KAMASUTRA INTRODUCTION

IT may be interesting to some persons to learn how it came about that Vatsyayana was

first brought to light and translated into the English language. It happened thus. While

translating with the pundits the `Anunga Runga, or the stage of love', reference was

frequently found to be made to one Vatsya. The sage Vatsya was of this opinion, or of

that opinion. The sage Vatsya said this, and so on. Naturally questions were asked who

the sage was, and the pundits replied that Vatsya was the author of the standard work on

love in Sanscrit literature, that no Sanscrit library was complete without his work, and

that it was most difficult now to obtain in its entire state. The copy of the manuscript

obtained in Bombay was defective, and so the pundits wrote to Benares, Calcutta and

Jeypoor for copies of the manuscript from Sanscrit libraries in those places. Copies

having been obtained, they were then compared with each other, and with the aid of a

Commentary called `Jayamangla' a revised copy of the entire manuscript was prepared,

and from this copy the English translation was made. The following is the certificate of

the chief pundit:

`The accompanying manuscript is corrected by me after comparing four different copies

of the work. I had the assistance of a Commentary called "Jayamangla" for correcting the

portion in the first five parts, but found great difficulty in correcting the remaining

portion, because, with the exception of one copy thereof which was tolerably correct, all

the other copies I had were far too incorrect. However, I took that portion as correct in

which the majority of the copies agreed with each other.'

The `Aphorisms on Love' by Vatsyayana contain about one thousand two hundred and

fifty slokas or verses, and are divided into parts, parts into chapters, and chapters into

paragraphs. The whole consists of seven parts, thirty-six chapters, and sixty-four

paragraphs. Hardly anything is known about the author. His real name is supposed to be

Mallinaga or Mrillana, Vatsyayana being his family name. At the close of the work this is

what he writes about himself:

`After reading and considering the works of Babhravya and other ancient authors, and

thinking over the meaning of the rules given by them, this treatise was composed,

according to the precepts of the Holy Writ, for the benefit of the world, by Vatsyayana,

while leading the life of a religious student at Benares, and wholly engaged in the

contemplation of the Deity. This work is not to be used merely as an instrument for

satisfying our desires. A person acquainted with the true principles of this science, who

preserves his Dharma (virtue or religious merit), his Artha (worldly wealth) and his Kama

(pleasure or sensual gratification), and who has regard to the customs of the people, is

sure to obtain the mastery over his senses. In short, an intelligent and knowing person

attending to Dharma and Artha and also to Kama, without becoming the slave of his

passions, will obtain success in everything that he may do.'

It is impossible to fix the exact date either of the life of Vatsyayana or of his work. It is

supposed that he must have lived between the first and sixth century of the Christian era,

on the following grounds. He mentions that Satakarni Satavahana, a king of Kuntal,killed Malayevati his wife with an instrument called kartari by striking her in the passion

of love, and Vatsya quotes this case to warn people of the danger arising from some old

customs of striking women when under the influence of this passion. Now this king of

Kuntal is believed to have lived and reigned during the first century A.D., and

consequently Vatsya must have lived after him. On the other hand, Virahamihira, in the

eighteenth chapter of his `Brihatsanhita', treats of the science of love, and appears to have

borrowed largely from Vatsyayana on the subject. Now Virahamihira is said to have lived

during the sixth century A.D., and as Vatsya must have written his works previously,

therefore not earlier than the first century A.D., and not later than the sixth century A.D.,

must be considered as the approximate date of his existence.

On the text of the `Aphorisms on Love', by Vatsyayana, only two commentaries have

been found. One called `Jayamangla' or `Sutrabashya', and the other `Sutra vritti'. The

date of the `Jayamangla' is fixed between the tenth and thirteenth century A.D., because

while treating of the sixty-four arts an example is taken from the `Kavyaprakasha' which

was written about the tenth century A.D. Again, the copy of the commentary procured

was evidently a transcript of a manuscript which once had a place in the library of a

Chaulukyan king named Vishaladeva, a fact elicited from the following sentence at the

end of it.

`Here ends the part relating to the art of love in the commentary on the "Vatsyayana

Kama Sutra", a copy from the library of the king of kings, Vishaladeva, who was a

powerful hero, as it were a second Arjuna, and head jewel of the Chaulukya family.'

Now it is well known that this king ruled in Guzerat from 1244 to 1262 A.D., and

founded a city called Visalnagur. The date, therefore, of the commentary is taken to be

not earlier than the tenth and not later than the thirteenth century. The author of it is

supposed to be one Yashodhara, the name given him by his preceptor being Indrapada.

He seems to have written it during the time of affliction caused by his separation from a

clever and shrewd woman, at least that is what lie himself says at the end of each chapter.

It is presumed that he called his work after the name of his absent mistress, or the word

may have some connection with the meaning of her name.

This commentary was most useful in explaining the true meaning of Vatsyayana, for the

commentator appears to have had a considerable knowledge of the times of the older

author, and gives in some places very minute information. This cannot be said of the

other commentary, called `Sutra vritti', which was written about A.D. 1789, by Narsing

Shastri, a pupil of a Sarveshwar Shastri; the latter was a descendant of Bhaskur, and so

also was our author, for at the conclusion of every part he calls himself Bhaskur Narsing

Shastri. He was induced to write the work by order of the learned Raja Vrijalala, while he

was residing in Benares, but as to the merits of this commentary it does not deserve much

commendation. In many cases the writer does not appear to have understood the meaning

of the original author, and has changed the text in many places to fit in with his own

explanations.