1 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 effort 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 different aspects of Indian Knowledge. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of teachers and scholars are involved in this effort. The Indian academia is abuzz with this new emphasis on learning, teaching, interpreting and advancing Indian Knowledge and applying it in different 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 significant 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 different aspects of Indian knowledge, art, or culture, have only a few titles dealing with Indian Knowledge. It should be hoped that with the new effort 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 Classification (DDC) system in its current twenty-third edition (Mitchell et al., 2011), or some version of it, to classify their acquisitions, and that classification then decides the shelves where these would be placed in the library. This classification system pays no attention to the traditional classification of knowledge in India and is designed for modern, largely Western, knowledge. Therefore, 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 different components of it.

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 different 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.

Table 1 Class 200 and its divisions in DDC
Full size table

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”. 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 classification system currently adopted in most libraries worldwide.

2 Current classification of Indian knowledge

Currently, the corpora of different components of Indian Knowledge are generally classified 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 classification 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 classification of 220.

Source works and books related to Chinese Religions are similarly placed in some lower-level classifications. For example, Taoism is usually classified 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”.

2.2 Darśana

Darśanas, the Indian schools of philosophy, are classified at 181.4 in the following sequence: 100 for Philosophy and Psychology, 180 for “Ancient, medieval, and eastern philosophy”, 181 for “Eastern Philosophy”, and finally, 181.4 for “India”. All Indian Darśanas are classified 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

Different Indian Languages are classified 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 classification 495 for “Languages of East & Southeast 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 Literatures”, 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.

2.5 Indian sciences, technologies, etc.

Texts of various Indian sciences and technologies, like Āyurveda, Jyotiṣa, Gaṇita, etc., are placed under some category of “others” within the modern classes of medicine, mathematics, astronomy, etc. For example, Āyurveda is classified in the current editions of DDC at 615.538 in the following 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 different DDC numbers in the Indian libraries. Caraka Saṁhitā, one of the core texts of Āyurveda, is given 615.536 in the Indira Gandhi 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 classified under DDC 617, which is assigned for “Surgery, regional medicine, dentistry, ophthalmology, otology, audiology”. 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 discuss the issues of health and disease in a highly systematic scientific 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 classification system. This article proposes a simple solution for the problems associated with classifying Indian Knowledge.

Incidentally, in the library of Sri Krishna Ayush University, Kurukshetra, a book related to Caraka Saṁhitā, entitled “Sāṅkhya Śāstra aur Caraka Saṁhitā kā Dārśanik Anusandhān”, which is in the nature of a modern study 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 “Specific Topics in parapsychology and occultism”, 133.3 for “Divinatory arts”, 133.33 for “Symbolic divination”, and 133.335 for “Numerology”. This assignment is probably an error arising from confusing Sāṅkhya (सांख्य), a school of Indian philosophy, with Saṅkhyā (संख्या), meaning “number”. This has led to a book exploring the relationship of Indian medicine with a significant school of Indian philosophy being classified 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 classification of IK

We have described the manner in which major corpora of Indian Knowledge in different disciplines are currently classified in the limited space available for these in the DDC. We have also given some instances of the inconsistencies and errors that such classification leads to. Below, we describe three significant issues that arise when we adopt DDC for classifying Indian knowledge:

3.1 Inconsistency in classification

As we have explained above, DDC is designed to classify knowledge according to the subjects and disciplines of Western knowledge. Indian knowledge, and indeed knowledge of all non-western civilizations, has no natural place in it. Within the system, IK corresponds to what in India would be called khila-bhāga (खिल-भाग), scattered parts that cannot be classified systematically within the overall scheme of a text or discipline. Therefore, in DDC, IK is classified mainly under some category of “others” within different disciplines of Western knowledge. There is no essential logic or order to such classification which can be intuitively inferred. What could be the logic in a system where Āyurveda falls under the same section as Homeopathy or Chiropractic? Because the system is so non-intuitive, librarians are prone to go wrong and end up classifying different texts of Indian Knowledge belonging to the same discipline, and even the same texts, differently. We have given some examples of such inconsistencies of classification above. However, the problem is not random, and it is not related to the competence or otherwise of the librarian. The issue is inherent to the system.

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 different editions of the text, translations, and studies. The search returned results running into 94 pages comprising 1865 titles. A majority of these titles are classified under 294.5923, the number assigned to Mahābhārata in the DDC schedules. However, the library has also classified 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 fiction), 894 (Altaic, Uralic, Hyperborean & Dravidian [Literature]), 398 (Folklore) under 390 (Customs, etiquette & folklore), 174 (Occupational Ethics), 178 (Ethics of consumption), 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 classifying books related to a significant text of Indian Knowledge thus would undoubtedly confuse the reader and draw attention away from the core significance of the text. The library has also placed various studies on the text of Mahābhārata and different editions and translations of it under diverse DDC numbers.

3.2 Mixing up canonical texts with modern studies and interpretations

Within DDC, foundational texts of Indian Knowledge are classed very low in the classification hierarchy. As we have seen above, a text like the Mahābhārata gets a four-decimal digit classification 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 further decimal places. The undifferentiated classification of canonical texts and modern studies of all kinds certainly make it difficult for a student or scholar to differentiate the grain from the chaff.

As an example of such indiscriminate mixing up of the materials, we give, in Table 2 below, the first 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, presenting the story of the making of Peter Brook’s film on Mahābhārata, is classified simply under 294.

Table 2 The first 20 Titles returned by a search on “Mahabharata” in the online public access catalogues of the National Library, Kolkata
Full size table

The 15 titles that are assigned DDC number 294.5923 include three modern English renderings of the Mahābhārata, a contemporary English interpretation 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 historicity 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 reinterpretation 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 seriousness of the current scholarship around these. In a proper classification of Indian Knowledge, the 15 titles described in the para above should find distinctly different places under the higher category assigned for Mahābhārata. The canonical text with its commentaries and translations, versions 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 classified in the older non-DDC classification 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 classified under “Poetry” and given the DDC class of 892.1.

3.3 Indian knowledge scattered across whole library

As we have described above, DDC leads to inconsistencies in classification 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 classification of major components of Indian Knowledge, this classification 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 classified under an “others” category within the place assigned to some discipline of Western knowledge. This necessarily requires different components of Indian Knowledge to be placed in widely different classes and correspondingly in widely scattered shelves in a library. This breaks the integrity of Indian Knowledge and makes it very difficult 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 comprises texts on all aspects of human knowledge categorized according to its own classification of Veda, Itihāsa, Purāṇa, Darśana, Vedāṅga, Upaveda, Kāvya, etc. While classifying this corpus under the DDC, the librarian has to find 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 systems, 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, unconnected 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 academia and is to be introduced as an integral component of education and research in India. We need to evolve a classification scheme that accommodates different components of Indian Knowledge according to their traditional classification in India and thus bring the whole corpus together in our libraries. This alone would make it possible for a scholar to appreciate the interconnectedness of different components of IK and the integrity of the whole corpus. Below, we tentatively propose such a scheme of classification.

We first describe the classification of Indian Knowledge within its own scholarly tradition. This traditional classification 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 modification of some sections of DDC to accommodate the traditional classification within the system that has now become the conventional system of classification in most Indian libraries and in much of the world.

4 Traditional classification of knowledge in India

Viṣṇupurāṇa (विष्णुपुराण), 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 classification of knowledge (3.6.27–28) (Annangaracharya, 1972, p.201):

अङ्गानि वेदाश्चत्वारो मीमांसा न्यायविस्तरः।

पुराणं धर्मशास्त्रं च विद्या ह्येताश्चतुर्दश।।२७।।

आयुर्वेदो धनुर्वेदो गान्धर्वश्चैव ते त्रयः।

अर्थशास्त्रं चतुर्थं तु विद्या ह्यष्टादशैव ताः।।२८।।

aṅgāni vedāścatvāro mīmāṁsā nyāyavistaraḥ।

purāṇaṁ dharmaśāstraṁ ca vidyā hyetāścaturdaśa।।27।।

āyurvedo dhanurvedo gāndharvaścaiva te trayaḥ।

arthaśāstraṁ caturthaṁ tu vidyā hyaṣṭādaśaiva tāḥ।।28।। First of these verses defines 14 Vidyās (विद्या): 6 Vedāṅgas (वेदाङ्ग), 4 Vedas (वेद) and the four disciplines of Mīmāṁsā (मीमांसा), Nyāya (न्याय), Purāṇa (पुराण) and Dharmaśāstra (धर्मशास्त्र). The second verse defines another 4 Vidyās: Āyurveda (आयुर्वेद), Dhanurveda (धनुर्वेद), Gāndharvaveda (गान्धर्ववेद) 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 difference between the fourteen Vidyās in the first verse and the four in the second verse. The former fourteen are necessary for knowing Dharma and are therefore referred to as both Dharmasthānas (धर्मस्थान) and Vidyāsthānas (विद्यास्थान). 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 Knowledge” and explains that the first fourteen are directly concerned 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 classification needs to be modified or expanded to meet our current needs:

4.1 Veda (वेद)

Vedas are four: Ṛgveda (ऋग्वेद), Yajurveda (यजुर्वेद), Sāmaveda (सामवेद) and Atharvaveda (अथर्ववेद). The texts of Vedas comprise Saṁhitās (संहिता), Brāhmaṇas (ब्राह्मण), Āraṇyakas (आरण्यक) and Pariśiṣṭas (परिशिष्ट). The Saṁhitā part of the Vedas comprises the main text consisting of hymns and mantras (मन्त्र). Brāhmaṇas are attached to the Saṁhitās and literally mean “explanation or expansion” of the Veda. These texts give detailed instructions on the performance of the vaidika rituals and also contain material on what would be today described as vaidika sciences and technologies, including observational astronomy, geometry and mathematics. Āraṇyaka part of the Vedas include the Upaniṣads (उपनिषद्) and comprise meditations and expositions on Brahmavidyā (ब्रह्मविद्या), the knowledge of the ultimate reality. The Āraṇyakas may also be embedded within some of the Brāhmaṇas. The Pariśiṣṭas literally mean supplementary material appended to the Vedas. These give additional instructions on different aspects of the text of Vedas, including phonetics and meter, and also make detailed lists 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 classification scheme of IK.

Vedas also have distinct schools or branches (शाखा), which have to be included in the classification scheme. In the case of Yajurveda, the two main branches, Śukla (शुक्ल) 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 classification 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 classification, Itihāsas are supposed to be included within Purāṇas. There are two Itihāsa texts: Rāmāyaṇa and Mahābhārata. Each of these two has several distinct recensions. There are also distinct versions of the Itihāsas in different languages of India and several other countries. The classification 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 classified separately 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 classified separately from “Other Purāṇas”. Within the “Other Purāṇas”, each of the Purāṇas shall, of course, have its own place.

4.3 Darśana (दर्शन)

Darśana is the Indian equivalent of the Western discipline of Philosophy. Nyāya (न्याय) and Mīmāṁsā (मीमांसा), which are counted among the eighteen Vidyāsthānas in the Viṣṇupurāṇa verses above, comprise two of the six vaidika Darśanas. It is generally understood that the other four are included within these two: Mīmāṁsā includes Pūrva-mīmāṁsā (पूर्वमीमांसा) and Uttara-mīmāṁsā (उत्तरमीमांसा), Nyāya includes Vaiśeṣika (वैशेषिक). Uttara-mīmāṁsā is also referred to as Vedānta (वेदान्त). The remaining two Darśanas, Sāṅkhya (सांख्य) 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 classification of Indian knowledge in his Prasthānabheda (प्रस्थानभेद) prefers to include Sāṅkhya and Pātañjala-Yoga in Dharmaśāstra (Sharma, 1979).

We propose that of the six Vaidika Darśanas (षड्दर्शन), Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika may be classified 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 (बौद्ध, जैन एवं अन्य दर्शन)

Madhusūdana Sarasvatī discusses the issue of classifying the Darśanas that fall outside the Vaidika or Āstika (आस्तिक) tradition, namely, Bauddha, Jaina and Cārvāka (चार्वाक) Darśanas. According to him, these Nāstika-Prasthānas (नास्तिकप्रस्थान) 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 (संप्रदाय)

In the scheme of Aṣṭdaśa-Vidyāsthāna, the corpus of different Saṁpradāyas is not placed separately and is supposed to be included along with Dharmaśāstra and Darśana. However, since many of the Saṁapradāyas have developed 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 different 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, including some of the modern Saṁpradāyas that have developed 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 five categories of Saṁpradāyas that we place at this level.

4.6 Vedāṅga (वेदाङ्ग)

Vedāṅgas are six: Kalpa (कल्प), Nirukta (निरुक्त), Śikṣā (शिक्षा), Vyākaraṇa (व्याकरण), Chandas (छंदस्) and Jyotiṣa (ज्योतिष). These six are essential for understanding the Vedas and appropriately carrying out the Vaidika discipline and instructions.

4.6.1 Kalpa (कल्प)

Kalpa texts deal with the proper procedure and discipline for carrying out various rituals and lay down proper conduct and duties in different situations of life. Kalpa-Vedāṅga includes Dharmasūtras (धर्मसूत्र). In the 18-fold classification laid down in Viṣṇupurāṇa, Dharmaśāstra (धर्मशास्त्र) 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 category of Vedāṅga.

4.6.2 Nirutka, Śikṣā, Vyākaraṇa, Chandas (निरुक्त, शिक्षा, व्याकरण, छन्दस्)

Four of the Vedāṅgas, namely Nirukta, Śikṣā, Vyākaraṇa, and Chandas, form the linguistic apparatus for reading and interpreting the Vedas. Nirukta roughly corresponds to the Western discipline of etymology. It comprises instructions on the proper interpretation of Vaidika words and phrases. Śikṣā corresponds to the Western discipline of phonetics or phonology. Taittirīyopaniṣad (तैत्तिरीयोपनिषद्) defines Śikṣā as the study of— वर्णः स्वरः। मात्रा बलम्। साम सन्तानः। This roughly translates as— sound (such as अ), rhythm, tone (such as Udātta or Anudātta, उदात्त-अनुदात्त, high or low-pitched tone), length (short, long, etc., ह्रस्व-दीर्घ आदि), strength (intensity of effort), modulation (of tone in pronunciation of sounds) and union (conjunction of sounds). Vyākaraṇa corresponds to the Western disciplines of grammar, and Chandas to that of prosody. Both Vyākaraṇa and Chandas in Indian Knowledge are dealt with in a very different 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 languages in general, also includes Kośa (कोश) or Nighaṇṭu (निघण्टु). 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 pharmacopeia, etc., of modern knowledge. According to Madhusūdana Sarasvatī, the category of Kośa or Nighaṇṭu is subsumed in Vyākaraṇa. Our classification scheme has to find appropriate places for all five of these components of the interpretative apparatus of the Vedas within the class of Vedāṅga.

4.6.3 Śikṣā, Vyākaraṇa, Chandas of other languages (शिक्षा, व्याकरण, छन्दस्—अन्य भाषाओं के)

The linguistic apparatus for interpreting the Vedas is originally developed for the Sanskrit language. But many of the Prākṛita (प्राकृत) and Other Languages of India have developed their own extensive Śikṣā, Vyākaraṇa, Chandas and Kośa, etc., sometimes along the lines of the corresponding Sanskrit apparatus and also in independent formats. The classification 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 (ज्योतिष)

Jyotiṣa is another Vedāṅga that is essential for the proper performance of the Vaidika actions. Originally developed as part of the Vedas, this Vedāṅga has seen extensive development through the ages and forms perhaps the most significant 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 classification scheme that we develop has to include all these components under the Jyotiṣa category of Vedāṅga.

It needs to be clarified that though the above disciplines have been grouped together under Vedāṅga, because all of these originally arose in the context of the interpretations 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 classified as Vedāṅgas here.

4.7 Upaveda (उपवेद)

Āyurveda (आयुर्वेद), Dhanurveda (धनुर्वेद), Gāndharvaveda (गान्धर्ववेद) 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 enumerated 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 (आयुर्वेद)

Āyurveda refers to the science of health. Under this Upaveda, we include not only Āyurveda, but other Indian systems of medicine, like Siddha (सिद्ध), 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 (वृक्षायुर्वेद), or horticulture, and Mṛgāyurveda (मृगायुर्वेद), corresponding to modern veterinary science, which have largely developed as parts or offshoots of Āyurveda.

4.7.2 Arthaśāstra (अर्थशास्त्र)

In the Indian classification 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 and Technologies. We also propose to place Arthaśāstra and related disciplines before Gāndharvaveda.

Arthaśāstra is generally equated with the Western discipline 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 most closely correspond to the Western discipline of politics and also ethics. Therefore, in the proposed scheme of classification, we place Arthaśāstra and Nītiśāstra together.

4.7.3 Sthāpatyaveda (स्थापत्यवेद)

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, particularly Kṛṣiśāstra (कृषिशास्त्र), the science of agriculture, Ratnaparīkṣā (रत्नपरीक्षा), 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 classification.

4.7.5 Gāndharvaveda (गान्धर्ववेद)

After listing Arthaśāstra and the scientific 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 (अलङ्कारशास्त्र)

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 compositions and has a considerable corpus, we propose to assign a separate place for it in the proposed scheme of classification.

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 classification. 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 accommodated under the “Modern Studies” section of the individual Upavedas.

4.8 Kāvya (काव्य)

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 literary tradition, in his Kāvyamīmāṁsā (काव्यमीमांसा), 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 fifteenth 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 goodness, and it follows the śāstras.

In the classification scheme of IK, Kāvya, therefore, has to be placed in a separate category after the śāstras, which we have already classified above. Within this larger category, the Literature of Sanskrit and that of other Indian languages has to be classified separately.

This completes the classification of the components, or abodes, of knowledge that are found in the traditional classification of Indian Knowledge.

4.9 History and geography

Within the Indian scheme of classification of knowledge, History and Geography, as we know these disciplines today, would form part of Itihāsa and Purāṇa. However, we find 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 classification scheme of Indian knowledge.

In Geography, we find it necessary to find a place within the classification of Indian knowledge for texts dealing with Tīrtha (तीर्थ) and Tīrthayātrā (तीर्थयात्रा), including the Sthalapurāṇas (स्थलपुराण) and Māhātmyas (माहात्म्य), etc., of particular places. Relatively modern source works like the District and All India Gazetteers of the British times may also be accommodated in the category of Geography. Modern Studies of the Historical 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 defined such as to ensure that only works relevant to the understanding 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, encyclopaedias 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 classification scheme of Indian Knowledge.

5 Classification of Indian knowledge under division 40 of DDC

As we have indicated earlier, our objective is to find a place for Indian Knowledge within the Dewey Decimal Classification through a minimal modification. 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 traditional classification scheme for the Indian corpus that we have described above within these 10 sections.The ten sections 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.

Table 3 Proposed classification for Indian knowledge: Summary Table
Full size table

To test out this scheme of classification, we have classified 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 proposed here and gives the number of volumes that we have classified 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 classification up to the first decimal place given in Table 3 can be taken to be nearly final, the more detailed scheme proposed in the Appendix must be treated as tentative. We have tested this scheme for the classification of 15,242 volumes in the soft format. More systematic classification of the physical volumes and inclusion of additional material in this corpus may require some modification of the scheme proposed in the Appendix. This classification 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 organising 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 classifying 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 connected 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 classification, it shall find acceptance within the DDC in due course. Until that happens, it may be prudent to add prefix I (for Indian) to DDC Class 040 that we have proposed here to be reserved for Indian knowledge.