Exploring the Indian Knowledge systems (1 Viewer)

[swesh]

Locating Indian knowledge in modern libraries: Incorporating the traditional classifcation of knowledge in India

Historically, Indian Knowledge, has been classifed into Aṣṭādaśa-vidyāsthānas (अषटदशविदयासथान), eighteen abodes of knowledge. This classifcation scheme assigns an appropriate place for all components of Indian knowledge in a consistent
system. In modern libraries, based mainly on the Dewey Decimal Classifcation (DDC), there is no natural place for the corpus of Indian Knowledge (IK), and diferent components of IK get split over widely separate diverse classes. In this article, we describe India’s traditional classifcation of knowledge and propose a national modifcation of the DDC to incorporate the former. The proposed scheme shall ensure that the diverse corpora of IK are compactly brought together in Indian libraries. This shall help the students and scholars appreciate the breadth and depth of IK and also the intercon-nectedness of its diferent components. It is impossible to understand the history of any element of IK, including Indian
Sciences and Technologies, without comprehending the interconnectedness of the entire corpus.

Introduction
The National Education Policy (NEP), adopted by the Government of India in 2020, seeks to make Indian Knowledge (IK) an essential and integral part of both education and research in India. An intensive and wide-ranging efort is underway to introduce components of Indian Knowledge in
the curricula at all levels of education. New textbooks are being written to conform to the new curricula. Numerous projects have been granted to research diferent aspects of Indian Knowledge. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of teach-
ers and scholars are involved in this efort. The Indian academia is abuzz with this new emphasis on learning, teaching, interpreting and advancing Indian Knowledge and applying it in diferent domains.

1.1 But IK is not visible in the libraries Yet, any scholar or student walking into an Indian library is
unlikely to get any idea of the depth and breadth of Indian Knowledge and would be at a loss to understand what all the activities surrounding this system of knowledge are about. This failure of the Indian libraries to showcase Indian Knowledge in any signifcant manner is because of the following two reasons:
First, since Indian Knowledge has formed no part of modern Indian education and has occupied barely a small niche in academic research until now, most Indian libraries, except a few that specialize in diferent aspects of Indian
knowledge, art, or culture, have only a few titles dealing with Indian Knowledge. It should be hoped that with the new efort to seriously introduce Indian Knowledge as an integral part of Indian education and research, Indian libraries at all levels, from the school and town library upward,
shall be encouraged and facilitated to acquire at least the basic texts of Indian Knowledge.
Second, libraries in India follow the international
Dewey Decimal Classifcation (DDC) system in its current wenty-third edition (Mitchell et al., 2011), or some version of it, to classify their acquisitions, and that classifcation then decides the shelves where these would be placed in the library. This classifcation system pays no attention to the traditional classifcation of knowledge in India and is designed for modern, largely Western, knowledge. Therfore, it tends to disperse books of IK across the whole library and, in a way, hides these in a mass of unrelated and diverse
material, thus making it impossible for a scholar to comprehend his particular subject within the overall scheme of IK and appreciate the essential interconnectedness between diferent components of it.

 

[swesh]

1.2  Western bias of DDC The Western bias of DDC is blatant. Let us give one example: at the top level, the DDC has 10 main classes, each with 10 divisions, which are further divided into 10 sections each. These 10 classes, 100 divisions, and 1000 sections are organized hierarchically. Among these, Class 200, is assigned to religion. We list the 10 divisions under this class in Table 1 below. Of these ten, seven divisions, 220–280, are
assigned to diferent aspects of Christianity. The first two divisions, 200 and 210, generally encompass religion and religious theory. The 20 sections under these two divisions
are also related mainly to issues of concern to students and scholars of Christian religious studies.Only one of the 10 divisions, 290, is assigned to “Other religions”, meaning religions other than Christianity. Sourcebooks, commentaries, translations, and modern studies of all other religions of the world must be accommodated in this division. Within this division also, several sections are assigned to religions of Western origin. In the 10 main classes of DDC, 100 divisions under them and 1000 sections below them, references to “India”, “Indian”, or “Indic” occur only in four places. One of these is in section 294, “Religions of Indic Origin”, which we discuss below. The other references are all under class 900 of “History and Geography”. Within class 900, division 950 is assigned to Asia, and section 954 for “India and South Asia”

Table 1 Class 200 and its divisions in DDC
200 Religion
210 Philosophy and theory of religion
220 The Bible
230 Christianity and Christian theology
240 Christian practice and observance
250 Christian pastoral practice and religious orders
260 Christian organization, social work, and worship
270 History of Christianity
280 Christian denominations
290 Other religions

In the same class, 930 is assigned to Ancient World; under that, 934 is assigned to “Ancient South Asia to 647 [CE]”. Finally, there is a reference to the “South Indian Ocean islands” at 969, under 960, assigned to Africa. This exhausts the four references to India, Indic or Indian, describing the
10 classes, 100 divisions, and 1000 sections in the DDC.This is the extent of western bias in the DDC classifcation system currently adopted in most libraries worldwide.

2  Current classifcation of Indian knowledge
Currently, the corpora of diferent components of Indian Knowledge are generally classifed and organized under the DDC as below:
2.1 Veda, Itihāsa, Purāṇa, Dharmaśāstra In the DDC, under division 290, section 294 is assigned
to “Religions of Indic Origin”. Under this section, 294.5 is for “Hinduism”, 294.59 is for “Sources”, and under that, 294.592 is for “Sacred Books and Scriptures”. The entire Indian corpus of Vedas, Itihāsas, Purāṇas, and
Dharmaśāstras is classified under 294.592. For example, Vedas are assigned the fourth decimal level classifcation of 294.5921, Rāmāyaṇa 294.5922, Mahābhārata 294.5923, Bhagavad-Gītā 294.5924, Purāṇas 294.5925 and Dharmaśāstras 294.5926. However, the texts of Bible are
assigned the top-level classifcation of 220.
Source works and books related to Chinese Religions are similarly placed in some lower-level classifcations. For example, Taoism is usually classifed under 299.514 through the following sequence: 200 for religion, 290 for “Other Religions”, 299 for “Religions not provided for elsewhere”, 299.5 for “Religions of East and Southeast Asian origin”, 229.51 for “Religions of Chinese Origin”, and finally 299.514 for “Taoism”.​

 

[swesh]

.Darśanas, the Indian schools of philosophy, are classifed
at 181.4 in the following sequence: 100 for Philosophy and
Psychology, 180 for “Ancient, medieval, and eastern phi-
losophy”, 181 for “Eastern Philosophy”, and fnally, 181.4
for “India”. All Indian Darśanas are classifed under 181.4
at further lower decimal places: 181.41 Sāṅkhya, 181.42
Mīmāṁsā, 181.43 Nyāya, 181.44 Vaiśeṣika, 181.45 Yoga,
181.46 Lokāyata, 181.48 Vedānta.

2.3 Indian languages
Diferent Indian Languages are classifed under either 491,
assigned to “East Indo-European and Celtic Languages”,
or 494, assigned to “Altaic, Uralic, Hyperborean, and
Dravidian Languages”. Some Indian Languages are also
placed under 495.9, assigned to “Miscellaneous languages
of southeast Asia; Munda languages”, under the higher-
level classifcation 495 for “Languages of East & South-
east Asia”. Indian Languages thus get split across several
diverse sections.
2.4 Indian literature
Indian literature is placed under either 891, assigned to
“East Indo-European and Celtic Literatures”, or 894,
assigned to “Altaic, Uralic, Hyperborean & Dravidian
[Literature]”. Sanskrit Literature is assigned 891.2 in the
sequence: 800 for Literature, 890 for “Literature of Other
Languages”, 891 for “East Indo-European & Celtic Litera-
tures”, and 891.2 for “Sanskrit Literature”. Some libraries
put classical texts of India under this class. For example,
in the Central Secretariat Library, many of the translations
of Vālmīkīya Rāmāyaṇa and modern studies on it are given
DDC number 891.21. However, the library also uses DDC
numbers under 294.5 for several books of or related to
Rāmāyaṇa​

 

[swesh]

2.5 Indian sciences, technologies, etc.
Texts of various Indian sciences and technologies, like
Āyurveda, Jyotiṣa, Gaṇita, etc., are placed under some cat-
egory of “others” within the modern classes of medicine,
mathematics, astronomy, etc. For example, Āyurveda is clas-
sifed in the current editions of DDC at 615.538 in the fol-
lowing sequence: 600 for “Technology (Applied Sciences)”,
610 for “Medicine and Health”, 615 for “Pharmacology
and Therapeutics”, 615.5 for “Therapeutics”, 615.53 for
“General therapeutic systems” and 615.538 for “Ayurvedic
Medicine”.
Texts of Āyurveda seem to be assigned diferent DDC
numbers in the Indian libraries. Caraka Saṁhitā, one of the
core texts of Āyurveda, is given 615.536 in the Indira Gan-
dhi National Centre for Arts (IGNCA) library and 615.539 in
the Central Secretariat Library. The online catalogue of the
National Library at Kolkata, for the search item “Charaka
Samhita”, returned three books. One is given DDC number
615.5380954 under 615.538 that is assigned to “Ayurvedic
Medicine” in the schedules. The other two books are given
non-DDC call numbers. The texts of Suśruta Saṁhitā in
the National Library are also placed under 615.538. In the
library of the Niti Ayog, a translation of Suśruta Saṁhitā is
classifed under DDC 617, which is assigned for “Surgery,
regional medicine, dentistry, ophthalmology, otology, audi-
ology”. In the Library of the Asiatic Society of Mumbai,
the same text is placed under DDC division 610, assigned
to “Medicine and Health”.
It is odd that canonical texts of Āyurveda, which dis-
cuss the issues of health and disease in a highly system-
atic scientifc manner, are placed under 615.53, the DDC
number assigned to “General Therapeutic Systems”, which
also includes Homeopathy (0.532), Osteopathy (0.533) and
Chiropractic (0.534). This is what happens when we try to
understand our sciences in Western categories and classify
our knowledge in a Western or international classifcation
system. This article proposes a simple solution for the prob-
lems associated with classifying Indian Knowledge.
Incidentally, in the library of Sri Krishna Ayush Univer-
sity, Kurukshetra, a book related to Caraka Saṁhitā, entitled
“Sāṅkhya Śāstra aur Caraka Saṁhitā kā Dārśanik
Anusandhān”, which is in the nature of a modern sudy on
Caraka Saṁhitā, is assigned a completely incongruent DDC
number of 133.335. This would be in the sequence: 100 for
“Philosophy and Psychology”, 130 for “Parapsychology and
occultism”, 133 for “Specifc Topics in parapsychology and
occultism”, 133.3 for “Divinatory arts”, 133.33 for “Sym-
bolic divination”, and 133.335 for “Numerology”. This
assignment is probably an error arising from confusing
Sāṅkhya (साख), a school of Indian philosophy, with
Saṅkhyā (संख्या), meaning “number”. This has led to a book
exploring the relationship of Indian medicine with a signif-
cant school of Indian philosophy being classifed as a book
of “numerology” under “Parapsychology and Occultism”.
This particular error could have been avoided. But the DDC,
where Indian texts are placed in some “other” category
under the larger modern Western disciplines, leaves much
scope for such errors.
3 Problems associated with the current
classifcation of IK
We have described the manner in which major corpora of
Indian Knowledge in diferent disciplines are currently clas-
sifed in the limited space available for these in the DDC. We
have also given some instances of the inconsistencies and
errors that such classifcation leads to. Below, we describe
three signifcant issues that arise when we adopt DDC for
classifying Indian knowledge:
3.1  Inconsistency in classifcation
As we have explained above, DDC is designed to classify
knowledge according to the subjects and disciplines of
Western knowledge. Indian knowledge, and indeed knowl-
edge of all non-wesern civilizations, has no natural place in
it. Within the sysem, IK corresponds to what in India would
be called khila-bhāga (खिल-भाग), scattered parts that cannot
be classifed systematically within the overall scheme of a
text or discipline. Therefore, in DDC, IK is classifed mainly
under some category of “others” within diferent disciplines
of Wesern knowledge. There is no essential logic or order
to such classifcation which can be intuitively inferred. What
could be the logic in a sysem where Āyurveda falls under
the same section as Homeopathy or Chiropractic? Because
the sysem is so non-intuitive, librarians are prone to go
wrong and end up classifying diferent texts of Indian
Knowledge belonging to the same discipline, and even the
same texts, diferently. We have given some examples of
such inconsisencies of classifcation above. However, the
problem is not random, and it is not related to the compe-
tence or otherwise of the librarian. The issue is inherent to
the sysem.
To get an idea of the extent of this problem, we searched
for “Mahabharata” in the online public access catalogue of
the National Library, Kolkata. This is the premier national
library, with an extensive collection of diferent editions of
the text, translations, and studies. The search returned results
running into 94 pages comprising 1865 titles. A majority
of these titles are classifed under 294.5923, the number
assigned to Mahābhārata in the DDC schedules. However,
the library has also classifed a large number of titles under
179, which is assigned to “Other ethical norms” and under
891.44, assigned to “Bengali Literature” under 891.4, which
is assigned to “Modern Indo-Aryan Literatures”. Some titles
related to Mahābhārata are also placed under 823 (English
fction), 894 (Altaic, Uralic, Hyperborean & Dravidian [Lit-
erature]), 398 (Folklore) under 390 (Customs, etiquette &
folklore), 174 (Occupational Ethics), 178 (Ethics of con-
sumption), 182 (Pre-Socratic Greek philosophies), 200.954
(Religion: Indian Subcontinent), 792 (Stage presentations)
under 790 for “Recreational & performing arts”, and so on.
There may be some logic within DDC for placing books
related to Mahābhārata in such diverse categories, but classi-
fying books related to a signifcant text of Indian Knowledge
thus would undoubtedly confuse the reader and draw atten-
tion away from the core signifcance of the text. The library
has also placed various studies on the text of Mahābhārata
and diferent editions and translations of it under diverse
DDC numbers.

 

[swesh]

3.2 Mixing up canonical texts with modern studies
and interpretations
Within DDC, foundational texts of Indian Knowledge are
classed very low in the classifcation hierarchy. As we have
seen above, a text like the Mahābhārata gets a four-dec-
imal digit classifcation of 294.5923. This scheme leaves
little scope to distinguish between the canonical text of a
discipline, traditional commentaries and translations of the
text from its various modern studies, interpretations, and
retellings, etc., of the text, though the schedules suggest
possibilities that stretch the call number to several fur-
ther decimal places. The undiferentiated classifcation of
canonical texts and modern studies of all kinds certainly
make it difcult for a student or scholar to diferentiate the
grain from the chaf. As an example of such indiscriminate mixing up of
the materials, we give, in Table 2 below, the frst 20 titles
returned by our search of “Mahabharata” in the open public
access catalogue of the National Library. Of these 20 titles,
15 are assigned DDC number 294.5923, three are assigned
294.5923046, three decimal places below 294.5923. These
three titles include an English rendering of Mahābhārata by
Alladi Kuppuswami, proceedings of a symposium organized
by the Sahitya Academy, and a discourse on Mokṣa-Dharma
in Mahābhārata by Swami Jyotirmayananda. One title, an
English translation of a condensed version of Mahābhārata,
is assigned DDC number 294.5923045. Another title, pre-
senting the story of the making of Peter Brook’s flm on
Mahābhārata, is classifed simply under 294.
The 15 titles that are assigned DDC number
294.5923 include three modern English renderings of
the Mahābhārata, a contemporary English interpre-
tation of the characters of Mahābhārata, a Gujarati
translation of Mahābhārata, an Odia translation, three
volumes of an English translation of the Indonesian
Mahābhārata from the Kawi language, a study of the his-
toricity of Mahābhārata, a study of the spy network in
Mahābhārata, a Hindi translation of a modern English
rendering of Mahābhārata, an account of the chariots in
Mahābhārata, Sri Aurobindo’s essays and translations
related to Mahābhārata, and a contemporary reinterpreta-
tion of Vyāsa’s Mahābhārata from Arjuna’s point of view.
This jumbling up of books on a core text of Indian
Knowledge will likely leave someone browsing the library
confused about the basic sources of IK and the serious-
ness of the current scholarship around these. In a proper
classifcation of Indian Knowledge, the 15 titles described
in the para above should fnd distinctly diferent places
under the higher category assigned for Mahābhārata. The
canonical text with its commentaries and translations, ver-
sions of Mahābhārata in other Indian languages, versions
of Mahābhārata in languages of the world, and diverse
modern studies and essays, etc., on Mahābhārata, need
to be clearly distinguished and disambiguated in a proper
scheme, which we attempt later in this article.
Incidentally, the National Library does not seem to
have many titles comprising the original text and many of
those that are available in its collection are classifed in
the older non-DDC classifcation system with call numbers
beginning with 176, 179 and 180, etc. One of the Sanskrit
editions in the library, an edition published by Siddhanta
Vagisha of Kolkata, is classifed under “Poetry” and given
the DDC class of 892.1.

Table 2 The frst 20 Titles returned by a search on “Mahabharata” in the online public access catalogues of the National Library, Kolkata
1. Sri Mahabharata Sabhaparva: Adhyaya 58–62/Gujarati Mahabharata by Mahabharata, Gujarati. (DDC 294.5923)
2. Chariots of Mahabharata: Untold story of Mahabharata by Rai, Himanshu (DDC 294.5923)
3. The Mahabharata revisited/ Papers presented at the International Seminar on the Mahabharata organized by the Sahitya Akademi at New
Delhi on February 17–20, 1987; edited by R. N. Dandekar (DDC 294.5923046)
4. The Mahabharata Peter Brook’s epic in the making: Garry O’Connor by O’Connor, Garry. (DDC 294)
5. The lore of Mahabharata/Amalesh Bhattacharya by Bhattacharya, Amalesh. (DDC 294.5923)
6. The Mahabharata: essays and translations/Sri Aurobindo by (Sri) Aurobindo. (DDC294.5923)
7. Epic Mahabharata: a twenty-frst-century retelling/ Gandharva Raja by Gandharva Raja. (DDC 294.5923)
8. The Indonesian Mahabharata Bhishmaparva/ translated from the original classical Kawi text by I. Gustu Putu Phalgunadi. (DDC 294.5923)
9. The Indonesian Mahabharata: Adiparva/ translated from the original classical Kawi text by I. Gustu Putu Phalgunadi. (DDC 294.5923)
10. The Mahabharata: condensed in the poet’s own words/ by A. M. Srinivasachariar; translated [from Sanskrit] by V. Raghavan; foreword by S.
Radhakrishnan (DDC 294.5923)
11. Spy net-work in Mahabharata/ Ramendra Narayan Sanyal by Sanyal, Ramendra Narayan, 1926-. (DDC 294.5923)
12. The great golden sacrifce of the Mahabharata/ Maggi Lichi-Grassi by Lichi-Grassi, Maggi. (DDC 294.5923)
13. The Indonesian Mahabharata/ translated by I Gusti Putu Phalgunadi by Phalgunadi, I Gusti Putu, 1948- [trl.]. (DDC 294.5923)
14. The Mahabharata/ Shanta Rameshwar Rao; illustrations by Badri Narayan by Narayan, Badri, 1929- [ill.]. (DDC 294.5923)
15. The way to liberation: Moksha Dharma of Mahabharata/ by Swami Jyotirmayananda by Jyotirmayananda, Swami, 1931-. (DDC
294.5923046)
16. Historicity of the Mahabharata: evidence of literature, art & archaeology/ B.B. Lal by Lal, B. B. (Braj Basi), 1921-. (DDC 294.5923)
17. Mahabharata/ by Alladi Kuppuswami by Kuppuswami, Alladi. (DDC 294.5923046)
18. Mahābhārata ମହାଭାରତ /କ ଜ ଳୁ ମଣି େନା
by |. (DDC 294.5923)
19. Jaya: Mahābhārata kā sacitra punarkathana जय: महाभारत का सचित पुनर् थन /देवदत पटनायक; translated by अनंत मितल. (DDC 294.5923)
20. The complete Mahabharata/ Ramesh Menon by Menon, Ramesh. (DDC 294.5923)

 

[swesh]

3.3 Indian knowledge scattered across whole
library​

As we have described above, DDC leads to inconsisten-
cies in classifcation and mixing up of the canonical texts
with modern studies, etc. But even if these issues were to
be resolved by lengthening the string of decimal places and
evolving a consensus among major Indian libraries on the
classifcation of major components of Indian Knowledge,
this classifcation scheme shall still oblige the libraries to
scatter books of, or concerned with, Indian Knowledge all
over the library. Within DDC, Indian Knowledge has to be
generally classifed under an “others” category within the
place assigned to some discipline of Western knowledge.
This necessarily requires diferent components of Indian
Knowledge to be placed in widely diferent classes and cor-
respondingly in widely scattered shelves in a library. This
breaks the integrity of Indian Knowledge and makes it very
difcult for any scholar to comprehend the subject of his
interest as a component of the wholeness of IK.
Within the DDC, there is no way to place the entire
corpus of Indian Knowledge together. The corpus com-
prises texts on all aspects of human knowledge categorized
according to its own classifcation of Veda, Itihāsa, Purāṇa,
Darśana, Vedāṅga, Upaveda, Kāvya, etc. While classifying
this corpus under the DDC, the librarian has to fnd a niche
in some Western discipline for each of these and for further
classes within these broad categories of Indian Knowledge.
Libraries working with DDC and even with the older sys-
tems, some of which are known to have been developed by
celebrated Indian librarians, have no way of preserving the
integrity of the corpus of Indian Knowledge. Consequently,
a student or scholar visiting a library in India is unlikely to
get any idea of the extent of Indian Knowledge or of the
great spread of the disciplines it deals with and the scholarly
depth and intensity with which each of these disciplines is
treated in the enormous corpus of Indian Knowledge, or of
the interconnectedness and integrity of the entire corpus.
On the other hand, a student or scholar, seriously browsing
an Indian library, is likely to be left with the impression
that Indian knowledge forms some fragmentary, uncon-
nected additions to various disciplines of modern Western
knowledge. This situation needs to be corrected urgently, if Indian
Knowledge is to be taken seriously in the Indian aca-
demia and is to be introduced as an integral component
of education and research in India. We need to evolve a
classifcation scheme that accommodates diferent compo-
nents of Indian Knowledge according to their traditional
classifcation in India and thus bring the whole corpus
together in our libraries. This alone would make it pos-
sible for a scholar to appreciate the interconnectedness of
diferent components of IK and the integrity of the whole
corpus. Below, we tentatively propose such a scheme of
classifcation.
We frst describe the classifcation of Indian Knowledge
within its own scholarly tradition. This traditional classif-
cation scheme of IK also gives some idea of the extent and
breadth of the corpus of IK. In the next section, we propose
an innovative modifcation of some sections of DDC to
accommodate the traditional classifcation within the system
that has now become the conventional system of classifca-
tion in most Indian libraries and in much of the world.

 

[swesh]

4  Traditional classifcation of knowledge
in India
Viṣṇupurāṇa (विषणुपुराण), perhaps the earliest and among
the most important of the eighteen Mahāpurāṇas (महापुराण),
which many scholars date to before 400 BCE, gives an
18-fold classifcation of knowledge (3.6.27–28) (Annanga-
racharya, 1972, p.201):
अङगानि वेदाशतवारो मीमासा नयायविसरः।
पुराणंधर्शास्रंच विदया हयेताशतुर्दश।।२७।।
आयुर्वदो धनुर्वदो गानर्वश्चव तेतयः।
अर्थशास्रंचतुर्थतुविदया ह्यषटदशैव ताः।।२८।।
aṅgāni vedāścatvāro mīmāṁsā nyāyavisaraḥ।
purāṇaṁ dharmaśāstraṁ ca vidyā hyetāścaturdaśa।।27।।
āyurvedo dhanurvedo gāndharvaścaiva te trayaḥ।
arthaśāstraṁ caturthaṁ tu vidyā hyaṣṭādaśaiva tāḥ।।28।।
First of these verses defnes 14 Vidyās (विदया): 6 Vedāṅgas
(वेदाङ्ग), 4 Vedas (वेद) and the four disciplines of Mīmāṁsā
(मीमासा), Nyāya (नयाय), Purāṇa (पुराण) and Dharmaśāstra
(धर्शास्त्र). The second verse defnes another 4 Vidyās: Āyurveda
(आयुर्वद), Dhanurveda (धनुर्वद), Gāndharvaveda (गानर्ववेद) and
Arthaśāstra (अर्थशास्त्र). The two together form 18 Vidyās, more
commonly referred to as the Aṣṭādaśa-vidyāsthānas, the 18
classes of knowledge. The two verses are found in almost
exactly the same form in Vāyupurāṇa (61.78–79) (Apte, 1905,
p. 212). According to the ancient commentators, the term Purāṇa
in the first verse includes Itihāsa. The commentators also
tell us that there is a diference between the fourteen Vidyās
in the first verse and the four in the second verse. The for-
mer fourteen are necessary for knowing Dharma and are
therefore referred to as both Dharmasthānas (धर्सथान) and
Vidyāsthānas (विदयासथान). The latter four are Vidyāsthānas,
but not Dharmasthānas. Commentaries on the Viṣṇupurāṇa
verses quoted above give these four the name of Upaveda.
English translation of one of the lectures of Paramacharya
of Kanchi in the Tamil compilation, Daivattin Kural, refers
to the fourteen classes of the Purāṇas as “Abodes of Knowl-
edge” and explains that the frst fourteen are directly con-
cerned with Dharma, and therefore are both Dharmasthānas
and Vidyāsthānas (abodes of Dharma as well as abodes of
knowledge). The latter four are also Vidyāsthānas, but are
not Dharmasthānas, because these are not directly related
to Dharma (Paramacharya, 2006, pp. 166–167).
The commentators also give details and examples of what
is to be included in these eighteen abodes, or classes, of
knowledge. Below, we describe and discuss the traditional
understanding of the Vidyāsthānas and also indicate where
this classifcation needs to be modifed or expanded to meet
our current needs:
4.1 Veda (वेद)
Vedas are four: Ṛgveda (ऋगवेद), Yajurveda (यजुर्वद),
Sāmaveda (सामवेद) and Atharvaveda (अथर्ववेद). The texts of
Vedas comprise Saṁhitās (संहिता), Brāhmaṇas (बराहण),
Āraṇyakas (आरणक) and Pariśiṣṭas (परिशिष्ट). The Saṁhitā
part of the Vedas comprises the main text consising of
hymns and mantras (मन). Brāhmaṇas are attached to the
Saṁhitās and literally mean “explanation or expansion” of
the Veda. These texts give detailed insructions on the per-
formance of the vaidika rituals and also contain material on
what would be today described as vaidika sciences and tech-
nologies, including observational asronomy, geometry and
mathematics. Āraṇyaka part of the Vedas include the
Upaniṣads (उपनिषद) and comprise meditations and exposi-
tions on Brahmavidyā (ब्रहविदया), the knowledge of the ulti-
mate reality. The Āraṇyakas may also be embedded within
some of the Brāhmaṇas. The Pariśiṣṭas literally mean sup-
plementary material appended to the Vedas. These give addi-
tional instructions on diferent aspects of the text of Vedas,
including phonetics and meter, and also make detailed liss
and indices of the devatās and mantras appearing in the text.
Saṁhitā, Brāhmaṇa, Āraṇyaka, and Pariśiṣṭa texts have to
be appropriately placed in the proposed classifcation
scheme of IK. Vedas also have disinct schools or branches (शाखा),
which have to be included in the classifcation scheme. In
the case of Yajurveda, the two main branches, Śukla (शक)
and Kṛṣṇa (कृष्ण), are very extensive, with each having its
own sub-branches and each of those sub-branches having its
own separate Saṁhitā, Brāhmaṇa and Āraṇyaka. In this
case, it may be more convenient to treat the two main
branches of Yajurveda as separate Vedas in the classifcation
scheme.
4.2 Itihāsa and Purāṇa (इतिहास‑पुराण)
The eighteen Vidyāsthānas of Viṣṇupurāṇa include
“Purāṇa” as one of the eighteen. As we have said earlier,
in this classifcation, Itihāsas are supposed to be included
within Purāṇas. There are two Itihāsa texts: Rāmāyaṇa and
Mahābhārata. Each of these two has several distinct recen-
sions. There are also distinct versions of the Itihāsas in dif-
ferent languages of India and several other countries. The
classifcation scheme shall have to make place for all these.
The Mahābhārata has a khila, supplementary, text:
Harivaṁśa (हरिवंश), which is also sometimes considered a
Purāṇa. We propose that this text may be classifed sepa-
rately from Mahābhārata.
There are numerous Purāṇas, eighteen of which are
called Mahāpurāṇas. Among the Purāṇas, Bhāgavata-
Mahāpurāṇa (भागवत-महापुराण) occupies a special place. We
propose that this Purāṇa may be classifed separately from
“Other Purāṇas”. Within the “Other Purāṇas”, each of the
Purāṇas shall, of course, have its own place.
4.3 Darśana (दर्न)
Darśana is the Indian equivalent of the Western discipline
of Philosophy. Nyāya (नयाय) and Mīmāṁsā (मीमासा), which
are counted among the eighteen Vidyāsthānas in the
Viṣṇupurāṇa verses above, comprise two of the six vaidika
Darśanas. It is generally undersood that the other four are
included within these two: Mīmāṁsā includes Pūrva-
mīmāṁsā (पूर्वमीमासा) and Uttara-mīmāṁsā (उतरमीमासा),
Nyāya includes Vaiśeṣika (वैशेषिक). Uttara-mīmāṁsā is also
referred to as Vedānta (वेदान). The remaining two Darśanas,
Sāṅkhya (साख) and Yoga (योग), may also be counted along
with Nyāya and Mīmāṁsā, though Madhusūdana Sarasvatī,
the sixteenth century scholar who carried out an extensive
study of the traditional classifcation of Indian knowledge in
his Prasthānabheda (पसथानभेद) prefers to include Sāṅkhya
and Pātañjala-Yoga in Dharmaśāstra (Sharma, 1979).
We propose that of the six Vaidika Darśanas (षडर्शन),
Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika may be classifed under a single class,
because several texts deal with the two together. The other
four, Sāṅkhya, Yoga, Mīmāṁsā, and Vedānta, may be placed
separately under the class of Darśana.
4.4 Bauddha, Jaina and Other Darśana
(बौद, जैन एवं अन दर्न)
Madhusūdana Sarasvatī discusses the issue of classifying
the Darśanas that fall outside the Vaidika or Āstika (आसतिक)
tradition, namely, Bauddha, Jaina and Cārvāka (चार्वक)
Darśanas. According to him, these Nāstika-Prasthānas
(नासतिकपसथान) are also six: four Bauddha-Prasthānas,
namely Mādhyamika, Yogācāra, Sautāntrika and Vaibhāṣika,
Digambara of Jainas and the Cārvāka. In the
Prasthānabheda, these four are placed separately from the
Aṣṭadaśavidyā-Prasthānas.
We propose to place Bauddha and Jaina Darśanas after
the six Vaidika Darśanas and include Cārvāka among “other
Darśanas” under the class of Darśanas.
4.5 Saṁpradāya (संपदाय)
In the scheme of Aṣṭdaśa-Vidyāsthāna, the corpus of difer-
ent Saṁpradāyas is not placed separately and is supposed
to be included along with Dharmaśāstra and Darśana.
However, since many of the Saṁapradāyas have devel-
oped an extensive corpus and literature of their own, it is
appropriate to classify these separately under the category
of Saṁpradāyas. This shall allow us to accommodate the
extensive Darśana and Dharmaśāstra literature that has
been developed in diferent regions and languages of India
by the various Saṁpradāyas.
We propose that under the class of Saṁpradāyas, the
traditional Bhakti, Śaiva, Vaiṣṇava, and Sikh Saṁpradāyas
may be assigned separate places, and all others, includ-
ing some of the modern Saṁpradāyas that have devel-
oped their own canon and other literature, may be placed
under the category of “Other Saṁpradāyas and Ācāryas”.
Of course, many of the distinct Saṁpradāyas shall be
assigned a separate place at further lower decimal levels
within the fve categories of Saṁpradāyas that we place
at this level.
4.6 Vedāṅga (वेदाङ)
Vedāṅgas are six: Kalpa (कल), Nirukta (निरक), Śikṣā
(शिकषा), Vyākaraṇa (वयाकरण), Chandas (छंदस) and Jyotiṣa
(जयोतिष). These six are essential for understanding the Vedas
and appropriately carrying out the Vaidika discipline and
instructions.
4.6.1 Kalpa (कल)
Kalpa texts deal with the proper procedure and discipline for
carrying out various rituals and lay down proper conduct and
duties in diferent situations of life. Kalpa-Vedāṅga includes
Dharmasūtras (धर्सूत). In the 18-fold classifcation laid down
in Viṣṇupurāṇa, Dharmaśāstra (धर्शास्त्र) is placed separately
from Kalpa. Since the subject-matter of the Dharmaśāstra is
the same as that of Dharmasūtras included in the Kalpa-
Vedāṅga, we propose to place the Dharmaśāstras along with
Dharmasūtras, though in separate categories, under the cate-
gory of Vedāṅga.
4.6.2 Nirutka, Śikṣā, Vyākaraṇa, Chandas
(निरक, शिकषा, वयाकरण, छनस)
Four of the Vedāṅgas, namely Nirukta, Śikṣā, Vyākaraṇa, and
Chandas, form the linguisic apparatus for reading and inter-
preting the Vedas. Nirukta roughly corresponds to the Wesern
discipline of etymology. It comprises insructions on the
proper interpretation of Vaidika words and phrases. Śikṣā cor-
responds to the Western discipline of phonetics or phonology.
Taittirīyopaniṣad (तचततिरीयोपनिषद) defnes Śikṣā as the sudy
of— वर्णः सरः। मात्रा बलम। साम सन्तानः। This roughly trans-
lates as— sound (such as अ), rhythm, tone (such as Udātta or
Anudātta, उदात-अनुदात, high or low-pitched tone), length
(short, long, etc., हस-दीर्घआदि), strength (intensity of efort),
modulation (of tone in pronunciation of sounds) and union
(conjunction of sounds). Vyākaraṇa corresponds to the Wes-
ern disciplines of grammar, and Chandas to that of prosody.
Both Vyākaraṇa and Chandas in Indian Knowledge are dealt
with in a very diferent way than the corresponding disciplines
of grammar and prosody in Western knowledge.
In addition to Nirutka, Śikṣā, Vyākaraṇa and Chandas,
the linguistic apparatus of the Vedas, and of Indian lan-
guages in general, also includes Kośa (कोश) or Nighaṇṭu
(निघणटु). These are listings of words (as also of materials,
dravya), organised into several thematic categories and are
similar to, though not the same as, the lexicons and phar-
macopeia, etc., of modern knowledge. According to
Madhusūdana Sarasvatī, the category of Kośa or Nighaṇṭu
is subsumed in Vyākaraṇa. Our classifcation scheme has
to fnd appropriate places for all fve of these components
of the interpretative apparatus of the Vedas within the class
of Vedāṅga.
4.6.3 Śikṣā, Vyākaraṇa, Chandas of other languages
(शिकषा, वयाकरण, छनस—अन भाषाओं के)
The linguistic apparatus for interpreting the Vedas is origi-
nally developed for the Sanskrit language. But many of the
Prākṛita (प्राकृ त) and Other Languages of India have devel-
oped their own extensive Śikṣā, Vyākaraṇa, Chandas and
Kośa, etc., sometimes along the lines of the corresponding
Sanskrit apparatus and also in independent formats. The
classifcation scheme for Indian Knowledge needs to include
this literature also appropriately within this larger class.
Under the category of Vyākaraṇa, we have also assigned
separate places for modern studies of Sanskrit and of other
Indian languages.
4.6.4 Jyotiṣa (जयतिष)
Jyotiṣa is another Vedāṅga that is essential for the proper
performance of the Vaidika actions. Originally devel-
oped as part of the Vedas, this Vedāṅga has seen extensive
development through the ages and forms perhaps the most
signifcant science of India. Jyotiṣa has two components:
Jyotiṣa, which corresponds to astronomy, and Gaṇita, the
mathematics required for calculating the planetary positions,
eclipses, etc. There is also another component of Jyotiṣa,
comprising Jātaka and Saṁhitā, which is concerned with the
impact of the movement of celestial bodies and of celestial
phenomenon on terrestrial life and events. The classifcation
scheme that we develop has to include all these components
under the Jyotiṣa category of Vedāṅga.
It needs to be clarifed that though the above disciplines
have been grouped together under Vedāṅga, because all
of these originally arose in the context of the interpreta-
tions and actions associated with the Vedas, yet in the long
scholarly tradition of Indian knowledge, these disciplines
have been developed in contexts other than that of the Vedas
alone. The categories that we have mentioned above are
meant to accommodate the entire knowledge under each of
the disciplines classifed as Vedāṅgas here.

 

[swesh]

4.7 Upaveda (उपवेद)
Āyurveda (आयुर्वद), Dhanurveda (धनुर्वद), Gāndharvaveda
(गानर्ववेद) and Arthaśāstra (अर्थशास्त्र), the four Vidyāsthānas
that are separate from the fourteen Dharmasthānas, are
referred to as Upavedas. These form a separate class of
Indian Knowledge. Available corpus of Dhanuraveda is
rather limited. Therefore, of the four Vidyāsthanas enumer-
ated in the Viṣṇupurāṇa for this category of knowledge, we
propose to assign separate categories for Āyurveda,
Arthaśāstra and Gāndharvaveda and place Dhanurveda
among “Other Sciences and Technologies”. We also propose
to place Nītiśāstra along with Arthaśāstra.
4.7.1 Āyurveda (आयुर्वद)
Āyurveda refers to the science of health. Under this
Upaveda, we include not only Āyurveda, but other Indian
sysems of medicine, like Siddha (सिद), Yūnāni (यूनानी) and
Sowa Rigpa, the Tibetan version of Āyurveda. Under this
category, we also assign appropriate places for Rasaśāstra
(रसशास्त्र), the science dealing with metals and minerals,
Vṛkṣāyurveda (वृकषायुर्वद), or horticulture, and Mṛgāyurveda
(मृगायुर्वद), corresponding to modern veterinary science,
which have largely developed as parts or ofshoots of
Āyurveda.
4.7.2 Arthaśāstra (अर्थशास)
In the Indian classifcation developed in the Viṣṇupurāṇa,
Arthaśāstra is counted after Dhanurveda and Gāndharvaveda. As we have mentioned above, we propose to place Dhanurveda among Other Indian Sciences andTechnologies. We also propose to place Arthaśāstra and
related disciplines before Gāndharvaveda.
Arthaśāstra is generally equated with the Western dis-
cipline of economics. The Indian discipline of Arthaśāstra,
however, is much wider and encompasses all vyavahāra,
all practical disciplines related to the puruṣārtha of Artha,
one of the four essential human endeavours. It also
includes Nītiśāstra (नीतिशास्त्र), the rules of conduct that
mos closely correspond to the Wesern discipline of poli-
tics and also ethics. Therefore, in the proposed scheme of
classifcation, we place Arthaśāstra and Nītiśāstra
together.
4.7.3 Sthāpatyaveda (सथापतवेद)
Sthāpatyaveda corresponds to the Western disciplines of
architecture, town-planning, sculpture, and painting. This
is not separately counted among the 18 Vidyāsthānas and is
presumed to be included in Arthaśāstra. Since there exists
a considerable corpus of Sthāpatya, we propose to put this
as an additional category separate from Arthaśāstra under
the larger class of Upavedas.
4.7.4  Other Indian science and technologies
There is a considerable corpus of Indian Knowledge relating
to several other Indian Sciences and Technologies, particu-
larly Kṛṣiśāstra (कृषिशास्त्र), the science of agriculture,
Ratnaparīkṣā (रतपरीकषा), the science of precious stones, and
Dhanurveda. It can be presumed that traditionally all these
are included in the Vidyāsthāna of Arthaśāstra. We propose
to include these as separate sub-categories under the larger
category of Upaveda in our scheme of classifcation.
4.7.5 Gāndharvaveda (गानर्ववेद)
After listing Arthaśāstra and the scientifc and technological
disciplines that are presumed to be included in Arthaśāstra,
we assign the next place to Gāndharvaveda, which deals
with the science and art of Music and Dance.
4.7.6 Alaṅkāraśāstra (अलङकारशास)
Alaṅkāraśāstra corresponds to the Western discipline
of aesthetics. In the scheme of eighteen Vidyāsthānas,
it is presumed to be included in Gāndharvaveda. Since
Alaṅkāraśāstra deals particularly with literary com-
positions and has a considerable corpus, we propose to
assign a separate place for it in the proposed scheme of
classifcation. Among the Upavedas, we have also assigned separate
place for “Other Śāstras and Kalās”, like Kāmaśāstra
(कामशास्त्र) and Caturaṅga (चुतरङ्ग), which are subsumed in
Arthaśāstra in the traditional classifcation. We have also
included some of the traditional compendia of various
Vidyās and Kalās (कला) under this category of Other Vidyās
and Kalās.
At the end of the section of Upaveda, we also assign a
place for “Modern Studies on Indian Science, Technology,
Social Sciences, and Arts” to include modern works on these
aspects of Indian knowledge, which may not be accommo-
dated under the “Modern Studies” section of the individual
Upavedas.
4.8 Kāvya
Finally, we have to deal with Kāvya, the extensive literary
corpus of India. Kāvya is not part of the fourteen
Dharmasthānas or of eighteen Vidyāsthānas that we have
described above. Kāvya stands apart from these. The texts
in which knowledge related to the Dharmasthānas and
Vidyāsthānas is compiled are termed Śāstra. Rajaśekhara
(880–920 CE), an eminent poet and critic of the Indian liter-
ary tradition, in his Kāvyamīmāṁsā (काव्यमीमासा), which is
in the nature of a practical treatise for the poets, says that
literary output is of two distinct kinds, śāstra and kāvya, but
prior knowledge of śāstra is essential for kāvya (Rai, 1982,
p. 4,8). He describes the various Vidyāsthānas that we have
dealt with above under śāstra, and then says that kāvya
is the ffteenth Vidyāsthāna that combines all other
Vidyāsthānas. According to him, it comprises both prose
and poetry, it is the work of poets, it shows the path to good-
ness, and it follows the śāstras.
In the classifcation scheme of IK, Kāvya, therefore,
has to be placed in a separate category after the śāstras,
which we have already classifed above. Within this larger
category, the Literature of Sanskrit and that of other Indian
languages has to be classifed separately.
This completes the classifcation of the components, or
abodes, of knowledge that are found in the traditional clas-
sifcation of Indian Knowledge.

 

[swesh]

4.9 History and geography
Within the Indian scheme of classifcation of knowledge,
History and Geography, as we know these disciplines
today, would form part of Itihāsa and Purāṇa. However,
we fnd it necessary to create space within the class of
Indian knowledge for modern books that compile the
sources of Indian history—inscriptions, major Indian
source works, and the Foreigners’ Accounts of India.
Similarly, it shall be proper to place modern studies of
Indian history within the classifcation scheme of Indian
knowledge.
In Geography, we fnd it necessary to fnd a place within
the classifcation of Indian knowledge for texts dealing with
Tīrtha (तीर्थ) and Tīrthayātrā (तीर्थयात्रा), including the
Sthalapurāṇas (स्थलपुराण) and Māhātmyas (माहात), etc., of
particular places. Relatively modern source works like the
Disrict and All India Gazetteers of the British times may also
be accommodated in the category of Geography. Modern
Studies of the Hisorical Geography of India also need to be
placed in the “Geography” section of Indian Knowledge.
This category of History and Geography within the larger
class of Indian Knowledge shall have to be carefully defned
such as to ensure that only works relevant to the understand-
ing of classical geography and history of India are included
here while others remain at the place assigned for them in
the DDC.
4.10 Bibliographies
Several catalogues of Indian manuscripts and older books
of Indian knowledge, surveys of Indian Literature, ency-
clopaedias of Indian knowledge, and expositions of Indian
knowledge have been published in the modern times. We
propose to assign a place for these also in the proposed clas-
sifcation scheme of Indian Knowledge.
5  Classifcation of Indian knowledge
under division 40 of DDC
As we have indicated earlier, our objective is to fnd a place
for Indian Knowledge within the Dewey Decimal Classi-
fcation through a minimal modifcation. An inspection of
“DDC-23 Summaries” (Mitchell et al., 2011), shows that
division 040, comprising 10 sections from 040 to 049 is
presently unassigned. We suggest that we assign this entire
division to Indian Knowledge and accommodate the tradi-
tional classifcation scheme for the Indian corpus that we
have described above within these 10 sections.The ten sec-
tions that we propose are the following:
040. Veda
041. Itihāsa and Purāṇa
042. Darśana
043. Saṁpradāya
044. Vedāṅga
045. Upaveda
046. Kāvya
047. History
048. Geography
049. Bibliographies
In Table 3 below, we show how to accommodate
the eighteen Vidyāsthānas and other components of
Indian Knowledge that we have described above in this
scheme. In the Appendix, we give the detailed scheme
of classification proposed by us to accommodate the
entire corpus of Indian knowledge. We have been able to
accommodate nearly all components of the corpus within
a scheme involving up to 3 decimal places (4x.xxx). In
a few cases, we have needed to go to the fourth decimal
point.
To test out this scheme of classifcation, we have clas-
sifed 15,242 volumes (soft copies) of books on Indian
Knowledge. The number of volumes under different
sections and sub-sections is given in the last column
of Table 3. The detailed scheme given in the Appendix
includes all of the further sub-sections that we have pro-
posed here and gives the number of volumes that we have
classifed under each head. Of these about 15 thousand
volumes, about seven thousand comprise canonical texts,
traditional commentaries on them, and their translations.
While the higher-level scheme of classifcation up to
the frst decimal place given in Table 3 can be taken to
be nearly fnal, the more detailed scheme proposed in the
Appendix must be treated as tentative. We have tested this
scheme for the classifcation of 15,242 volumes in the soft
format. More systematic classifcation of the physical vol-
umes and inclusion of additional material in this corpus
may require some modifcation of the scheme proposed
in the Appendix. This classifcation scheme shall have to
be perfected by actually organising a physical library for
the corpus of Indian Knowledge. We propose to organise
such a library in the near future. In the process of organis-
ing the physical library, we shall also provide description
and notes for the material to be included under the various
heads listed in the Appendix.
We propose that the scheme of classification described
here may be discussed among major librarians of India,
modified where found necessary, and adopted for clas-
sifying the corpus of Indian Knowledge in our libraries.
This modification of the classification scheme currently
followed in Indian libraries is essential to preserve and
appreciate the integrity of Indian Knowledge as a con-
nected whole. Such preservation and appreciation would
enrich our understanding of different components of IK
and their historical evolution.
If the Indian libraries begin following this scheme of clas-
sifcation, it shall fnd acceptance within the DDC in due
course. Until that happens, it may be prudent to add prefx I
(for Indian) to DDC Class 040 that we have proposed here
to be reserved for Indian knowledge.

 

[swesh]