differ from those listed in the Magavyakti. The most plausible hypothesis is that the author of this sort of anthology of different works and quotations could not directly consult the text of the Magavyakti, making some mistakes, like the insertion of 痴补蝉耻峁嚹乺办补- in the series of the 12 腻诲颈迟测补s. Another possibility is that the author took into account the regional variants of these names, discussed in paragraph 3.1. As a matter of fact, the presence of the list here is the confirmation of a connection between these texts, which probably belonged to the same (or a similar) environment.

The importance of the Magavyakti, the 厂腻尘惫补惫颈箩补测补 and the 碍丑补濒补惫补办迟谤补肠补辫别峁璱办腻 lays in the objective they share. It is evident that they were written for certain reasons, linked to the legitimation of the 艢膩kadv墨p墨ya 叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺蝉 within Indian society. Unfortunately, it is not possible to establish whether this was a reaction and, in a certain sense, a vindication, to counteract the accusation of not being 叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺蝉. In fact, it is easy to imagine how a group coming from outside (maybe from Iranian lands) could have had problems being accepted in a closed caste society like the Br膩hma峁噄cal one.^[6] For this reason, authors belonging to the 艢膩kadv墨p墨ya group (cf. 惭颈艣谤补 name) could have recounted their origins and mythical invitation to come to India to the public, thus claiming to deserve a high status, previously bestowed by 碍峁涐梗峁嘺 and 搁腻尘补.

Another reason for the production of these texts, also of social nature, could have been the fact that there was a huge concentration of 艢膩kadv墨p墨ya people, in those northern areas, and they needed the other Br膩ma峁嘺s to know about their history and their families. In the end, the purpose in both cases was to be recognized and approved by Hind奴 society. Moreover, if these works are indeed the product of the sixteenth-century court environment, presenting the 艢膩kadv墨p墨yas as coming from the outside, with a connection to the Persian world, may have helped them improve their reputation.

Thus it is clear that the three texts presented here are of different natures. In WEBER鈥檚 opinion (1880: 70), 鈥楧ie Magavyakti ist f眉r die Maga, so zu sagen, ihr hohes Lied aus der Gegenwart (der Abfassungzeit), der Sa虃 mvavijaya bringt in epischer Breite die Begr眉ndung ihrer Anspr眉che aus der Vergangenheit durch Ankn眉pfung an die epische, ja vedische Legende,鈥揹ie khalavaktracap. endlich summirt kurz und b眉ndig alle dem Vf. Zur Hand seienden Citate 眉ber sie aus den Pura虃 峁嘺.鈥� Especially in the other two poems, the association with the heroes of the 惭补丑腻产丑腻谤补迟补 and with 搁腻尘补, and the fact that the Magas have names of the 峁涐梗is鈥� families, testify to the importance and the wide presence of this group at the time. Furthermore, their presence was required by the gods themselves (the sun, 碍峁涐梗峁嘺 鈥�), who respect and honour them, too.

Beyond their social and 鈥榩olitical鈥� value, these three works are very interesting for their content and the topics they deal with; we will see that many elements are still very much present in the knowledge and tradition of modern 艢膩kadv墨p墨yas, drawing a line that connects the ancient 艢膩kadv墨p墨yas communities to the contemporary ones.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

WEBER (Ivi: 50) quoting the passage from the manuscript, reads 蝉补峁僾补迟 1900, even though the last digit is clearly an eight, written in the same way throughout the manuscript.

[2]:

叠丑奴测颈峁ａ弓丑补- (Monier-Williams鈥� (A Sanskrit-English Dictionary) 763, III): 鈥槹阝��] most important, in the highest degree.鈥�

[3]:

F. 18b: 摆鈥�] k膩艣istha-摆鈥�] 搁腻箩补惫补濒濒补产丑补mi艣r膩c膩ryya-摆鈥�] // 1

[4]:

Cf. WEBER 1880: 67.

[5]:

Ibid.

[6]:

On this topic, see PALLADINO 20??d.