- Email: [email protected]
Treatment of Indian philosophy and Indian religions in colon classification
Znt. Libr. Rev. (1978) 10,283-300
Treatment of Indian Philosophy and Indian Religions in Colon Classification 1 P. S. K. SHARMA*
The time between the 1 lth century and the 18th century forms a dark period in the history of Indian thought, when its tide, contending as it had to with inimical and hostile forces, was at a low ebb. Although invaders like Muhammad Bin Kasim and Mahmood Gazanavi could not or did not want to establish their sway, their repeated inroads had their inevitable impact on the life and conditions of the people of India. These forced the Indians to discard their spiritual heritage and to devote themselves to the protection of their worldly interests. Thus the adverse conditions lasting for centuries proved pernicious to Indian thought and literature, drying up the very source of original thinking and at the same time discouraging the systematic study of ancient philosophical systems and religious literature. However, it has been a characteristic of the Indian mind that it cannot be suppressed altogether, and as soon it as finds favourable conditions it sprouts out anew and begins to thrive. Whenever Hindus surrendered to the foreign forces they surrendered physically and there had not been emotional attachment behind their subjugation. Even the barbaric inroads of the Turks, the Afghans, and the Mughals and the adverse conditions could not efface from the minds of the Hindus the greatness of their religious and philosophical thought. So when the Europeans, the Americans, the Germans and other foreigners created proper auxiliary conditions and started studying and conducting research on various branches of Indology, it began to prosper. This gave a fresh fillip to research and as a result Indians also devoted themselves to the revival of their century old cultural stagnations. All these factors made a significant contribution to the growth of * Librarian, University Grants Cornmiss’ Ion, Bahadur Shah Zafar 110002, India. 1 Abbreviations: C.C. = Colon Classification, 6th Am. Ed.; D.C. Classification, 18th Ed.; (M C) = Main Class; [E] = Energy Facet.
Marg, =
Dewey
New
Delhi Decimal
284
P.
S. K.
SHARMA
literature on Indology and to the importance which books on Indology occupy in the libraries today. This posed a challenge for librarians in India and abroad to classify such books. CoLoN
CLASSIFICATION
Indian librarians have been meeting this challenge with courage. To face and solve the problem S. R. Ranganathan, whose restive mind was endeavouring in 1920s to devise a new scheme of classification for India, came forward with his scheme, Colon Ch.s.$ication. S. R. Ranganathan’s writings have revolutionized classificatory thought and acted as stimulus to the philosophy of library classifications. Enunciation of C.C. is a significant contribution on the part of Dr Ranganathan. In this scheme, under the schedules on Indian philosophy and religion generous provisions have been made in order to accommodate various concepts and aspects of Indian philosophy and the religions of Indic origin. Apart from this, part three of C.C. is devoted to the schedules relating to Indian classics and sacred books with special names. In this part schedules on philosophical, religious and other Indological books have been worked out in detail. Colon Classification was devised and first published (1933) by Dr Ranganathan at a time when market and libraries were deluged with Indological books, and when it was commonly accepted that none of the existing schemes of classification provide adequately for these books.1 This was felt by Dr Ranganathan also and he expressed to Sayers that “his mind was intent upon a new scheme of classification for India”.2 Owing to these factors the scheme naturally lays marked emphasis on the subjects of Indic origin, has earned a wide acclaim on account of its theoretical base, and is understood to be elaborately complete, systematic and logical especially for Indological subjects. This has led many Indian librarians to recommend its for arranging Indian books. Dr Ranganathan has himself recommended4 his scheme for this purpose by rejecting D.C. Some of the foreign library scientists are also of the opinion that this scheme is “an admirable scheme for arranging Indian 1 R. S. Parakhi (1964). Decimal ClassiJicatiom and Colon Classt&ation in Perspective, p. 131. Bombay: Asia Publishers. s S. R. Ranganathan (1967). Prolegom to Library ClassiJication, 3rd Ed., Preface by W. C. B. Sayers. 3 Many articles have been written for this purpose. For example: R. S. Parakhi (1962). Observation on the application of the Colon Classification to Indian libraries. Herald of Library Science 3, 17. 4 S. R. Ranganathan (1973). New Education and School Library, p. 370. Delhi: Vikas Publication.
CLASSIFICATION
OF
INDIAN
PHILOSOPHY
AND
RELIGION
285
books”.1 On the other hand many Indian librarians reject C.C. because of its unwieldy structure and “complicated scheme of long numbers”.2 Complication of C.C.‘s notation has provoked many library scientists to observe that the scheme “fails to economize the systematic devices and its complicated pseudo-mnemonic notation is too much of a burden for any scheme of bibliographic classification to bear”.3 Foskett considers its notation to be confusing.4Among others who reproach the notational complexity of C.C. are Phillips, who is of the opinion that the scheme is “more a theoretical exercise than a fully fledged bibliographic scheme”,5 and Banerzea who comments, “. . . because of its complex nature and unwieldly structure the colon scheme has not found much favour with library workers in India despite the fact it has exhaustively dealt with Indian and oriental subjects.“6 Dhanpat Rai has also expressed analogous views.7 Likewise, Bliss, who has already been quoted above, has termed CC.3 “extremely lengthy and complicated notation” as “excess of Colon classification”.s Sayers also accepts that “unfortunately it is a complicated classification in many ways”.9 OBSERVATION
Neither of these two extremes seems to be incorrect, but it must be owned that one of these is more powerful and convincing than the other. Therefore, before coming to any conclusion it seems pertinent to examine the treatment of Indology in C.C. so as to see the relative merits and demerits of the scheme in right perspective. However, in one paper it is not possible to examine the treatment of all the branches of Indology in C.C. therefore, in the present paper only the treatment of two subjects-Indian philosophy and Indian religions, which occupy an important place among the Indological subjects-has been considered. 1 W. C. B. Sayers as quoted by Ranganathan (1973). Op. cit. s Meena Krishnaswamy (1965). Proposal for the method of adopting the Dewey Decimal Classification scheme to meet the needs of India. Library Resources and Technical Se&es 9,449. s Henry Evelyn Bliss (1939). The Organisation of Knowledge in Libraries and the Subject Approach of Books, p. 304. New York: H. W. Wilson. 4 A. C. Foskett (1969). 77ze Subject Approach to Information, p. 207. London: Clive Bingley. s H. Howard Phillips (1961). Primer of Book Cfassifitation. 5th Ed., p. 149. London: Association of Assistant Librarians. s P. K. Banerzea (1957). Need for expansion of D.C. numbers for Indian subjects. Indian Librarian 11, 152. 7 Dhanpat Rai (1965). Colon classification and its use etc. SIXTH ZASLZC Conference. Calcutta: Iaslic. 8 Henry Evelyn Bliss (1957). Op. cit., p. 149. 0 W. C. B. Sayers (1967). A Manual of Library ClassiJication for Librarians. 4th Ed., revised by A. Maltby, p. 55. London: Deutsch.
P. S. K. SHARMA
286
COLON
CLASSIFICATION
AND INDIAN
PHILOSOPHY
There are many Principles and Canons of library classification which have been declared by the deviser of C.C. to be of cardinal value and indispensible for a scheme of classification, and on the basis of which D.C. and other schemes of classification have been criticised frequently. It seems significant to point out that C.C. is devised and has been developed and modified on the lines of such Canons and Principles, and though, it is interesting to note that the scheme unintentionally violates these. It seems pertinent to point out a few of such violations in C.C. with special reference to Indian philosophy. Violation of Canon of he&@ sequence The Canon of helpful sequence prescribes, “the sequence of the classes in an array of classes, and of the ranked isolates in an array of ranked isolates, should be helpful to the purpose of those for whom it is intended.“1 According to this Canon two or more classes should be placed in such a manner that may be helpful and convenient to readers. Thus, it will demand that books on language should be placed with the books on literature, on Philosophy with religion; on mathematics with engineering; on geology with mining; on botany with agriculture; etc. In the case of the various schools of Indian Philosophy, it is almost an accepted fact that the books on the Heterodox schools (consisting of the Carvak, the Jains, and the Buddhist schools) should precede the books on the Orthodox schools (comprising the six traditional schools). The eminent scholar of Indian Philosophy, Dasgupta, has recommended for the students of the orthodox schools to acquire a prior knowledge and study of the heterodox schoo1s.s Jawla Prasad is also of the opinion that “ . . . most of the Hindu orthodox philosophical sutras presuppose the existence of heterodox doctrines, such as the Materialists (the Carvak), the Jains and the Buddhists”.3 C.C.‘s order between the heterodox and the orthodox schools is not in conformity with the said sequence which is helpful both metaphysically and chronologically. This is shown in Table I wherein it becomes apparent that the sequence maintained by C.C. is not helpful for a student of Indian Philosophical schools because of the fact that in it the three heterodox schools, viz., the Carvak, the Jain, and the Buddhist are placed next to the orthodox schools. 1 S. R. Ranganathan (1967). Prolegomena. Op. cit., p. 163. 2 Surendra Nath Dasgupta (1962). A History ofIndian Philosophy (5 Volumes), Vol. 1, p. 8. Cambridge: University Press. 3 Jwala Prasad (1956). History of Indian Ej&enalogy : Being the author’s thesis af@roved for the degree of Doctor qf Philosophy by the Univer& of Cambridge. 2nd Ed., p. 87. Delhi, Munshiram Manoharlall.
CLASSIFICATION
OF INDIAN
PHILOSOPHY
TABLE
AND
RELIGION
287
I
Violation of Canon of help@ sequencein C.C. Helpful r Term
L
order’ Sequence
Carvak Jaina Buddhist Samkhya Yoga Nwa Vaisesika Mimamsa Vedanta
A I3 C D E F G H I
\
I
Sequence G F D E B I A B C
C.C.‘s orders * > Term Class number Vaisesika Nyaya Samkhya Yoga Mimamsa Vedanta Carvaka Jaina Buddhist
R62 1 R622 R63 1 R632 R64 R68 R69 1 R693 R694
Violation of Canon for fliatory sequence Canons for filiatory sequence are two, (i) Canon for subordinate classes, and (ii) Canon for co-ordinate classes.3 The former Canon prescribes, “In a coalesced array if A 1, A 2, A 3, etc. are subclasses of any order whatever of Class A, originated in one or another of the chains originating from the class A, the classes A 1, A 2, A 3, etc. should immediately follow the class A in succession, without being separated from it or among themselves by any other class.4 This Canon is of paramount value for arranging chains of commentaries on various source books and scriptures. It is violated in CC. while assigning class numbers to the various sutras and commentaries of the Yoga school of philosophy in part 3 of C.C.5 For instance, the Tattva-vaisaradi of Vacaspati Misra, and the Yoga-Vartika of Vijnanbhiksu, both are commentaries upon the Vyas-bhasva.6 Therefore, both these should have been placed in one array, but it has not been done so. Secondly, in the schedules of C.C. R635xI,I,I is assigned to the Vyasbharya and R635xI,I,2 to Vijnanbhiksu’s Yoga-vartika, whereas in fact the latter is a sub-commentary on the Vym-bhasva, and therefore R635xI,I,I,I should have been assigned to the 2’oga-vartik, but this number has erroneously been assigned to the Tattva-vaisardi. Thirdly, Raghavanand 1 Suggested by Dasgupta and Jwala Prasad, as mentioned earlier. 2 Maintained by S. R. Ranganathan (1969). Colon Classification, 6th Am. Ed., p. 2.102. Bombay: Asia Publication. 3 Ranganathan ( 1967). Prokgomena. Ofi. cit., p. 179.
4 Lot.
cit.
5 Ranganathan (1969). Colon, Op. cit., p. 3.38. 6 Dasgupta. Op. cit., Y. 1, p. 212.
288
P. S. K. SHARMA
Sarasvati’s Patanial-bhasva is known to be a commentary on the Tattvavaisaradi, and as such it should have been given R635xI,I,I,I,l (if the class number for Tattva-vaisaradi is correct at all), whereas in C.C. R635xI,I,3 is assigned to it, which means, it is the third and a direct commentary upon the Yoga-s&a or Patanjali. All these violate the Canon for Filiatory Sequence. This is made clear in Table II. TABLE
II
Violation of Canon forjiliatory Accepted
sequence Sequence
Patanjali : Yoga-sutra Vyas: Bhasya Vijnanbhiksu : Yogavartika Vacaspati Misra : Tattva-vaisaradi Raghavananda Saraswati : Patanjal-bhasya
r Sequence
A Al All
A Al A 11
A12
A2
A121
A3
sequencein C.C.
Colon Classification’s * Term
sequence Class number
,
Patanjali : Yoga-sutra R635x1,l Vyas : Bhasya R635x, l,l,l Vacaspati Misra: R635xl,l,l Tattva-vaisaradi Vijananbhiksu: R635x1,1,2 Yoga-vartika Raghavananda Saraswati : Patanjal-bhasya R635x1,1,3
Violation of Canon for scheduled mnemonics The Canon for scheduled mnemonics prescribes, “An entity must be represented by the same digit or set of digits in whatever class it occurs”.1 This Canon makes it obligatory on the part of a classifier to assign one and the same digit or set of digits to represent a particular subject or term if it occurs in more than one class. For instance, in C.C. under (MC) Q: Religion, Jainism and Buddhism are represented by the digits 3 and 4 respectively.2 Both the terms have again been represented by the same digits in R6: Indian philosophy wherein R693 is assigned to Jaina Philosophy.3 This shows C.C.‘s respect for this Canon. But violation of this Canon is also not less apparent in R6: Indian philosophy. For instance, in the (MC) Q: Religion the Mahayana, school of Buddhism is represented by 2 (Q42 is Mahayana, Indian, i.e. Q: Religion, Q4: Buddhism, Q42: Mahayana) .4 But the same concept or term has been represented by 5 in R6: Indian philosophy, (R6945: Philosophy of Mahayana, i.e. R6: Indian philosophy, R69: 1 S. R. Ranganathan (1960). Elements of Library p. 57. Bombay: Asia Publications. 2 Ranganathan (1969). Colon. Op. cil., p. 2.97. 3
La. cit.
4 Ibid.,
p. 2.102.
ClassiJication
(B. I. Palmer, ed.), 2nd Ed.,
CLASSIFICATION
OF
INDIAN
PHILOSOPHY
AND
289
RELIGION
Other schools of Indian Philosophy, R694: Buddhist philosophy, R6945 : Mahayana philosophy) .r Another example of violation of this Canon may be found in the representation of the Upanisads under the schedules on Philosophy, and Religion. Under (MC) Q: Religion, the term Upanisad is represented by the digit 4s under [El, whereas in (MC) R6: Indian philosophy the digit ‘0’ is assigned to it.s This is illustrated in Table III. III
TABLE
Violation of Canon of scheduled mnemonics in C.C. Term Mabayan Upanisad
Class number Religion
under
the
2 4
(MC)
Q:
Class Indian
number under Philosophy
the
(MC)
R6 :
5 0
Violation of Prin+le of canonical sequence The Principle of canonical sequence prescribes, “if the subjects in an array of subjects or the isolates in an array of isolates are traditionally referred to in a specific sequence, although no underlying principle is discoverable, it will be convenient to conform to this sequence”.4 C.C. seems to violate this principle under the schedules on R: Philosophy while maintaining sequence among the canonical classes. In order to reach this conclusion, it is pertinent to find out the actual traditional sequence. Metaphysics, which is that branch of philosophy which is concerned with the general nature of reality, was called “first principle”5 by Aristotle. Epistemology, the theory or science of knowledge, comes next. It is an accepted fact that theories and doctrines of Epistemology and logic came forward primarily to solve the fairly developed problems posed by Metaphysics .s Therefore, canonical sequence can only be respected when books on Epistemology succeed books on Metaphysics. 1 2 s 4 5
Ranganathan (1969). Colon. Op. cit., p. 2.102. Ranganathan (1969). Colon. Op. cit., p. 2.98. Ranganathan (1969). Colon. Op. cit., p. 2.102. Ranganathan (1967). Frolegomena. Ofi. cit., p. 194. Phillip L. Harriman (1961). Metaphysics. In Encycl@edia Americana. Vol. 18, p. 708. New York: American Corporation. a In this connection Jayatilleke may he quoted. Referring to J. Burnett, he observes: “it is only when Metaphysical speculations attain a certain maturity and result in the formulation of a variety of theories than an interest is shown in the problem of knowledge and epistemological questions are first mooted. If we turn to the Indian context, we can trace an analogous development”.-K. N. Jaitilleke (1963). Early Buddhist l7tmy of Knortdedgc, p. 21. London: George Allen & Unwin.
290
P. S. K. SHARMA
C.C. maintains a reverse sequence: it places Metaphysics next to Epistemology,1 and this violates the principle under consideration. Likewise, particularly in Indian context, Logic was systematically expounded by the Nyaya school of Indian philosophy as a tool for testifying the validity of knowledge.2 Since Logic emerged as a tool for testifying knowledge, Epistemology, the theory of knowledge, should precede Logic, whereas C.C. maintains a reverse sequence by placing Logic before Epistemology.3 This is illustrated in Table IV. IV
TABLE
Violation of Principle of canonical sequencein C.C. Accepted
canonical
sequence
C.C.‘s sequence * \ Term Class number
r Sequence Metaphysics Epistemology Logic Ethics
COLON
A B C D
C B A D
CLASSIFICATION
AND
Logic Epistemology Metaphysics Ethics
INDIAN
Rl R2 R3 R4
RELIGIONS
A superficial observation of CC.3 schedules on Religion is likely to reveal that the scheme has larger and systematic representation of different aspects of Indian religions and their branches. Under the schedule on Indian religions places for minor concepts have been provided. But it seems that in the complication of making provision for each minor subject, major subjects have not been considered and are either absent or represented in a wrong or an unhelpful manner. A minute analysis of the schedule may reveal the following major drawbacks and inadequacies in classifying Indian religions : Treatment of common Hindu scriptures Before embarking upon the examination and analysis of the treatment of the common scriptures in C.C. it seems worthwhile to clarify the term “common scriptures”. There are certain books or groups of books related to a religion that are treated as sacred by the adherents of that religion. Usually, in Indian context, such books form a group of their own and are known by a generic heading that is used to denote all the 1 In Colar IU is Epistemology, and R3 is Metaphysics. a3wala Prasad. Op. cit., p. 4. SRanganathan (1969). Colon. Op. cit., p. 2.100.
CLASSIFICATION
OF
INDIAN
PHILOSOPHY
AND
RELIGION
291
books or even sub-classes of the books of that class. Some of these, with special reference to Hinduism, are known as the k’edas, the Brulrmanr, the Purunus, the Epics etc. In addition to these, there is a separate category of specific or sectarian scriptures, such as the Tantras. The difference between these two categories of scriptures (common and sectarian) is that while the former is usually treated as sacred among all the adherents of all the groups or sects of Hindu religion, the latter is usually held as sacred only among the adherents of the respective sects to which the scripture belongs. For example, the Vedas and the two Epics-the Ramayanas and the Mahabharata-are meant to be sacred books of all the sects of the Hindus: whereas when we think of the Samhitas, the Aqamas or the Tan&as we have usually in mind the Vaishnavas, the Shaivas and the Shaktas respectively. Winternitz’s observation, that “Though there is no clear line of demarcation between the terms, strictly speaking the ‘Samhitas’ are the sacred books of the Vaisnavas, the ‘Aganas’ those of Saivas and the ‘ Tuntras’ those of the sakts”l substantiates it. Therefore, by “Common scriptures” is meant here those scriptures that are normally treated sacred by all Hindus in general. Most important of such scriptures are the Vedas including their auxiliary treatises such as the Brahmans, the Upanisads; the Purans and the two Epics. Limiting the present study to these three groups of scriptures alone, for the reasons already mentioned, the analysis of their treatment in C.C. has been presented below. A subdivision of all these common scriptures has been accomplished one by one in idea and verbal planes so as to provide a background for examining and analysing their treatment in notational plans in C.C. Treatment of Vedic literature. The Vedus are the fundamental scriptures of Hinduism. “To acknowledge the authority of the Vedas” says Neber, “is the first sign to be a Hindu.“2 The Vedas consist of “. . . a group of literature of miscellaneous nature”,3 and these are often taken to be the “important sources of all Indian religions”.* The Vedas is a collective name given to many books. In the words of Bloomfield, the number of the books “. . . in one sense or another 1 Maurice Winternitz (1972). A History of India’s fitcrahcrc. 2nd Indian Ed. 2 Vols., Vol. 1, p. 587. New Delhi: Oriental Book Reprint Corporation. 2 Max Weber (1958). Religion of In&a: lXe .!&iolo~ of Him&&m and Buddhism. Ed. and tranl. by Hans H. Gerth and Don Martindals, p. 28. Glencoe: Free Press. 8 C. Kurhan Raja (1982). Survey of San&tit Literature, p. 9. Bombay; Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan. 4 A. B. Keith ( 1925). The Religion and PhilosqSy of the Ve’cdas and the U@anisads, pt. 1, p. 3 Il. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
292
P.
S. K.
SHARMA
counted as the Veda is hundred or more.“1 Many scholars mean by the “Veda”, or apply to it, all the scriptures and sacred books of the Hindus.2 This connotation of the term “F’edu” is justified if it is taken to be analogous with the Sruti, by including in it, and by further dividing it under, the various Brahmanar, Upanisads, Aranyakas, etc. This division is rather a literary one and will place all the Brahmanas etc. under the individual Vedas to which they belong. Weber, while dealing with the Vedic literature in his book prefers to place all these in this manner. In part three of C.C. the Vedic literature is classified in a like manner. This is shown in Table V by furnishing relevant Class numbers, extracted from part three of CC. TABLE
V
Class numbers for Vedic literature in C.C. Heading
Class
Sankhyayana Kalpasutra Sairkhyayana Brahmana Manava Kalpasutra Baudhayana Kalpasutra Satapatha Brahmana Brahadaranyaka Upanisad Katyayana Kalpasutra Samvidhana Brahmana Sadvimse Brahmana Chadogya Upanishad Latyayana Kalpasutra Kena Upanisad Jaiminiya Kalpasutra Mundaka Upanisad Group
:
A = Kalpasutra:
Q112 4112 Q124 Q125 Q127 Q127 Q127 4131 Ql31 Q131 Q131 Q132 Q132 Q141 B =
Brahmana:
number : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
4x2,1 22 4x1,1 4x1,1 22 24 4x1,1 22 222 24 4x2,1 24 4x1,1 25
C = Upanishad.
It is pertinent to mention here that many Macdonells and Winternit+ while dealing with their respective books, classify and deal with Upanisads, etc. independently and further divide various Vedas they belong to.
other scholars, such as the subject contents of the various Brahmanas, these according to the
1 Maurice Bloomfield (1972). The Religion of the Veabs. Indian Rd., p. 17. Varanasi, Indological Book House. 2 Rene Guenon (1945). Intmhution to the Study of the Hi& Doctrines. Tr. by Mares Pallis, p. 149. London: Luzac. He w-rites: “The term.. . Vcda is applied in general to all basic scriptures of the Hindu tradition.” s A. A. Macdonell (1904). A Histoty of Sanskrit Litcraturc, p. 209. London: Williams Heinman. 4 wintffnik (1972). Op cit., Vol. 1, p. 53.
CLASSIFICATION
OF
INDIAN
PHILOSOPHY
AND
RELIGION
2%
Therefore,
for classifying Vedic literature we have two alternatives, all the Bruhmanus, the U’anisadr etc. under their respective Vedas or in subordination to the Vedas; or (ii) to give the Bruhmunas, the Upunisuk etc. an independent treatment and to further divide them on the basis of their affiliation to the various Vedas. C.C. chooses to opt for the former, as shown in Table V. However, the utility and relevance of the two manners of classifying Common Hindu Scriptures for the purpose of placing these in the shelves of a library need analysis and examination. For this purpose the two ways of classifying the Vedic literature, forming two different groups and giving two different sequences among various classes of works, are given in Table VI. As is evident from Table V, the hierarchy and structure of Group “A” has been accepted for classifying Vedic Literature in C.C. The same structure has been accepted in the Pruchyu Vurqikurus Puddhutil and in some of the Indian expansion of D.C., such as, Mookerzee’s expansion.2 Such placing of classes certainly shows a successive growth of the Vedic tradition and its four or five Samhitas, and at the same time satisfies some of the canons of library classification, such as the “Canon for filiatory sequence” , yet it does not seem, for practical reasons, to be useful for classifying the Universe of books on Vedic literature for their subsequent placing on shelves of a library. Such practical reasons may be specified under subsection 512 of this article. viz. (i) to include
Reasonsfor rejecting the hierarchy of Group A.
From the practical aspect of the problem, the division of the first group Table VI (i.e. Group A) accepted by C.C. does not seem to be of much use for classifying Vedic literature for the subsequent placing of like titles together on shelves. The division of this group and therefore of that of C.C. lacks one major thing: it does not have a proper provision for accommodating comprehensive works on a few groups though such works are being published in abundance. Some of the most well known among these are The Thirteen Prinapul Upunisuds, Tr. by Robert E. Hume, 2nd ed : London, Oxford University Press (1931) ; and The Principal Upunisuds, (S. Radhakrishnan, Ed.) : London, George Allen & Unwin (1953). Such works will be classed by C.C. under Q 1: 24, whereas individual Upanisads will be placed separately, e.g. the Brihadaranyak Upanisads-Q127 : 24, the Mundak UpanisadQ141 : 24 etc. In between the comprehensive works-Q 1 : 24 and 1 Satish Chandra Guha (ed.). Prachya Vargikaran fication), pp. 109-10. Varanasi: Varaneseya Sanskrit 2 Subodh Kumar Mookerzee (1969). Develofment appendix. Calcutta: World Press.
PaaUhati (i.e. Ancient Scheme University. of Libraries and Library S&m
of Classiin India,
294
P. S. K. SHARMA TABLE
VI
Two ways of classifying Vedic literature Group
A
Group B
Rigveda Samhita Brahamanas Aranyakas Upanisads Kalpasutras Shrauta Sutras Shulva Sutras Grihya Sutras Dharma Sutras Samveda Samhita Brahmanas Aranyakas Upanisads Kalpasutras Shrauta Sutras Shulva Sutras Grihya Sutras Dharma Sutras Black Yajurveda, White Yajurveda and Atharya Veda same as above
Samhitas and comprehensive Rigvedic Samvedic Black Yajurvedic White Yajurvedic Atharvavedic Brahmanas Rigvedic Samvedic Black Yajurvedic White Yajurvedic Atharvavedic Aranyakas Same as above Upanisads Same as above Kaplasutras Shrauta Sutras Same as above
works
individual Upanisads, i.e. Q127 : 24, Q141 : 24 etc. will be placed Brahmanas etc. This will consequently separate works of one class or one group from each other, as shown in Table V, and will separate an exhaustive work (such as The Thirteen Principal Upanisads etc.) from an individual work (such as Brahadaranyak Upanisad) as discussed above. In the idea plane all the Brahmanas, the Upanisads, etc. form a “class of their own”. For instance, all the Brahmanas, irrespective of the relation they bear to their Vedas, necessarily deal with sacrifices and sacrificial acts. “This particular Character is common generally to all works of this class”.1 Likewise the Upanisads also form a class of their own and they are known as Philosophical treatises.2 The various sutras also bear affinity to one another in contents and form a class of their own. It is always convenient to place The Thirteen Principal Upanisads, Th Principal Upanisads (Comprehensive works), the Aitareya and the 1 F. Max Muller, tr. (1962). The Upanisads. 8 Albrecht Ed. by John
Weber (1961). The Mann and Theodore
Part 1, p. iv, New York: Dover.
History of Indian Literature. Tr. from the 2nd Ckrman Zachariae. 6th Indian Ed., Varanasi, Chowkhamba.
CLASSIFICATION
OF
INDIAN
PHILOSOPHY
AND
RELIGION
2%
Kausitaki Upanisads (Rigvedic), the Chandogya and the Kenu Upanisads (Samavedic), the Taittariva and the Svetasvara Upanisads (white Yajurvedic) etc. at one place instead of scattering these at different places under “their” respective Vedas. There may not be two opinions on the accepted fact that all the Upanisads, Brahmanas, Aranyakas, Kalpasutras etc. should be treated so that related works or like titles may not be separated as happened in C.C. Treatment of the Puranas. Classijication in the Idea and the Verbal Plane. Besides the Vedic Samhitas, Brahmanas, Upanishads, and the Kalpasutras the Puranas also are enumera-
ted as one of the common scriptures of Post-Vedic Hinduism. It is sometimes held that the Puranas are sectarian1 in character. Owing to it the main Puranas are generally divided on the basis of their affiliation to many sects’ of Hindusism into (i) Brahmait or Rajas: (ii) Vaishnavait or Sattvata: and (iii) Shaiva or Tamas. Under the first come the Brahma Purana, the Brahmanand Purana, the Brahmavaivarta Purana, the Markandaya Purana, the Bhavishyata Purana, the Vamana Purana. The second group, i.e. the group of the Puranas dedicated to Vishnu, includes the Vishnu Purana, the flarada Purana, the Bhaqavata Purana, the Garuda Purana, the Padma Purana and the Varah Purana. Under the last come the Shiva Purana, the Matsya Purana, the Kurm Purana, the Agni Purana, the Skand Purana, and the Linga Purana. Three other Puranas, the Harivamsha, the Xalki, and the Vayu, that later on became popular, are also included in the list of the above-mentioned 18 Puranas. The first two are enumerated as the Vaishnavait and the third as the Shaivite. Treatment in Colon classi$.cation.
The various main Puranas have found complete representation in C.C. However it is relevant to mention here that neither the general index nor the index appearing in Part three of C.C. have any entry for Puranas in general, nor do the schedules on religion provide any specific number for the Puranas. Therefore, as is traditional with Indian libraries using C.C., the Foci appearing under [E] of Q2 : Hinduism, Post-Vedic, that reads, “Relevant section from Puranas”,s may be understood to stand for the Puranas. Secondly, the various main Puranas are placed in C.C. under different sets of Hinduism, such as Vaishnavism, Shaivism, etc. It has been shown in Table VII. This has resulted in the separation of one group of the Puranas from the other. Though the Puranas enshrine in 1 Winternitz 2 Ranganathan
(1972). Op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 522. (1969). Colon. Op. cit., p. 2.98.
296
P. S. K. SHARMA
them sectarian worship and though the sectarian character of the Puranas is the most relevant characteristic to divide these, the characteristic should not be used for separating various Puranas by placing a few under one sect and some other under another. This also resulted in the separation of general works on Puranas from specific Puranas as well as the Puranas of one sect from the Puranas of the other sects. This is shown in Table VII by constructing class numbers according to C.C. TABLE
VII
Scattered placing of various Puranas in C.C. Term book
Class number
Hinduism, Post-Vedic Puranas (a book dealing with all or many of the major Puranas) Smartism Brabma Purana Brabmanada Purana Vaishnavism Padma Purana Brabma Vaivarta Purana Nalajira-divya-prabandham Pancaratra Isvara Sambita Saivism Vayu Purana Agni Purana Linga Put-aria
Q2 Q2
~22
Q21 Q21 Q21
Q22
Q22 Q22 Q22 Q222 Q222 ~23 Q23 Q23 Q23
:221 ~225 : 221 : 225 : 412x1 : 237 : 221 : 222 : 223
Table VII shows that in C.C. the Puranas are scattered at three different places: Common works dealing with or including the major 18 Puranas at one place, Vaishnavite Puranas, or the Puranas devoted to Vishnu at other places, and the Shaivite Puranas or the Puranas devoted to Shiva at still other places and in between come many other entities. The foresaid “sectarian character” of the Puranas makes it incompatible with the decision of placing these under the common scripture and if they are purely sectarian, they must be placed under the Puranas form their “Puranic their respective sects. However, literatures”,1 that is to say, the term Purana “denotes a species of literature”,2 Though each of the Puranas gives a dominant position to a particular deity, it deals with many other subjects too, such as dynasty 1 Maurice Winternitz (1972). Op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 53. s J. N. Farquhar (1967). An Outline of the Religious Literature Delhi: Motilal Banarasidass.
of India.
Indian Ed., p. 139
CLASSIFICATION
OF
INDIAN
PHILOSOPHY
AND
RELIGION
297
of kings, description of geography, literature etc.1 and are “valuable to the historian and to the antiquarians as a source of political history by reason of their genealogies . . .“s It is difficult to conclude that the Puranas are entirely sectarian documents, or that these were primarily written for the popularization of a particular sect. When Puranas were written, religion was national and never sectarian, and sectarian religion found a place in India only during about the last 1000 years when there was a national decadence and when foreigners came to the country and remained isolated without being absorbed into the nation as was the case previously, and influenced the course of events in the country.3 This observation of Kunhanraja that the Puranas are primarily not sectarian documents, coupled with the observations of the world renowed authorities Farquhar and Winternitz, that the Puranas form their own “Puranic literature” and that “the Purana” “denotes a species of literature”, emphasize the fact that these may not be scattered at different places by placing these under different places as this provision will separate one “species of literature” at different places on shelves. This could have been avoided in C.C. by assigning a separate number to the Puranas and by further placing the three groups of the Puranas vit. Brahmait, Vaishnavite, and Shaivite under that number alone. Treatment of the epics Many epics have been written in India. But only two, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata are traditionally known as “the Epics”. In C.C. these two great Hindu Epics are placed under ancient Sanskrit poetry (Literature)-under 015, IA1 and 015, IA2 respectively.4 Though, in the very restricted sense an epic is a poem, in India these two Epics were never regarded as secular literature. In C.C. a classifier is directed to consult Outline of the Religions Literature of India of J. N. Farquhar “. . . in finding out the sacred books”5 whenever some difference of opinion may arise. It is interesting to note that though Farquhar has described the two Epics in general as religious treatises and the Mahabharata in particular as a “huge encyclopaedia of theology”,6 in C.C. these two are enumerated among literary books and not among sacred or religious books. This is a deviation from Farquhar’s following statement: 1 Kunhan Raja. Op. cit., p. 9. a Winternitz (1972). Op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 519. 3 Kunhan Raja. Op. cit., p. 79. 4 Ranganathan (1969). Colon. Op. cit., p. 3.11. 6 Ibid., 1.108. 6 J. N. Farquhar (1967). An OuUine of he Religious Delhi; Motilal Banarasidass.
Literature
of India.
Indian
Ed.,
p. 35.
298
P.
S. K.
SHARMA
The epics of India, the Mahabharata and the Ramayana . . . became in the course of their history religious works, and are of extreme importance as evidence on the subject of the religion of the common people and with regard to the rise of the sects of Hinduism.1
It shows that in C.C. the two Epics have not, placed as these are under Sanskrit literature, found their legitimate place. Wrong representation of Hinduism Books on Hinduism can be found in abundance in book-markets and libraries. Therefore, one cannot think of a scheme which is devised keeping in view the inadequacies of other schemes in classifying Indological books and still does not have any genuine provision for books on Hinduism as a whole. In the schedule on Religion, Ql represents Vedic Hinduism, and Q2 Post-Vedic Hinduism,2 but no class number is assigned to Hinduism in general. Owing to this fact, it is a practice to classify books on Hinduism under Q2 : Post-Vedic Hinduism. However, this classing seems to be wrong. All accept that Hinduism is a collective name given both to Vedic and Post-Vedic Hinduism. Both of these are merely phases of development of Hinduism. It is only due to the inclusion of the Vedic religion that Hinduism is considered to be a prehistoric religion,3 but if Hinduism is confined to post-Vedic religion alone, it cannot maintain its prehistoric character. Therefore, it seems that classification of books on “Hinduism” according to C.C. will place them at a wrong place. “Hinduism” in general precedes Vedic and PostVedic Hinduism and therefore, this precedence should have been maintained in notational plane too. Wrong representation of “Indian Religions” Under the schedule the provision for a book dealing collectively with “Indian religions”, or the four major religions of Indic origin, is not easily traceable by a classifier who has not practised C.C.‘s schedule on Religion. The difficulty will arise owing to the fact that it will be assumed that the term “Indian religions” will precede various religions of Indic origin-such as, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikkhismsince “Indian religion” is a collective heading given to all these four religions. Since the term “Indian religion” covers Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikkhism, it should be given precedence over the four 1 Ibid., p. 44. s Ranganathan
(1969).
3 Swami Nikhilanand London:
George
Allen
Colon, (1958) & Unwin.
p. 2.97.
Hinduism: Its meaning
for
the Liberation of the S’rit,
p. 21.
CLASSIFICATION
OF INDIAN
PHILOSOPHY
AND
RELIGION
299
religions. In C.C. “Indian religion” is represented by Q844,l meaning, Q8: other religions, and 44: India; thus Q844 is Indian religions. Therefore, naturally, many famous books, dealing with the four religions, such as, Religions of India, by Barth; Religious Tlwught and Life in India, by Monier Williams; The Religion of India, by Hopkins; and many other books on the subject will be placed under Q844, whereas, other books dealing with the four Indian religions individually will appear at different places. For example, a book on Hinduism will be placed under Q2 ; on Jainism under Q3 ; on Buddhism under Q4; etc. On the one hand this provision will separate related books and on the other hand is likely to reveal that Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. are not Indian religions. Table VIII substantiates this. Absence of provision for reformatory Hinduism
Though individual reformatory sects, such as, Aryasamaj etc. have been represented in C.C.,s no provision exists for those books dealing with reformatory religious movements or sects collectively. Therefore, Farquhar’s Modern Religious Movements of India, and hundreds of other books dealing with the subject will not be represented exactly. TABLE
VIII
Sequenceamong the religions of Indic origin in C.C. Group
Class number
Term
A
Hinduism, Hinduism, Jainism Buddhism
B
Judaism Christianity Muhammedanism Other religions Confucianism Lao-Tseism Shintoism
c
Other Indian Sikkhism
Vedic Post-Vedic
religions
Table VIII reveals that the books at A and C are related but have been separated far off in C.C. 1 Ranganathan a LQC. cit.
( 1969). Colon. Op. cit., p. 2.98.
300
P. S. K. SHARMA CONCLUSION
C.C. was devised and first published (1933) at a time when the book market and libraries were deluged with Indological books, and when it was commonly accepted that none of the existing schemes of classification provides adequately for these books. Owing to these factors the scheme lays marked emphasis on the subjects of Indic origin, has earned wide acclaim on account of its theoretical base and is understood to be elaborately complete, systematic and logical especially for Indological books. However, the facts presented in the above analysis of the scheme’s treatment of Indian philosophy and Indian religions make it apparent that the treatment of the two subjects is not systematic and practical and therefore, there is an urgent need to reconstruct the schedules on the two subjects.
Treatment of Indian Philosophy and Indian Religions in Colon Classification 1 P. S. K. SHARMA*
The time between the 1 lth century and the 18th century forms a dark period in the history of Indian thought, when its tide, contending as it had to with inimical and hostile forces, was at a low ebb. Although invaders like Muhammad Bin Kasim and Mahmood Gazanavi could not or did not want to establish their sway, their repeated inroads had their inevitable impact on the life and conditions of the people of India. These forced the Indians to discard their spiritual heritage and to devote themselves to the protection of their worldly interests. Thus the adverse conditions lasting for centuries proved pernicious to Indian thought and literature, drying up the very source of original thinking and at the same time discouraging the systematic study of ancient philosophical systems and religious literature. However, it has been a characteristic of the Indian mind that it cannot be suppressed altogether, and as soon it as finds favourable conditions it sprouts out anew and begins to thrive. Whenever Hindus surrendered to the foreign forces they surrendered physically and there had not been emotional attachment behind their subjugation. Even the barbaric inroads of the Turks, the Afghans, and the Mughals and the adverse conditions could not efface from the minds of the Hindus the greatness of their religious and philosophical thought. So when the Europeans, the Americans, the Germans and other foreigners created proper auxiliary conditions and started studying and conducting research on various branches of Indology, it began to prosper. This gave a fresh fillip to research and as a result Indians also devoted themselves to the revival of their century old cultural stagnations. All these factors made a significant contribution to the growth of * Librarian, University Grants Cornmiss’ Ion, Bahadur Shah Zafar 110002, India. 1 Abbreviations: C.C. = Colon Classification, 6th Am. Ed.; D.C. Classification, 18th Ed.; (M C) = Main Class; [E] = Energy Facet.
Marg, =
Dewey
New
Delhi Decimal
284
P.
S. K.
SHARMA
literature on Indology and to the importance which books on Indology occupy in the libraries today. This posed a challenge for librarians in India and abroad to classify such books. CoLoN
CLASSIFICATION
Indian librarians have been meeting this challenge with courage. To face and solve the problem S. R. Ranganathan, whose restive mind was endeavouring in 1920s to devise a new scheme of classification for India, came forward with his scheme, Colon Ch.s.$ication. S. R. Ranganathan’s writings have revolutionized classificatory thought and acted as stimulus to the philosophy of library classifications. Enunciation of C.C. is a significant contribution on the part of Dr Ranganathan. In this scheme, under the schedules on Indian philosophy and religion generous provisions have been made in order to accommodate various concepts and aspects of Indian philosophy and the religions of Indic origin. Apart from this, part three of C.C. is devoted to the schedules relating to Indian classics and sacred books with special names. In this part schedules on philosophical, religious and other Indological books have been worked out in detail. Colon Classification was devised and first published (1933) by Dr Ranganathan at a time when market and libraries were deluged with Indological books, and when it was commonly accepted that none of the existing schemes of classification provide adequately for these books.1 This was felt by Dr Ranganathan also and he expressed to Sayers that “his mind was intent upon a new scheme of classification for India”.2 Owing to these factors the scheme naturally lays marked emphasis on the subjects of Indic origin, has earned a wide acclaim on account of its theoretical base, and is understood to be elaborately complete, systematic and logical especially for Indological subjects. This has led many Indian librarians to recommend its for arranging Indian books. Dr Ranganathan has himself recommended4 his scheme for this purpose by rejecting D.C. Some of the foreign library scientists are also of the opinion that this scheme is “an admirable scheme for arranging Indian 1 R. S. Parakhi (1964). Decimal ClassiJicatiom and Colon Classt&ation in Perspective, p. 131. Bombay: Asia Publishers. s S. R. Ranganathan (1967). Prolegom to Library ClassiJication, 3rd Ed., Preface by W. C. B. Sayers. 3 Many articles have been written for this purpose. For example: R. S. Parakhi (1962). Observation on the application of the Colon Classification to Indian libraries. Herald of Library Science 3, 17. 4 S. R. Ranganathan (1973). New Education and School Library, p. 370. Delhi: Vikas Publication.
CLASSIFICATION
OF
INDIAN
PHILOSOPHY
AND
RELIGION
285
books”.1 On the other hand many Indian librarians reject C.C. because of its unwieldy structure and “complicated scheme of long numbers”.2 Complication of C.C.‘s notation has provoked many library scientists to observe that the scheme “fails to economize the systematic devices and its complicated pseudo-mnemonic notation is too much of a burden for any scheme of bibliographic classification to bear”.3 Foskett considers its notation to be confusing.4Among others who reproach the notational complexity of C.C. are Phillips, who is of the opinion that the scheme is “more a theoretical exercise than a fully fledged bibliographic scheme”,5 and Banerzea who comments, “. . . because of its complex nature and unwieldly structure the colon scheme has not found much favour with library workers in India despite the fact it has exhaustively dealt with Indian and oriental subjects.“6 Dhanpat Rai has also expressed analogous views.7 Likewise, Bliss, who has already been quoted above, has termed CC.3 “extremely lengthy and complicated notation” as “excess of Colon classification”.s Sayers also accepts that “unfortunately it is a complicated classification in many ways”.9 OBSERVATION
Neither of these two extremes seems to be incorrect, but it must be owned that one of these is more powerful and convincing than the other. Therefore, before coming to any conclusion it seems pertinent to examine the treatment of Indology in C.C. so as to see the relative merits and demerits of the scheme in right perspective. However, in one paper it is not possible to examine the treatment of all the branches of Indology in C.C. therefore, in the present paper only the treatment of two subjects-Indian philosophy and Indian religions, which occupy an important place among the Indological subjects-has been considered. 1 W. C. B. Sayers as quoted by Ranganathan (1973). Op. cit. s Meena Krishnaswamy (1965). Proposal for the method of adopting the Dewey Decimal Classification scheme to meet the needs of India. Library Resources and Technical Se&es 9,449. s Henry Evelyn Bliss (1939). The Organisation of Knowledge in Libraries and the Subject Approach of Books, p. 304. New York: H. W. Wilson. 4 A. C. Foskett (1969). 77ze Subject Approach to Information, p. 207. London: Clive Bingley. s H. Howard Phillips (1961). Primer of Book Cfassifitation. 5th Ed., p. 149. London: Association of Assistant Librarians. s P. K. Banerzea (1957). Need for expansion of D.C. numbers for Indian subjects. Indian Librarian 11, 152. 7 Dhanpat Rai (1965). Colon classification and its use etc. SIXTH ZASLZC Conference. Calcutta: Iaslic. 8 Henry Evelyn Bliss (1957). Op. cit., p. 149. 0 W. C. B. Sayers (1967). A Manual of Library ClassiJication for Librarians. 4th Ed., revised by A. Maltby, p. 55. London: Deutsch.
P. S. K. SHARMA
286
COLON
CLASSIFICATION
AND INDIAN
PHILOSOPHY
There are many Principles and Canons of library classification which have been declared by the deviser of C.C. to be of cardinal value and indispensible for a scheme of classification, and on the basis of which D.C. and other schemes of classification have been criticised frequently. It seems significant to point out that C.C. is devised and has been developed and modified on the lines of such Canons and Principles, and though, it is interesting to note that the scheme unintentionally violates these. It seems pertinent to point out a few of such violations in C.C. with special reference to Indian philosophy. Violation of Canon of he&@ sequence The Canon of helpful sequence prescribes, “the sequence of the classes in an array of classes, and of the ranked isolates in an array of ranked isolates, should be helpful to the purpose of those for whom it is intended.“1 According to this Canon two or more classes should be placed in such a manner that may be helpful and convenient to readers. Thus, it will demand that books on language should be placed with the books on literature, on Philosophy with religion; on mathematics with engineering; on geology with mining; on botany with agriculture; etc. In the case of the various schools of Indian Philosophy, it is almost an accepted fact that the books on the Heterodox schools (consisting of the Carvak, the Jains, and the Buddhist schools) should precede the books on the Orthodox schools (comprising the six traditional schools). The eminent scholar of Indian Philosophy, Dasgupta, has recommended for the students of the orthodox schools to acquire a prior knowledge and study of the heterodox schoo1s.s Jawla Prasad is also of the opinion that “ . . . most of the Hindu orthodox philosophical sutras presuppose the existence of heterodox doctrines, such as the Materialists (the Carvak), the Jains and the Buddhists”.3 C.C.‘s order between the heterodox and the orthodox schools is not in conformity with the said sequence which is helpful both metaphysically and chronologically. This is shown in Table I wherein it becomes apparent that the sequence maintained by C.C. is not helpful for a student of Indian Philosophical schools because of the fact that in it the three heterodox schools, viz., the Carvak, the Jain, and the Buddhist are placed next to the orthodox schools. 1 S. R. Ranganathan (1967). Prolegomena. Op. cit., p. 163. 2 Surendra Nath Dasgupta (1962). A History ofIndian Philosophy (5 Volumes), Vol. 1, p. 8. Cambridge: University Press. 3 Jwala Prasad (1956). History of Indian Ej&enalogy : Being the author’s thesis af@roved for the degree of Doctor qf Philosophy by the Univer& of Cambridge. 2nd Ed., p. 87. Delhi, Munshiram Manoharlall.
CLASSIFICATION
OF INDIAN
PHILOSOPHY
TABLE
AND
RELIGION
287
I
Violation of Canon of help@ sequencein C.C. Helpful r Term
L
order’ Sequence
Carvak Jaina Buddhist Samkhya Yoga Nwa Vaisesika Mimamsa Vedanta
A I3 C D E F G H I
\
I
Sequence G F D E B I A B C
C.C.‘s orders * > Term Class number Vaisesika Nyaya Samkhya Yoga Mimamsa Vedanta Carvaka Jaina Buddhist
R62 1 R622 R63 1 R632 R64 R68 R69 1 R693 R694
Violation of Canon for fliatory sequence Canons for filiatory sequence are two, (i) Canon for subordinate classes, and (ii) Canon for co-ordinate classes.3 The former Canon prescribes, “In a coalesced array if A 1, A 2, A 3, etc. are subclasses of any order whatever of Class A, originated in one or another of the chains originating from the class A, the classes A 1, A 2, A 3, etc. should immediately follow the class A in succession, without being separated from it or among themselves by any other class.4 This Canon is of paramount value for arranging chains of commentaries on various source books and scriptures. It is violated in CC. while assigning class numbers to the various sutras and commentaries of the Yoga school of philosophy in part 3 of C.C.5 For instance, the Tattva-vaisaradi of Vacaspati Misra, and the Yoga-Vartika of Vijnanbhiksu, both are commentaries upon the Vyas-bhasva.6 Therefore, both these should have been placed in one array, but it has not been done so. Secondly, in the schedules of C.C. R635xI,I,I is assigned to the Vyasbharya and R635xI,I,2 to Vijnanbhiksu’s Yoga-vartika, whereas in fact the latter is a sub-commentary on the Vym-bhasva, and therefore R635xI,I,I,I should have been assigned to the 2’oga-vartik, but this number has erroneously been assigned to the Tattva-vaisardi. Thirdly, Raghavanand 1 Suggested by Dasgupta and Jwala Prasad, as mentioned earlier. 2 Maintained by S. R. Ranganathan (1969). Colon Classification, 6th Am. Ed., p. 2.102. Bombay: Asia Publication. 3 Ranganathan ( 1967). Prokgomena. Ofi. cit., p. 179.
4 Lot.
cit.
5 Ranganathan (1969). Colon, Op. cit., p. 3.38. 6 Dasgupta. Op. cit., Y. 1, p. 212.
288
P. S. K. SHARMA
Sarasvati’s Patanial-bhasva is known to be a commentary on the Tattvavaisaradi, and as such it should have been given R635xI,I,I,I,l (if the class number for Tattva-vaisaradi is correct at all), whereas in C.C. R635xI,I,3 is assigned to it, which means, it is the third and a direct commentary upon the Yoga-s&a or Patanjali. All these violate the Canon for Filiatory Sequence. This is made clear in Table II. TABLE
II
Violation of Canon forjiliatory Accepted
sequence Sequence
Patanjali : Yoga-sutra Vyas: Bhasya Vijnanbhiksu : Yogavartika Vacaspati Misra : Tattva-vaisaradi Raghavananda Saraswati : Patanjal-bhasya
r Sequence
A Al All
A Al A 11
A12
A2
A121
A3
sequencein C.C.
Colon Classification’s * Term
sequence Class number
,
Patanjali : Yoga-sutra R635x1,l Vyas : Bhasya R635x, l,l,l Vacaspati Misra: R635xl,l,l Tattva-vaisaradi Vijananbhiksu: R635x1,1,2 Yoga-vartika Raghavananda Saraswati : Patanjal-bhasya R635x1,1,3
Violation of Canon for scheduled mnemonics The Canon for scheduled mnemonics prescribes, “An entity must be represented by the same digit or set of digits in whatever class it occurs”.1 This Canon makes it obligatory on the part of a classifier to assign one and the same digit or set of digits to represent a particular subject or term if it occurs in more than one class. For instance, in C.C. under (MC) Q: Religion, Jainism and Buddhism are represented by the digits 3 and 4 respectively.2 Both the terms have again been represented by the same digits in R6: Indian philosophy wherein R693 is assigned to Jaina Philosophy.3 This shows C.C.‘s respect for this Canon. But violation of this Canon is also not less apparent in R6: Indian philosophy. For instance, in the (MC) Q: Religion the Mahayana, school of Buddhism is represented by 2 (Q42 is Mahayana, Indian, i.e. Q: Religion, Q4: Buddhism, Q42: Mahayana) .4 But the same concept or term has been represented by 5 in R6: Indian philosophy, (R6945: Philosophy of Mahayana, i.e. R6: Indian philosophy, R69: 1 S. R. Ranganathan (1960). Elements of Library p. 57. Bombay: Asia Publications. 2 Ranganathan (1969). Colon. Op. cil., p. 2.97. 3
La. cit.
4 Ibid.,
p. 2.102.
ClassiJication
(B. I. Palmer, ed.), 2nd Ed.,
CLASSIFICATION
OF
INDIAN
PHILOSOPHY
AND
289
RELIGION
Other schools of Indian Philosophy, R694: Buddhist philosophy, R6945 : Mahayana philosophy) .r Another example of violation of this Canon may be found in the representation of the Upanisads under the schedules on Philosophy, and Religion. Under (MC) Q: Religion, the term Upanisad is represented by the digit 4s under [El, whereas in (MC) R6: Indian philosophy the digit ‘0’ is assigned to it.s This is illustrated in Table III. III
TABLE
Violation of Canon of scheduled mnemonics in C.C. Term Mabayan Upanisad
Class number Religion
under
the
2 4
(MC)
Q:
Class Indian
number under Philosophy
the
(MC)
R6 :
5 0
Violation of Prin+le of canonical sequence The Principle of canonical sequence prescribes, “if the subjects in an array of subjects or the isolates in an array of isolates are traditionally referred to in a specific sequence, although no underlying principle is discoverable, it will be convenient to conform to this sequence”.4 C.C. seems to violate this principle under the schedules on R: Philosophy while maintaining sequence among the canonical classes. In order to reach this conclusion, it is pertinent to find out the actual traditional sequence. Metaphysics, which is that branch of philosophy which is concerned with the general nature of reality, was called “first principle”5 by Aristotle. Epistemology, the theory or science of knowledge, comes next. It is an accepted fact that theories and doctrines of Epistemology and logic came forward primarily to solve the fairly developed problems posed by Metaphysics .s Therefore, canonical sequence can only be respected when books on Epistemology succeed books on Metaphysics. 1 2 s 4 5
Ranganathan (1969). Colon. Op. cit., p. 2.102. Ranganathan (1969). Colon. Op. cit., p. 2.98. Ranganathan (1969). Colon. Op. cit., p. 2.102. Ranganathan (1967). Frolegomena. Ofi. cit., p. 194. Phillip L. Harriman (1961). Metaphysics. In Encycl@edia Americana. Vol. 18, p. 708. New York: American Corporation. a In this connection Jayatilleke may he quoted. Referring to J. Burnett, he observes: “it is only when Metaphysical speculations attain a certain maturity and result in the formulation of a variety of theories than an interest is shown in the problem of knowledge and epistemological questions are first mooted. If we turn to the Indian context, we can trace an analogous development”.-K. N. Jaitilleke (1963). Early Buddhist l7tmy of Knortdedgc, p. 21. London: George Allen & Unwin.
290
P. S. K. SHARMA
C.C. maintains a reverse sequence: it places Metaphysics next to Epistemology,1 and this violates the principle under consideration. Likewise, particularly in Indian context, Logic was systematically expounded by the Nyaya school of Indian philosophy as a tool for testifying the validity of knowledge.2 Since Logic emerged as a tool for testifying knowledge, Epistemology, the theory of knowledge, should precede Logic, whereas C.C. maintains a reverse sequence by placing Logic before Epistemology.3 This is illustrated in Table IV. IV
TABLE
Violation of Principle of canonical sequencein C.C. Accepted
canonical
sequence
C.C.‘s sequence * \ Term Class number
r Sequence Metaphysics Epistemology Logic Ethics
COLON
A B C D
C B A D
CLASSIFICATION
AND
Logic Epistemology Metaphysics Ethics
INDIAN
Rl R2 R3 R4
RELIGIONS
A superficial observation of CC.3 schedules on Religion is likely to reveal that the scheme has larger and systematic representation of different aspects of Indian religions and their branches. Under the schedule on Indian religions places for minor concepts have been provided. But it seems that in the complication of making provision for each minor subject, major subjects have not been considered and are either absent or represented in a wrong or an unhelpful manner. A minute analysis of the schedule may reveal the following major drawbacks and inadequacies in classifying Indian religions : Treatment of common Hindu scriptures Before embarking upon the examination and analysis of the treatment of the common scriptures in C.C. it seems worthwhile to clarify the term “common scriptures”. There are certain books or groups of books related to a religion that are treated as sacred by the adherents of that religion. Usually, in Indian context, such books form a group of their own and are known by a generic heading that is used to denote all the 1 In Colar IU is Epistemology, and R3 is Metaphysics. a3wala Prasad. Op. cit., p. 4. SRanganathan (1969). Colon. Op. cit., p. 2.100.
CLASSIFICATION
OF
INDIAN
PHILOSOPHY
AND
RELIGION
291
books or even sub-classes of the books of that class. Some of these, with special reference to Hinduism, are known as the k’edas, the Brulrmanr, the Purunus, the Epics etc. In addition to these, there is a separate category of specific or sectarian scriptures, such as the Tantras. The difference between these two categories of scriptures (common and sectarian) is that while the former is usually treated as sacred among all the adherents of all the groups or sects of Hindu religion, the latter is usually held as sacred only among the adherents of the respective sects to which the scripture belongs. For example, the Vedas and the two Epics-the Ramayanas and the Mahabharata-are meant to be sacred books of all the sects of the Hindus: whereas when we think of the Samhitas, the Aqamas or the Tan&as we have usually in mind the Vaishnavas, the Shaivas and the Shaktas respectively. Winternitz’s observation, that “Though there is no clear line of demarcation between the terms, strictly speaking the ‘Samhitas’ are the sacred books of the Vaisnavas, the ‘Aganas’ those of Saivas and the ‘ Tuntras’ those of the sakts”l substantiates it. Therefore, by “Common scriptures” is meant here those scriptures that are normally treated sacred by all Hindus in general. Most important of such scriptures are the Vedas including their auxiliary treatises such as the Brahmans, the Upanisads; the Purans and the two Epics. Limiting the present study to these three groups of scriptures alone, for the reasons already mentioned, the analysis of their treatment in C.C. has been presented below. A subdivision of all these common scriptures has been accomplished one by one in idea and verbal planes so as to provide a background for examining and analysing their treatment in notational plans in C.C. Treatment of Vedic literature. The Vedus are the fundamental scriptures of Hinduism. “To acknowledge the authority of the Vedas” says Neber, “is the first sign to be a Hindu.“2 The Vedas consist of “. . . a group of literature of miscellaneous nature”,3 and these are often taken to be the “important sources of all Indian religions”.* The Vedas is a collective name given to many books. In the words of Bloomfield, the number of the books “. . . in one sense or another 1 Maurice Winternitz (1972). A History of India’s fitcrahcrc. 2nd Indian Ed. 2 Vols., Vol. 1, p. 587. New Delhi: Oriental Book Reprint Corporation. 2 Max Weber (1958). Religion of In&a: lXe .!&iolo~ of Him&&m and Buddhism. Ed. and tranl. by Hans H. Gerth and Don Martindals, p. 28. Glencoe: Free Press. 8 C. Kurhan Raja (1982). Survey of San&tit Literature, p. 9. Bombay; Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan. 4 A. B. Keith ( 1925). The Religion and PhilosqSy of the Ve’cdas and the U@anisads, pt. 1, p. 3 Il. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
292
P.
S. K.
SHARMA
counted as the Veda is hundred or more.“1 Many scholars mean by the “Veda”, or apply to it, all the scriptures and sacred books of the Hindus.2 This connotation of the term “F’edu” is justified if it is taken to be analogous with the Sruti, by including in it, and by further dividing it under, the various Brahmanar, Upanisads, Aranyakas, etc. This division is rather a literary one and will place all the Brahmanas etc. under the individual Vedas to which they belong. Weber, while dealing with the Vedic literature in his book prefers to place all these in this manner. In part three of C.C. the Vedic literature is classified in a like manner. This is shown in Table V by furnishing relevant Class numbers, extracted from part three of CC. TABLE
V
Class numbers for Vedic literature in C.C. Heading
Class
Sankhyayana Kalpasutra Sairkhyayana Brahmana Manava Kalpasutra Baudhayana Kalpasutra Satapatha Brahmana Brahadaranyaka Upanisad Katyayana Kalpasutra Samvidhana Brahmana Sadvimse Brahmana Chadogya Upanishad Latyayana Kalpasutra Kena Upanisad Jaiminiya Kalpasutra Mundaka Upanisad Group
:
A = Kalpasutra:
Q112 4112 Q124 Q125 Q127 Q127 Q127 4131 Ql31 Q131 Q131 Q132 Q132 Q141 B =
Brahmana:
number : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
4x2,1 22 4x1,1 4x1,1 22 24 4x1,1 22 222 24 4x2,1 24 4x1,1 25
C = Upanishad.
It is pertinent to mention here that many Macdonells and Winternit+ while dealing with their respective books, classify and deal with Upanisads, etc. independently and further divide various Vedas they belong to.
other scholars, such as the subject contents of the various Brahmanas, these according to the
1 Maurice Bloomfield (1972). The Religion of the Veabs. Indian Rd., p. 17. Varanasi, Indological Book House. 2 Rene Guenon (1945). Intmhution to the Study of the Hi& Doctrines. Tr. by Mares Pallis, p. 149. London: Luzac. He w-rites: “The term.. . Vcda is applied in general to all basic scriptures of the Hindu tradition.” s A. A. Macdonell (1904). A Histoty of Sanskrit Litcraturc, p. 209. London: Williams Heinman. 4 wintffnik (1972). Op cit., Vol. 1, p. 53.
CLASSIFICATION
OF
INDIAN
PHILOSOPHY
AND
RELIGION
2%
Therefore,
for classifying Vedic literature we have two alternatives, all the Bruhmanus, the U’anisadr etc. under their respective Vedas or in subordination to the Vedas; or (ii) to give the Bruhmunas, the Upunisuk etc. an independent treatment and to further divide them on the basis of their affiliation to the various Vedas. C.C. chooses to opt for the former, as shown in Table V. However, the utility and relevance of the two manners of classifying Common Hindu Scriptures for the purpose of placing these in the shelves of a library need analysis and examination. For this purpose the two ways of classifying the Vedic literature, forming two different groups and giving two different sequences among various classes of works, are given in Table VI. As is evident from Table V, the hierarchy and structure of Group “A” has been accepted for classifying Vedic Literature in C.C. The same structure has been accepted in the Pruchyu Vurqikurus Puddhutil and in some of the Indian expansion of D.C., such as, Mookerzee’s expansion.2 Such placing of classes certainly shows a successive growth of the Vedic tradition and its four or five Samhitas, and at the same time satisfies some of the canons of library classification, such as the “Canon for filiatory sequence” , yet it does not seem, for practical reasons, to be useful for classifying the Universe of books on Vedic literature for their subsequent placing on shelves of a library. Such practical reasons may be specified under subsection 512 of this article. viz. (i) to include
Reasonsfor rejecting the hierarchy of Group A.
From the practical aspect of the problem, the division of the first group Table VI (i.e. Group A) accepted by C.C. does not seem to be of much use for classifying Vedic literature for the subsequent placing of like titles together on shelves. The division of this group and therefore of that of C.C. lacks one major thing: it does not have a proper provision for accommodating comprehensive works on a few groups though such works are being published in abundance. Some of the most well known among these are The Thirteen Prinapul Upunisuds, Tr. by Robert E. Hume, 2nd ed : London, Oxford University Press (1931) ; and The Principal Upunisuds, (S. Radhakrishnan, Ed.) : London, George Allen & Unwin (1953). Such works will be classed by C.C. under Q 1: 24, whereas individual Upanisads will be placed separately, e.g. the Brihadaranyak Upanisads-Q127 : 24, the Mundak UpanisadQ141 : 24 etc. In between the comprehensive works-Q 1 : 24 and 1 Satish Chandra Guha (ed.). Prachya Vargikaran fication), pp. 109-10. Varanasi: Varaneseya Sanskrit 2 Subodh Kumar Mookerzee (1969). Develofment appendix. Calcutta: World Press.
PaaUhati (i.e. Ancient Scheme University. of Libraries and Library S&m
of Classiin India,
294
P. S. K. SHARMA TABLE
VI
Two ways of classifying Vedic literature Group
A
Group B
Rigveda Samhita Brahamanas Aranyakas Upanisads Kalpasutras Shrauta Sutras Shulva Sutras Grihya Sutras Dharma Sutras Samveda Samhita Brahmanas Aranyakas Upanisads Kalpasutras Shrauta Sutras Shulva Sutras Grihya Sutras Dharma Sutras Black Yajurveda, White Yajurveda and Atharya Veda same as above
Samhitas and comprehensive Rigvedic Samvedic Black Yajurvedic White Yajurvedic Atharvavedic Brahmanas Rigvedic Samvedic Black Yajurvedic White Yajurvedic Atharvavedic Aranyakas Same as above Upanisads Same as above Kaplasutras Shrauta Sutras Same as above
works
individual Upanisads, i.e. Q127 : 24, Q141 : 24 etc. will be placed Brahmanas etc. This will consequently separate works of one class or one group from each other, as shown in Table V, and will separate an exhaustive work (such as The Thirteen Principal Upanisads etc.) from an individual work (such as Brahadaranyak Upanisad) as discussed above. In the idea plane all the Brahmanas, the Upanisads, etc. form a “class of their own”. For instance, all the Brahmanas, irrespective of the relation they bear to their Vedas, necessarily deal with sacrifices and sacrificial acts. “This particular Character is common generally to all works of this class”.1 Likewise the Upanisads also form a class of their own and they are known as Philosophical treatises.2 The various sutras also bear affinity to one another in contents and form a class of their own. It is always convenient to place The Thirteen Principal Upanisads, Th Principal Upanisads (Comprehensive works), the Aitareya and the 1 F. Max Muller, tr. (1962). The Upanisads. 8 Albrecht Ed. by John
Weber (1961). The Mann and Theodore
Part 1, p. iv, New York: Dover.
History of Indian Literature. Tr. from the 2nd Ckrman Zachariae. 6th Indian Ed., Varanasi, Chowkhamba.
CLASSIFICATION
OF
INDIAN
PHILOSOPHY
AND
RELIGION
2%
Kausitaki Upanisads (Rigvedic), the Chandogya and the Kenu Upanisads (Samavedic), the Taittariva and the Svetasvara Upanisads (white Yajurvedic) etc. at one place instead of scattering these at different places under “their” respective Vedas. There may not be two opinions on the accepted fact that all the Upanisads, Brahmanas, Aranyakas, Kalpasutras etc. should be treated so that related works or like titles may not be separated as happened in C.C. Treatment of the Puranas. Classijication in the Idea and the Verbal Plane. Besides the Vedic Samhitas, Brahmanas, Upanishads, and the Kalpasutras the Puranas also are enumera-
ted as one of the common scriptures of Post-Vedic Hinduism. It is sometimes held that the Puranas are sectarian1 in character. Owing to it the main Puranas are generally divided on the basis of their affiliation to many sects’ of Hindusism into (i) Brahmait or Rajas: (ii) Vaishnavait or Sattvata: and (iii) Shaiva or Tamas. Under the first come the Brahma Purana, the Brahmanand Purana, the Brahmavaivarta Purana, the Markandaya Purana, the Bhavishyata Purana, the Vamana Purana. The second group, i.e. the group of the Puranas dedicated to Vishnu, includes the Vishnu Purana, the flarada Purana, the Bhaqavata Purana, the Garuda Purana, the Padma Purana and the Varah Purana. Under the last come the Shiva Purana, the Matsya Purana, the Kurm Purana, the Agni Purana, the Skand Purana, and the Linga Purana. Three other Puranas, the Harivamsha, the Xalki, and the Vayu, that later on became popular, are also included in the list of the above-mentioned 18 Puranas. The first two are enumerated as the Vaishnavait and the third as the Shaivite. Treatment in Colon classi$.cation.
The various main Puranas have found complete representation in C.C. However it is relevant to mention here that neither the general index nor the index appearing in Part three of C.C. have any entry for Puranas in general, nor do the schedules on religion provide any specific number for the Puranas. Therefore, as is traditional with Indian libraries using C.C., the Foci appearing under [E] of Q2 : Hinduism, Post-Vedic, that reads, “Relevant section from Puranas”,s may be understood to stand for the Puranas. Secondly, the various main Puranas are placed in C.C. under different sets of Hinduism, such as Vaishnavism, Shaivism, etc. It has been shown in Table VII. This has resulted in the separation of one group of the Puranas from the other. Though the Puranas enshrine in 1 Winternitz 2 Ranganathan
(1972). Op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 522. (1969). Colon. Op. cit., p. 2.98.
296
P. S. K. SHARMA
them sectarian worship and though the sectarian character of the Puranas is the most relevant characteristic to divide these, the characteristic should not be used for separating various Puranas by placing a few under one sect and some other under another. This also resulted in the separation of general works on Puranas from specific Puranas as well as the Puranas of one sect from the Puranas of the other sects. This is shown in Table VII by constructing class numbers according to C.C. TABLE
VII
Scattered placing of various Puranas in C.C. Term book
Class number
Hinduism, Post-Vedic Puranas (a book dealing with all or many of the major Puranas) Smartism Brabma Purana Brabmanada Purana Vaishnavism Padma Purana Brabma Vaivarta Purana Nalajira-divya-prabandham Pancaratra Isvara Sambita Saivism Vayu Purana Agni Purana Linga Put-aria
Q2 Q2
~22
Q21 Q21 Q21
Q22
Q22 Q22 Q22 Q222 Q222 ~23 Q23 Q23 Q23
:221 ~225 : 221 : 225 : 412x1 : 237 : 221 : 222 : 223
Table VII shows that in C.C. the Puranas are scattered at three different places: Common works dealing with or including the major 18 Puranas at one place, Vaishnavite Puranas, or the Puranas devoted to Vishnu at other places, and the Shaivite Puranas or the Puranas devoted to Shiva at still other places and in between come many other entities. The foresaid “sectarian character” of the Puranas makes it incompatible with the decision of placing these under the common scripture and if they are purely sectarian, they must be placed under the Puranas form their “Puranic their respective sects. However, literatures”,1 that is to say, the term Purana “denotes a species of literature”,2 Though each of the Puranas gives a dominant position to a particular deity, it deals with many other subjects too, such as dynasty 1 Maurice Winternitz (1972). Op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 53. s J. N. Farquhar (1967). An Outline of the Religious Literature Delhi: Motilal Banarasidass.
of India.
Indian Ed., p. 139
CLASSIFICATION
OF
INDIAN
PHILOSOPHY
AND
RELIGION
297
of kings, description of geography, literature etc.1 and are “valuable to the historian and to the antiquarians as a source of political history by reason of their genealogies . . .“s It is difficult to conclude that the Puranas are entirely sectarian documents, or that these were primarily written for the popularization of a particular sect. When Puranas were written, religion was national and never sectarian, and sectarian religion found a place in India only during about the last 1000 years when there was a national decadence and when foreigners came to the country and remained isolated without being absorbed into the nation as was the case previously, and influenced the course of events in the country.3 This observation of Kunhanraja that the Puranas are primarily not sectarian documents, coupled with the observations of the world renowed authorities Farquhar and Winternitz, that the Puranas form their own “Puranic literature” and that “the Purana” “denotes a species of literature”, emphasize the fact that these may not be scattered at different places by placing these under different places as this provision will separate one “species of literature” at different places on shelves. This could have been avoided in C.C. by assigning a separate number to the Puranas and by further placing the three groups of the Puranas vit. Brahmait, Vaishnavite, and Shaivite under that number alone. Treatment of the epics Many epics have been written in India. But only two, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata are traditionally known as “the Epics”. In C.C. these two great Hindu Epics are placed under ancient Sanskrit poetry (Literature)-under 015, IA1 and 015, IA2 respectively.4 Though, in the very restricted sense an epic is a poem, in India these two Epics were never regarded as secular literature. In C.C. a classifier is directed to consult Outline of the Religions Literature of India of J. N. Farquhar “. . . in finding out the sacred books”5 whenever some difference of opinion may arise. It is interesting to note that though Farquhar has described the two Epics in general as religious treatises and the Mahabharata in particular as a “huge encyclopaedia of theology”,6 in C.C. these two are enumerated among literary books and not among sacred or religious books. This is a deviation from Farquhar’s following statement: 1 Kunhan Raja. Op. cit., p. 9. a Winternitz (1972). Op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 519. 3 Kunhan Raja. Op. cit., p. 79. 4 Ranganathan (1969). Colon. Op. cit., p. 3.11. 6 Ibid., 1.108. 6 J. N. Farquhar (1967). An OuUine of he Religious Delhi; Motilal Banarasidass.
Literature
of India.
Indian
Ed.,
p. 35.
298
P.
S. K.
SHARMA
The epics of India, the Mahabharata and the Ramayana . . . became in the course of their history religious works, and are of extreme importance as evidence on the subject of the religion of the common people and with regard to the rise of the sects of Hinduism.1
It shows that in C.C. the two Epics have not, placed as these are under Sanskrit literature, found their legitimate place. Wrong representation of Hinduism Books on Hinduism can be found in abundance in book-markets and libraries. Therefore, one cannot think of a scheme which is devised keeping in view the inadequacies of other schemes in classifying Indological books and still does not have any genuine provision for books on Hinduism as a whole. In the schedule on Religion, Ql represents Vedic Hinduism, and Q2 Post-Vedic Hinduism,2 but no class number is assigned to Hinduism in general. Owing to this fact, it is a practice to classify books on Hinduism under Q2 : Post-Vedic Hinduism. However, this classing seems to be wrong. All accept that Hinduism is a collective name given both to Vedic and Post-Vedic Hinduism. Both of these are merely phases of development of Hinduism. It is only due to the inclusion of the Vedic religion that Hinduism is considered to be a prehistoric religion,3 but if Hinduism is confined to post-Vedic religion alone, it cannot maintain its prehistoric character. Therefore, it seems that classification of books on “Hinduism” according to C.C. will place them at a wrong place. “Hinduism” in general precedes Vedic and PostVedic Hinduism and therefore, this precedence should have been maintained in notational plane too. Wrong representation of “Indian Religions” Under the schedule the provision for a book dealing collectively with “Indian religions”, or the four major religions of Indic origin, is not easily traceable by a classifier who has not practised C.C.‘s schedule on Religion. The difficulty will arise owing to the fact that it will be assumed that the term “Indian religions” will precede various religions of Indic origin-such as, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikkhismsince “Indian religion” is a collective heading given to all these four religions. Since the term “Indian religion” covers Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikkhism, it should be given precedence over the four 1 Ibid., p. 44. s Ranganathan
(1969).
3 Swami Nikhilanand London:
George
Allen
Colon, (1958) & Unwin.
p. 2.97.
Hinduism: Its meaning
for
the Liberation of the S’rit,
p. 21.
CLASSIFICATION
OF INDIAN
PHILOSOPHY
AND
RELIGION
299
religions. In C.C. “Indian religion” is represented by Q844,l meaning, Q8: other religions, and 44: India; thus Q844 is Indian religions. Therefore, naturally, many famous books, dealing with the four religions, such as, Religions of India, by Barth; Religious Tlwught and Life in India, by Monier Williams; The Religion of India, by Hopkins; and many other books on the subject will be placed under Q844, whereas, other books dealing with the four Indian religions individually will appear at different places. For example, a book on Hinduism will be placed under Q2 ; on Jainism under Q3 ; on Buddhism under Q4; etc. On the one hand this provision will separate related books and on the other hand is likely to reveal that Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. are not Indian religions. Table VIII substantiates this. Absence of provision for reformatory Hinduism
Though individual reformatory sects, such as, Aryasamaj etc. have been represented in C.C.,s no provision exists for those books dealing with reformatory religious movements or sects collectively. Therefore, Farquhar’s Modern Religious Movements of India, and hundreds of other books dealing with the subject will not be represented exactly. TABLE
VIII
Sequenceamong the religions of Indic origin in C.C. Group
Class number
Term
A
Hinduism, Hinduism, Jainism Buddhism
B
Judaism Christianity Muhammedanism Other religions Confucianism Lao-Tseism Shintoism
c
Other Indian Sikkhism
Vedic Post-Vedic
religions
Table VIII reveals that the books at A and C are related but have been separated far off in C.C. 1 Ranganathan a LQC. cit.
( 1969). Colon. Op. cit., p. 2.98.
300
P. S. K. SHARMA CONCLUSION
C.C. was devised and first published (1933) at a time when the book market and libraries were deluged with Indological books, and when it was commonly accepted that none of the existing schemes of classification provides adequately for these books. Owing to these factors the scheme lays marked emphasis on the subjects of Indic origin, has earned wide acclaim on account of its theoretical base and is understood to be elaborately complete, systematic and logical especially for Indological books. However, the facts presented in the above analysis of the scheme’s treatment of Indian philosophy and Indian religions make it apparent that the treatment of the two subjects is not systematic and practical and therefore, there is an urgent need to reconstruct the schedules on the two subjects.