Table Of ContentGOVERNMENT OF INDIA ©
ARCHAOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA
CENTRAL
ARCHAOLOGICAL
LIBRARY
RATI RAHASYA
Grei
mskrit Classtes on Love
‘Translated by S. C. Upadhyaya, MA.» LLB. Dt, PhD.
KAMA SUTRA OF VATSYAYANA
ANANGA RANGA
THE HINDU SECRETS OF LOVE
43033
RATI
PBs
F PANDIT KOKKOKA
Translated from the Original Sanskrit by
S.C. UPADHYAYA
MA, LLB, DL, PhD.
Foreword by
V. RAGHAVAN, MA, php.
sent Ma
With 4 Plates tn Colour, 75 Half-tone Mlustrations
and 10 Lire Drawings
D. B. TARAPOREVALA SONS & CO, PRIVATE LTD.
Treasure House of Books
DR. DADABHAI NAGROII ROAD, BOMBAY I
Copyright® 1965 D, B. TARAPOREVALA SONS & CO. PRIVATE LTD.
First Edition
PRINTED IN INDIA
CENYRAL ARCHAFOLOGICAR
LIBRARY, NEW DELHI,
Ace, No. 439, is
STA) tb
To ae of Dos sey resid o mane of he lod
Teg orfeais, eas and etre ae of Il,
‘chley ae the soil weer
Call No.
(o-1s80)
Pulled by JFL. Taapera for, a Taree Se & Co, Pe Li 210 Dr. D, Naor Rad,
Tombey, 1 and Pind by DD. Kaa at Landes Pros Pat Lida Masson, Borg,
FOREWORD
Dr. 8. C. Upadhyaya and his work on the Indian art and science of love
need ng introduction. He brought out for the same publishers, some time back,
4 translation of Vatsyayana’s Ramastiras, with an introductory study of the sub:
ject and 2 large. mumber of ilustrations, particularly from Indian seulpture. ‘The
[resent publication of his om the Ratirahusya is, in the nature of things, shorter
gnd itis his desire, and that of his publishers, that should intredace it" gladly
jo 50.
‘The ancient Indian mind had a flair for the fee pursuit of any branch of know-
ledge. It suffered from no prudery in evincing keen interest in matters of sex,
in tfonk expression when dealing wilh tor in aeadernic investigations of Wseharacte:
‘and manifestations. In the Raveda, every aspect of it, virtuous and otherwise,
finds mention. In the Atharvaveda, chatins and herbs to be used in love-affairs
are to be met with often, ‘The Upanishads describe the sexual act as a scrifckal
fet Patcrmanthe) (Chindogya V3.8 5 and Brhadianyaka VL 2 43-4 12) ith
the details of the metaphor fully worked out and in this eonncetion ‘mention the
Paedla country and Anmeya Svetcketw both of which narpes are leter attested
ts closely connected with the development of the Kima Sastra, In the same
context in the latter mentioned Upanishad, prayogas for achieving cortsin ends
in respeet of sex are_also set forth. Of the two opics, the Mabibhirata, which
calls itself a Kima Sisira as much as a Sistra of the other three Purusdrthas,
contains some remarkable material, particularly in the discourses of Bhishma
in the Anuéasanaparvan, of which one topic which is very striking must be men=
tioned, In Chapter 34 of the Anuéisana (Kumbhakonam edn.) the question is
boldly’ raised : in the sexual act, who gets the better or greater happiness, the
male or the female? The story is told of Indra and King Bhangisvana, and of
the latter changing his sex and becoming a woman, enjoying and besetting chiléren
and in the end, refusing to changs over to manhood as he (or she?) declares that
the sexual joy’ of 2 woman is superior. Earlier, in the Vanaparvan (ch. 234,
Kumbhakonam edn), we have a glimpse of the Aupanishadika section, of use
of drugs for enticing, which js part and parcel of Kama Sistra. In the meeting
fof Satysbhma and Draupadi when the latter and her five husbands, the Panlavas,
fare in the forest, Satyabhamt. sks Draupadi how she is able to achieve the difficult
task of keeping all the five Pin aves pleased with her, whether she uses any charm
for drug (Vidyi or Mila). ‘The latter replies that all her charm and drug consists
fof her character, conduct and vigilant service. The epics, as also the Dharma
‘Sastra, presented the ideal of the four aims or aspirations of life, Purushdr has,
fof which Kama was one, thus giving desire and enjoyment a legitimate place in
fe. The primacy of the householder’s life (Grhasthasrama), the merit of progeny,
and the ida that one should no: starve one's hurt wens held up before anand
‘woman, Tho Kama Sisira texts have common ground with Dharma Sastca in
the section devoted tg the wedded life, Bhiryadhikarana, and they have common
‘ground with Vaidya Sastra in the sections dealing with modicinal recipes.
The study of Kama Sistrg, in its practical form in poctry and drama or
as theory as set furth in Kama Sistra works, was deemed part of education. A
wi FOREWORD
considerable ierature developed and including the Upanishadie sage Swetaketu,
S tumber of pioneering waiters of this ranch of knowedge and ir works ane
remembered by Vatsyayana,
In the available literature on Kama Sastra in Sanskrit, the Ratirakasya is
next in importance only to the Saéras of Vatsyayana. In fact, it may be said to
hhave gained greater popularity than even the Soiras, because of its concise treat-
ment. Indeed, in many Indian languages, the name of itg author Koka or Kokkoka
has become a synonym of the subject itself, Kama Stsira. The popularity of
Kokkoka i bovoe out aso by the fact that the text wa transtged nto Persian,
Just as in the history of the Najye Sistra, with which Kima Sistra has much
‘common ground, the appearance of Bharata's ‘ext threw into oblivion earlier
texts, and the pre-Bharata and non-Bharata traditions had to bo collocted and
presented by some later writers like Dattila, Kohala, Matariga, Rahula, Kirtidhara
¢te., in the history of Kama Sistra also, the contributions’ of pre-Vatsylyana
wrilers or the founders of this branch of knowledge and the traditions outside
of what are recorded by Vaisyayana have to be githered bya study of the later
Works in this field, “The foremost of these later works to preserve these non
Vatsytyana material and to give us a glimpse of the works that existed in this
branch is the Ratirahasya of Kokkoka, “The aim of Kokkoka is not merely to,
ive us a compendium of the subject, but to bring into promincnes the ideas of
writers other than Vatsyayana, ‘Thus of the primary set of writers, Nandikesvara
and Gonikiputra are espcilly mentioned! by him atthe outset and Vatsyayana
is given a second place.
tra prothamam Nandlkesvara-Gonikiipuirayor matam &dyam samgrahi-
shorimah ; parato Patsyayarivam,
Of the posi-Vatsyayana writers, the most noteworthy and interesting source
which Kokkoka draws upon is the Gunaparaka ey a
In the Introduction, the translator has dealt with the predecessors used by
Kokkokn, Regarding the Gusapataka, the most striking of the works used BY
‘fobkoka, atonon may be druvn tomy paper in whch ts character asa ima
astra work was first clarified and which had escaped the notice of the translator
(Indian Historical Quarterly XVULL pp. 166-7). ‘There is no doubt that the work
took the form of teachings by Miladeva (o the courtezan Gupapattks, bul we
cannot be sure if the author of this text is also M@ladeva, Maledeva, famed
expert in this lore in Sanskrit literature, would naturally be an appropriate inter
locuipr in sich « work. He was of course the most brilliant embodiment oF
this Sastra and intrepid exponent of its teachings but there is no need for suggest
ing, as the translator does, that the word Milakarman as meaning magic oF the
art’ of “enticing” is derived fiom Moladeva : the word Mala in Mdlakarman
refers to roots énd drugs and it is no fault of the Jayamatgala thai it dos not
reat ito Méladea At the beginning of Ch. 14, which deals with recipes for
sntising oF inereasing one's attraction, Kokkoka refers to a variety of sources,
‘works on erotics, lexicon, tantras and digamas and medical works. In the midst
thes sources cecurs he expression “yotvatin Stam.” The tranltor sees
hhore reference to the Yogaiaiaka of Hacibhadra Str: (A.D. 694-774). “Yous?
FOREWORD vii
in this chapter refers to a recipe, medicinal preparation and epplication of it and
has nothing to do with the Yous sisira which Pataijali dealt with and which is
the subject-matter of the Jain writer Haribhadra’s Yogatataka,
On the date of the Rotirchasya, the trslator has adduced evidences to
show thet the work was written between A.D. 830 and 960. The upper limit is
furnished by the Haramekhala which Kokkoka draws upon and tho lower by
Somadevastri. The translator points out chat the lost mentioned Jain writer's
Nithakyimria refers to Keke. ‘In a note on the date of the Ratieasya in the
Indy, Hisurical Quajerly OSX, pp. 72-73), had pointed out that there nas a
possible reference by Slesha to Ratirahasa in Somadeva’s Yasasilakacampa itself
Which was datod in A.D. 959, As the editor of the Retizahasya (Banaras) with
Kéjetrtvha's commentary points out in his Sanskrit Introduction (p. 3), the Rat
‘ahasyais quoted in the Jayamasgala on Vatsyayana and the latter, as Thave shown,
is knowa to Bhoja (1016-1062. aD.). Regarding the upper limit, the translator.
like some others, takes the Haramekhala s< composed in. A.D. 831, in the reign of
King Dharapivariha The date 887 mentioned in the Haramebis is taken, by
D. R. Bhandarkar as Saka (Summaries of Inscriptions 94 and fns. 123,312; p.298,
Indien Antiquary XL. p. 239), which would be A.D. 965. At any tale the lawet
Timit of the date of the Raticahasya is not as late as that adopted by Keith, 1200
AD. (HSE. p. 408).
The text of the Retirahasa as available in the edition with Kaicinitha’s
‘commentary his been considered by the translator in the Introduction. | Showing
runes of passages quoted by wellknown writers from the Rarirahasya but
‘which are not found in the printed tent of tho work, the translator has pointed Out
The need for a eritial edition. Elsewhere, in the course of hig translation, he
draws attention fo some contexts where he has noted differences between the text
fand the gloss of Kancinatha, -Somo of these ate not cases of the commentator
having gone wrong or said something not in the fext, but simply instances of the
divergent readings which Kioinathe followed. Even the last Verse soting forth
the author® pecigree is not fiee from corruption or ambiguity. There is a clear
heed for crtical edition of this work, which is one of the most popular works in
Sanskrit literature, There ate sufficient number of manuseripls trom diferent
‘atts of the country for underioking such an edition.
“The personality of the author of the Ratfrahasya, no less than his name, is
triguing, In the concluding verse, he (ells us of his ancestry and we see here a
Few names, of which again nothing more is Known. In the colophon, the author
js given an epithet which is read variously in the manuscripts, Siddha-pathtya,t
Somhala-pataliya2 Siddha-pataliya,* and Silpivikirya,t the last being. the most
‘aberrant form. None of these convey anything to, us about the author and the
‘place of school or anything else to which he belonged. It is unlikely that ‘Simhala’
‘Yedia Olfie, London, 1239, which ite has diferent forms of this word in the diferent
eclophons, 1240,
Mads Governrrent Oriental Munussipts Library, D. Nos, 395, 2907, 15281,
Bombay Branch Royal Asi Society, 15,
‘Indian Ofte, London, 1239 ; Curators Ofc, Trivandrum, 1238,
