Amarakośa and Kavikāmadhenu: A Journey Across Borders

Lata Mahesh Deokar

Amarasiṁha’s (not before the 5th century CE) Nāmaliṅgānuśāsana, better known as
Amarakośa, does not need any introduction to any Indologist or Tibetologist. 1 This first
completely available Sanskrit lexicon has been very influential for more than a millennium
and has been quoted profusely by later commentators of Sanskrit literature. The New
Catalogus Catalogorum records a list of 80 commentaries of this text. Jātarūpa, who
flourished at the end of the 10th century CE2, is the first known commentator of this lexicon.
The latest known one is from Orissa who belonged to the 18th century. Among Indian
languages, commentaries on the Amarakośa were written in Sanskrit, Pali, Kannada, and
Malayalam. 3 Apart from this, there is at least one commentary written each in Sinhalese,
Newari4 and Tibetan. In addition to this vast commentarial literature, at least two adaptations
of this lexicon are available: one in Pali and one in Tibetan. The Amarakośa was translated
into Tibetan in the thirteenth century (circa 1280) by the Yar klung lo tsā ba Grags pa rgyal
mtshan.5 This translation was revised at least three times: by the Zhwa lu lo tsā ba Chos
skyong bzang po (1441-1528 CE), by ‘Jam dbayngs bzhad pa’i rdo rje Ngag dbang brtson
’grus (1648–1721 CE) and by Si tu Paṇ chen (1700–1774 CE). Among these revisions, the
one by Si tu Paṇ chen is the best translation.
After reading about all these translations and adaptations three questions come to one’s mind:
how and when the Amarakośa was introduced in Tibet and why did it become so important in
the Tibetan literary circles. I will try to answer these questions in my paper.
In the Tibetan literature, the first reference to the Amarakośa is found in Lho pa Kun mkhyen
Rin chen dpal’s biography of Sa skya paṇḍita Kun dga’ rgyal mtshan (1182–1251 CE) from
which we come to know that the Sa skya paṇḍita had studied the Amarakośa with Sugataśrī.
The biographer further mentions that the Sa skya paṇḍita had also studied the first chapter of
an anonymous commentary on the Amarakośa with Dānaśīla. Here it should be mentioned
that Sa skya paṇḍita’s study of the Amarakośa resulted in composing a lexicon named Tshig
gi gter (circa 1210 CE), which is modeled after the Amarakośa. A second reference to the
Amarakośa is found in Rje btsun Grags pa rgyal mtshan’s exegesis of the Āryaḍākiṇīvajra-
pañjarātantra (1210 CE). Here the author refers to the Amarakośa “in connection with the
[seven] varieties of sound in vocal music.” He then quotes a few verses, which are not found
in any known version of the Amarakośa. The Amarakośa also figures as an important source
in Ngag dbang ’jigs med grags pa (1482/1542–1595 (?) CE)’s monolingual Tibetan dictionary
Mkhas pa’i rna rgyan (1521 CE), Tshe ring dbang rgyal’s (1697–1763 CE) Ngo mtshar nor
bu’i do shal and Bstan ’dzin rgyal mtshan’s lexicon Legs par sbyar ba lha’i skad dang gangs
can pa’i brda’ shan sbyar ba dri bral nor bu’i me long, which is also known as Prajñā (1771
CE). The latter, however, says that he consulted the Tshig gi gter and not the Amarakośa or
its translations.***

1
For a discussion on the Amarakośa and its commentarial tradition, cf. DEOKAR (2014: 1–3).
2
Cf. PANT (2000: I.301).
3
Cf. New Catalogus Catalogorum (Vol. I, p. 324ff) and Claus VOGEL (1979: 314–318).
4
Cf. VOGEL (1979: 315–316).
5
For a discussion on his date, see HAHN (1974: 25) and van der KUIJP (2009: 21).
Theodor ZACHARIAE (1897: 21) is probably the first modern scholar who mentioned the

Verses in the Extent of the Narthang Derge, Cone, Si tu paṇ chen

Amarakośa Sanskrit text and Peking

1482 R N D, Cn S
(fol. 2a–23a) (fol. 58b– (fol. 244b– (vol. nga,
78b) 318a) second
pagination, fol.
P
1a–248a; vol.
(fol. 63b– ca, fol. 1b–
127b)6 211b)

I.1.1–I.1.28a I.1.1–I.3.14a I.1.1–II.8.82b I.1.1–III.5.12b

I.1.36–I.1.41b
I.1.70d–I.4.8a

circa 77 verses

C (fol. 1a–
141b)

I.1.51d–II.2.5ab

circa 248 verses

Overlap of 42.5
verses

Total: 282.5 87.5 verses 812.5 verses 1448 verses

verses

(19.06%) (5.9%) (54.82%) (97.7%)

Tibetan translation of the Kavikāmadhenu in his book on Indian lexicography. In 1913, Satish
Chandra VIDYABHUSHAN edited the Narthang recension of this commentary. However, no
Sanskrit manuscript was reported to exist till then. Scholars had access to this commentary
only through its citations scatted in the commentaries of the Amarakośa as well as in the
grammatical treatises such as Śaraṇadeva’s Durghaṭavṛtti, Śrīkṛṣṇalīlāśukamuni’s

6
Although upto the commentary on AK I.3.15b, the Narthang and the Peking editions are similar,
from the point where the Narthang breaks off, the Peking edition takes over the remaining portion
from the Derge.
Puruṣakāra commentary on the grammatical text Daiva and in Suṣeṇaśarman’s
Kalāpacandra commentary on the Kātantra grammar. In the 1930s, Rahul SANKRITYAYANA
discovered three fragmentary manuscripts in Tibet. During the same period, T. R.
CHINTAMANI found a fragment in the Government Oriental Manuscripts Library of Madras.
Rahul SANKRITYAYANA (1935: 40, fn 1) also mentioned that there exists a fragmentary
manuscript of this commentary in the D. A. V. College, Lahore. Out of the three manuscripts
from Tibet, one original manuscript is now in housed in the Niedersächsische Staats- und
Universitätsbibliothek, Göttingen, Germany along with its microfilm (No. Cod. Ms. Sanscr.
258). The photo-plates of this MS are preserved in the Bihar Research Society, Patna. The
remaining two manuscripts from Tibet are not accessible at present. The Lahore manuscript is
now housed in the Lalchand Research Library of Chandigarh. The Madras fragment turned
out to be a Devanāgarī transcript of the Chandigarh manuscript. Apart from this material,
there are three Tibetan translations done by Yar klung lo tsā ba, Zhwa lu lo tsā ba and Si tu
Paṇ chen. Based on the available Sanskrit manuscripts and Si tu’s translation, my partial
bilingual edition of the Kāmadhenu appeared in 2014.
Here is a table showing the extant of various witnesses available for the Kavikāmadhenu:
Although Sanskrit manuscripts are fragmentary in nature, we do get a fair idea of the
exhaustive nature of Subhūticandra’s commentary from Si tu Paṇ chen’s translation, which
extends to 459 folios. Subhūticandra is well-versed in the three major Sanskrit grammatical
traditions, namely, of Pāṇini, Candragomin and Śarvavarman. A unique feature of this
commentary is that it makes the Cāndra grammatical tradition as its basis for grammatical
explanations. His scholarship in the field of grammar is also evident in his another work
entitled Subantaratnākara. Another important characteristic is that Subhūticandra cites from a
large number of Buddhist texts. Many of these are not known to us, not even in their Tibetan
translations. For instance, Bhāskanda’s Jātakamālā, Rigs pa’i ‘khor lo’s commentary on Ārya
Śūra’s Jātakamālā, Vibhākaravarman’s Vivekakathā and Aśubhakathā, so on and so forth. I
could collect around 2100 citations from more than 225 texts from all the witnesses
mentioned above.7 These citations come from a variety of genres. These are:
1. Vedas
2. Epics
3. Purāṇas
4. Smṛtis
5. Laghukāvyas
6. Plays
7. Prose
8. Sargabandhas
9. Commentaries on the Sargabandhas
10. Stotras
11. Didactic literature
12. Grammatical Literature
13. Poetics

7
An analytical study of these citations would be published in the near future.
 14. Dramaturgy
15. Metrics
16. Lexicography
17. Astronomy
18. Medicine
19. Veterenary Science
20. Philosophical Literature
21. Polity
22. Kāmaśāstra
23. Buddhist Narrative literature
While Sanskrit manuscripts and Tibetan translations made me aware of the unique position of
this text in the commentarial literature of the Amarakośa, I still did not know anything about
its author Subhūticandra, except that he must have been a Buddhist. Regarding his date, P. K.
Gode reached to the conclusion that Subhūticandra must have flourished between 1100 and
1140 A.D. In this situation, I came across an article by van der Kuijp discussing the
transmission of Subhūticandra’s commentary in Tibet. From that article, I learned that Pa
tshab Lo tsā ba (d. after 1130), the translator of the Āryasaddharmasmṛtyupasthānasūtra,
discussed by Dr. Daniel Stuart yesterday, had studied this sūtra in Vikramaśīla with Subhūti-
candra. According to Pa tshab lo tsā ba, Subhūticandra was a scholar of grammar, poetics and
lexicography. Although the former did not mention any text written by Subhūticandra, due to
the time-frame of both these scholars, van der Kuijp reached to the conclusion that
Subhūticandra as the author of the Kavikāmadhenu and Subhūticandra as the translator of the
Āryasaddharmasmṛtyupasthānasūtra are one and the same. I could find several evidences to
prove that this was in fact the case. I will discuss some of these facts now.
Based on the similarities between some passages of the Tshig gi gter and the Sanskrit
manuscripts of the Kāmadhenu, I could show that the anonymous commentary, which Sa
skya paṇḍita had studied, was none other than Subhūticandra’s Kavikāmadhenu.
Here it should be noted that Śrīkṛṣṇalīlāśukamuni (1194–1294 CE) 8 is the only known
grammarian who refers to this commentary as Kavikāmadhenu. We, however, do not find any
trace of this title in the benedictory verses, which are preserved only in their Tibetan
translations.9 The colophon to the first kāṇḍa as found in the Chandigarh manuscript refers to
the text in general terms as Amarakośaṭīkā. Most of the later lexicographers and grammarians
either mention the text as Subhūtiṭīkā or simply its author. Caturaṅgabala’s
Abhidhānappadīpikāṭīkā (1351 CE) on Cūla Moggallāna’s (late 13th century CE) Pali lexicon
Abhidhānappadīpikā, which is, more or less, a Pali translation of Subhūticandra’s
commentary, cites a certain Amaraṭīkā at three places. All these citations agree with the
present text of the Kavikāmadhenu. The Tibetan translations of the Kavikāmadhenu refer to
the text as ’Dod jo’i ba mo which could point to the title *Kāmadhenu. However, most
Tibetan lexicographers refer to the text as Subhūticandra’s commentary on the Amarakośa or
simply a commentary on the Amarakośa. On the basis of all these facts, we can infer that

8
The same is recorded by PANT (2000: I.287).
9
Interestingly, Subhūticandra also did not mention the title of his grammatical text Subantaratnākara
in the opening verses of his treatise.
Subhūticandra’s commentary was known in the academic circles in general terms and not by
its specific title.
van der Kuijp remarked that these verses do not correspond to the two Tibetan translations of
the Kavikāmadhenu. However, this is not fully correct since the verses do exist in the
available Sanskrit manuscript and do match in spirit with their Tibetan translations. Although
these verses are found in all the published commentaries of the Amarakośa, I am inclined to
identify Subhūticandra’s Kavikāmadhenu as their source since his commentary was already
known in the Tibetan academic circle.
Subhūticandra’s Kavikāmadhenu also anonymously figures in the commentary on the Tshig
gi gter written by Snye thang Lo tsā ba Blo gros brtan pa (?- ca. 1460 CE). The author only
says that a commentary on the Amarakośa was one of his sources. There are a number of
passages in this commentary, which are similar to the corresponding passages in Yar klung lo
tsā ba’s translation of the Kavikāmadhenu.
Further, Ngag dbang ’jigs med grags pa (1482/1542–1595 (?) CE), the author of the
monolingual Tibetan dictionary Mkhas pa’i rna rgyan (1521 CE) and Tshe ring dbang rgyal
(1697–1763 CE), the author of the Ngo mtshar nor bu’i do shal mention that Subhūticandra’s
commentary was one of their sources. However, there are certain passages in Prajñā, which
could be traced back only to the Kavikāmadhenu.
In the light of this discussion, I am inclined to propose that Subhūticandra’s Buddhist
affiliation, his exemplary scholarship as well as his ties with the Tibetan literary circle were
key factors in introducing the Amarakośa and the Kavikāmadhenu to Tibet.
Around the same period when the Amarakośa and the Kavikāmadhenu were introduced in
Tibet, we come across Abhidhānappadīpikā, a Pali adaptation of the Amarakośa done by the
late 13th century Sri Lankan monk-scholar Cūla Moggallāna. Just like the Amarakośa, this
lexicon gave rise to a large number of commentarial literature. Amongst this,
Abhidhānappadīpikāṭīkā composed by a Burmese scholar named Caturaṅgabala is important
in the present context. Although Caturaṅgabala does not mention Subhūticandra or his
Kavikāmadhenu there are numerous passages in his text, which are mere Pali translations of
the Kavikāmadhenu. At three places he cites from a commentary on the Amarakośa. All these
three passages match with the text of the Kavikāmadhenu.
It appears that after the 10th century CE, there grew a tendency in Tibet and Sri Lanka to
extend the scope of the then existing literature by going beyond the philosophical treatises
and by including the texts that dealt with secular matters. While doing so, priority was given
either to texts written by Buddhist authors or to those, which held an important position in
their respective fields. Therefore, in the field of lexicography, the Amarakośa, the
Kavikāmadhenu and Śrīdharasena’s Abhidhānaviśvalocana were translated into Tibetan. The
first two texts were also adapted in Pali. In the field of grammar, we have Tibetan translations
of the Cāndravyākaraṇa and the Kātantravyākaraṇa together with their commentaries. Both
these grammars were adapted in Pali. In poetics, Daṇḍin’s Kāvyādarśa was translated into
Tibetan and adapted in Pali. In metrics, Tibetans chose Ratnākaraśānti’s Chandoratnākara
while Pali scholars adapted Kedārabhaṭṭa’s Vṛttaratnākara. In medicine, Vāgbhaṭa’s
Aṣṭāṅgahṛdaya was translated into Tibetan and adapted in Pali. It is remarkable that unlike
Pali lexicography, which did not flourish beyond the commentarial literature of the
Abhidhānappadīpikā, in Tibet, it developed into a full-fledged genre in its own right. Thanks
to Subhūticandra.