The Visnu-stuti and Krsna-karnamrta
Summary
This article is a critical response by S. K. De to H. G. Narahari's account of an old manuscript dated 1418 A.D. that contains a work called the Visnu-stuti, which is ascribed in its colophon to Bilvamangala. De argues that the Visnu-stuti is not a version of the Krsna-karnamrta, and therefore, Narahari's manuscript cannot be considered an early manuscript of the Krsna-karnamrta. De maintains his previous position that the Second and Third Adhyayas of the South Indian recension of the Krsna-karnamrta are spurious, while the First Adhyaya is genuine. De's main argument is that the Visnu-stuti is an independent, miscellaneous collection of Krsnaite verses, similar to the Sumangala-stotra, Bilvamangala-stotra, Krsna-stotra, and Bilvamangala-koSa-kavya, which he discussed in his 1938 edition of the Krsna-karnamrta. The article notes that sixty-three verses from the Visnu-stuti can be traced to the Second and Third Adhyayas, but none are from the First Adhyaya. This pattern is identical to the Krsna-stotra and Bilvamangala-koSa-kavya, which also supply verses to the Second and Third Adhyayas but not the First. The manuscript is fragmentary and contains a total of 212 verses. De uses this evidence to argue that the date of the manuscript does not prove the Second and Third Adhyayas existed before 1418 A.D. Instead, it confirms that such independent collections existed at that time and supplied the material for the later composition of the Adhyayas. The article also briefly mentions a separate note by De on a passage in copper-plate charters of the Rashtrakuta kings of Malkhed, which mentions an enemy named Vajrata who was defeated by the Calukyas of Badami. The author deduces that Vajrata was a personal name, not a ruler of the four South Indian kingdoms mentioned, and that he likely flourished after Harsha.
AI-generated summary, automatically checked against the article text.
Conclusion
This study demonstrates that the 1418 A.D. manuscript of the *Visnu-stuti* is not an early version of the *Krsna-karnamrta*, but rather an independent collection of Krsnaite verses. The text confirms that the *Visnu-stuti* shares the same characteristics as other apocryphal works attributed to Bilvamangala, supplying a nucleus of verses for the Second and Third Adhyayas of the South Indian recension of the *Krsna-karnamrta*. Crucially, no verses from the First Adhyaya appear in the *Visnu-stuti*, which supports the argument for the spuriousness of the latter two chapters. Consequently, the 1418 date does not prove that the Second and Third Adhyayas existed prior to that time, but merely confirms the existence of such independent verse collections. This evidence validates the author's previous conclusions regarding the textual history and composition of the *Krsna-karnamrta*, preserving the integrity of the Bengal recension's First Adhyaya and the South Indian recension's later additions.