Authorship Of Vakya Kanda Tika

Author(s): Ashok Aklujkar
Publisher: Ashok Aklujkar
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/269266/1

Page #1

THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE VĀKYA-KĀNDA-ȚIKĀ*
ASHOK AKLUJKAR
1.1 Since the date of its publication (1887) in the Benares Sanskrit Series, the çıkā on the verses of the second book of Bhartshari's Trikāndı or Vakyapadiya (Aklujkar 1969:547-555) has been ascribed to Punya-rāja. A few scholars (e.g. Kosambi 1945:65.9-10, 67.7-9: Bhattacharya 1954:4-5) have given the name of the author of this commentary as Helā-rāja, but that is obviously due to oversight and is not intended to be a deliberately reached conclusion regarding the authorship of the work.1 Thus, on the whole, the ascription to Punya-rāja has gone unchallenged in the writings of the compilers of manuscript catalogues, of the editors of Bhartshari's works, of the scholars working on Bhartshari's views and of the historians of Sanskrit grammar. However, it seems likely to me that a serious mistake has been made in deciding the problem of authorship in this case and that the Vakya-kānda-ţikā is more likely to be a work of Helā-rāja, the well-known commentator of the
• The present article is an extended version of the paper that I read before the
South Asia section of the one hundred and eighty-first annual meeting of the American Oriental Society in Cambridge, Massachusetts (April 1971). Appropriately enough, it also marks an extention of the critical activity which Pandita Charu Deva Shastri initiated more than forty years ago concerning the works of Bharthari. I wish to acknowledge the assistance received from the Canada Council and to express my gratitude to Professor Wilhelm Rau and the obliging librarians at several manuscript libraries in India, without whose kindness the necessary manuscript material would not have
become available to me. 1. According to Dvivedi (1961: 8), Hari-vrsabha, Punya-rāja, and Hela
raja are the three names of one and the same person, namely, Helā-rāja. P. P. S. Shastri (1930:4348) also remarks that Punya-rāja and Helä-rāja are identical. I do not think that these baseless views merit any discussion (cf. S. Iyer 1969:17). For a text-critical explanation of the name Harivrsabha, see Aklujkar 1972:182-183 fn. 2.

Page #2

166
Charu Deva Shastri Felicitation Volume
third book of the Trikāndi, than of Punya-rāja.1 The evidence favouring this view is manifold and considerably strong when taken cumulatively.
2.1 I am aware of the existence of twenty-seven manuscripts of the vikya-kan la-tik 7.2 From among them, eight are incomplete and do not contain any statements of ascription (these are Rau 1971:3135, mss. E[2], E[17], E[18], E[19], E[22], E[25], E [26], and ms. new no. 781 in the Sanskrit College Library at Calcutta). One (Rau 1971:35, ms. E[21]) is complete as a commentary but does not contain a colophon stating the authorship. The colophons of two (Rau 1971:32, mss. E[+] and E[5]) are not known to me at present. as I have not so far been able to examine them in any form.3 Thus, there remain sixteen manuscripts of whose colophons I have first hand knowledge. Out of them fourteen ascribe the commentary to Punya-rāja", while two (Rau 1971:32, 34; mss.
1. (a) Charu Deva Shastri (193): 636-641, 1934 : Skt. Intro. 18-26; cf.
Ramakrishna Kavi 1930:235-241; Kunhan Raja 1936:285-298) has con. vincingly argued that the commentary on the first book of the Vākyapadiya published in the Benares Sanskrit Series is, in fact, simply an abridgement of Bhartr-hari's own Vrtti and that Punya-raja should not be credited with its authorship. Varma (1970:da) cannot be correct, when he says, "Pun ya. rāja ki (prathama kānda ki] jika kā prāmānika saņskarana pan. Raghunatha Sarmā ne khandita rūpa mer prastuta kiya hai. Präcina upalabdha rupa ki prāmānikata nitānta samdigdha hai." (b) Note that in the present article 1 do not wish even to suggest that the tikä on the second book is an abridgement of the Vrtti of the second book: cf. 4.1 below and S. Iyer 1969:42-44. (c) I hope that in future publications, at least about Bhartr-hari, scholars will refrain from using the words fikà and vrtti interchangeably. The indiscriminate use of these words by Abhyankar-Limaye (1965:17 fn. 11.
39 fn. 6, 4+ fn. 3,47 fn. 2, 53 fn. 14, 56 fn. 12, 57 fn. 6) is to be regretted. 2 Rau (1971:31-35) enumerates 26 manuscripts. I have omitted his EP121.
as it is obviously a recent transcript, and added to his list of manuscripts (new) nos. 177 and 781 available in the library of the Sanskrit College at Calcutta, From Abhyankar-Limaye 1965: II and 57 fn. 6, I get the impression that the colophon of E[4] runs thus: iti Bharty-hari-kyte Väkyapadiye dvitiyan kandam. sam iptā ca Vākya-pradipa-kārikā (see 4.3 below). Sali-vāhana-sake 1456 fayābde Sarad-tāv Asvina-māse sukla-paksa ekādasyam Godā-tire dak sinakūle Nr-simha-ksetre Siddhesvara-deva-samnidhau Visva-nāthasya Mukundena likhitam. If this is actually the case then E[4], like E[21], is complete as a commentary, but does not contain any statement as to the author of the commentary. These fourteen are E[1], E[3], E[6], E[8], E[9], E[10], E[11], E[13], E[15], E[16], E[20], E[23], E[24], and ms. new no. 177 in the Sanskrit College Library at Calcutta. In these, the author's name is generally (see fn. 9 below) mentioned as follows: iti Sri-Pun ya-rāja-krtā Vakyapadiya-doitiyakanda-fika samāpta.

Page #3

The Authorship of the Vākya-Kānda-Tikā
167
E[7] and E[14]) ascribe it to Helā-rāja. Now, it would not be proper in this particular case to conclude that Punya-rāja must be the author on the ground that the manuscripts attributing authorship to him are more than those speaking of Helā-rāja as the author. In the first place, the manuscripts whose colophons ascribe the commentary to Punya-rāja are relatively recent. None of them is as old as manuscript E[7], which ascribes the commentary to Helā-rāja. This is evident from the dates recorded by the scribes and also from a comparison of readings. Secondly, there is room to suppose that the colophons crediting Punya-rāja with the authorship of the commentary arose out of confusion. But a similar supposition cannot be justified in the case of the other set of colophons. The name of Punya-rāja appears in the last line of the summary verses appended at the end of the prose commentary (see verse 58 in 2.2 below). It is possible to say, therefore, that this mention of Punya-rāja led some scribe into believing that the whole commentary came from Punya-rāja's pen. But what explanation can one give for the action of those copyists who have
1. The colophon of these two manuscripts reads : iti sri-Bhūti-rāja-tanaya
Helā-rāja-viracite Vākyapadiya-vyākhyāne Vākya-kāndaḥ samāptah. The essential similarity (iti Bhūti-rāja-tanaya-Hela-raja-samāptah) of this colophon with the statements appearing at the end of each of the fourteen chapters
of the Prakirnaka-prakāśa indicates its genuineness. 2. E[7] is dated saivat tri-rasa-bhū or A.D. 1609/1610 (Abhyankar-Limaye
1965:11-111; Rau 1971:32). The manuscript E[4] definitely antedates it by about seventy-five years. In all probability, E[21] also precedes it in time. But these latter manuscripts do not inform us about the author of the
commentary. See fn. 4 above. 3. I shall discuss the geneology of the manuscripts of the Vakya-kānda-lika in a
future study. In the meanwhile, note that I am not claiming that E[7] is the oldest available manuscript of the Vākya-kända-tikā; it is claimed to be older than only those manuscripts which ascribe the tikā to Punya-rāja. It is also probable that the ascription to Punya-raja is a result of several successive scribal errors. Suppose that the sentence originally appearing at the end of the summary verses was iti sri-Pun ya-rāja-ky tā Vākyapadiyadvitiya-kānda-karikāḥ samāptāḥ. We can then imagine it to have passed through the following stages and assumed its presently accepted form (fn. 5 above): (a)-kānda-rikāḥ samāptāḥ (omission of the second kā through haplography) > (b)-kānda-ţikāḥ samāptāṁ (mistaking ri for fi, which is not improbable in the Deva-nagari script) (c) -kānda-tikāḥ samāpta (realization that i in likā is the long one)+(d) -kända-ţikā samāptāḥ (realization that it would be odd to use a plural form for one tika) + (e)-kända-ţika samăptă (realization that the adjective must agree in number with the noun it qualifies). From among these, stage (b) is partially attested in manuscript E[6], where we read tikā instead of the expected tikā. Evidence for stage (d) is furnished by the manuscripts E[1], E [3), E[9], and E [10]. .

Page #4

168
Charu Deva Shastri Felicitation Volume
credited Helā-rāja with the authorship ? Since the name Helarāja is not mentioned either in the prose commentary or the summary verses, they must have written the colophons ascribing the work to Helā-rāja only because such colophons existed in the manuscripts they copied. Thus, it is more likely that they alone have preserved the older and genuine tradition regarding the authorship.1
2. 2 For the second piece of evidence, let us turn to the concluding portion of the summary verses (significant variant readings are shown in parentheses) : ity eva (evam) Vākya-kāndasya prameya-visayaḥ smrtāḥ (sphutam) | samgatih kirtita laghui samasena nirakulā ||56|| vidvaj-janānāṁ yaḥ khalu sarvatra głyаte jagati / tata upasstya viracitā rājinaka-Śūra-varma-nāmnā vai (nämnaiva) 1/57|| Šaśānka-śisy īc chrutvaitad Váky a-kāndam samásataḥ| Punya-rājena tasyokta sangatih karikasritā ||58|| These mean: “These are said to be the topics to be known fron the Vakya-kanda. A brief, but not unintelligibly compressed, statement of their mutual connections (or order) has been made with succinctness. Having approached (or come from) him who among the learned men is praised everywhere in the world (or who is praised everywhere in the world of learned men), one named rājānaka Sūra-varman has composed [this]. Having heard (learned) this Vakya-kända briefly from the disciple of Śaśānka, Punya-raja has given a statement of mutual connections in the form of verses (or relating to the verses of the Vakya-kända)”.2 Here I do not know how to reconcile
1.
To say that the copyists had read Helā-rāja's commentary on the third book, had understood from it that he wrote a commentary on the second book too, and hence were led to change the colophon of the commentary on the second book would not be a straight-forward explanation. The copyist class of India is not known to have been that learned on a general scale or that much interested in the problems of authorship. Furthermore, since there is no evidence of Punya-rāja's authorship prior to the date of the oldest manuscript ascribing the commentary to Helā-rāja, such an explanation would involve assuming that very thesis which it seeks to prove. It would also force one to presuppose an impressive degree of deftness on the part of the copyist who allegedly deprived Punya-raja of his authorship, for the colophons of E[7] and E[14] not only resemble those of the Prakirnaka-prakasa (see fn. 6 above), but also are followed by śri-gopi-jana-vallabha vijayatetaräm, a distinct prayer associated with the Prakirnaka-praka'sa, (S. Iyer 1963:209.19). Note also that E[7] and E[14] begin with om gopi-janavallabho vijayatetaram. om namah fri-bhagavat-Pāṇini-Kālyāyana-Patanjalibhyah, which again characteristically belongs to the Prakirņaka-prakāśa (S. Iyer 1963:1.3). (a) In the BSS edition the, summary verses total 60. Thev are in fact 69. Verse 48 of the BSS edition consists of repetitions of 47cd and 49ab, and hence should be dropped. My references here presuppose this correction
2.

Page #5

The Authorship of the Vākya-Kānda-Țikā
169
verse 57 with verse 58. The former is composed in some variety of the āryā metred and seems to give the credit of composing a statement of the topics discussed in the Vakya-kānda to Rājānaka Suravarman. Verse 58, on the other hand, is composed in the anusţubh metre and declares Punya-rāja to be the composer of the statement summarizing the contents of the Vakya-kāņda.2 In any case, it is evident that Punya-rāja does not claim, or is not given, credit for writing the commentary on the Vākya-kānda; his contribution is clearly limited to the composition of the summary verses (contrast S. Iyer 1969:41.2-4). Nor is Punya-rāja credited with having written a commentary on, or even having read for that matter, any other book of the Trikāņdi.3 This hardly agrees with the indications in the Vakya-kānda-tika itself. It is clear from that çīkā that its author had written a commentary also on the first book, as it contains references to the first book (pp. 80. 12, 82. 14-15, 284. 12-13) and as it begins with (cf. S. Iyer 1965:x.11-14; 1969:41.13-23) evam sabdasya prayojana-sahitam sva-rūpādikan leśato nirnitam. tasya ca sadhāranyena vācakatvam vyavasthapitam: “Thus the nature, etc. of a linguistic unit have been partly determined along with the purpose [of the science of grammar]. That that linguistic unit expresses meaning has also been generally (or
and follow the numbering of Abhyankar-Limaye 1965: 195-196. (b) Ramakrishna Kavi (1930:237) renders samgatih kārikā'sritā with the
Iucture of the verses (of the Vākya-kānda)' or 'linking of the kārikās.' As available in the manuscripts and the printed editions, verse 57 is metrically defective. Prof. T Venkatacharya of the University of Toronto suggests that we should read vidaj-janānām in the place of vidvaj-janānā to remove the metrical defect. (a) Ramakrishna Kavi (1930:237) seems to have sensed the problem which verses 37 and 58 pose, for he remarks, "[The summary verses) are attributed to Sūra-varman or to Punya-rāja. The verse which contains the name of sara-varman appears to contain a clerical error; probably the author meant that Punya-rāja wrote his commentary for Śūra-varman." (b) Raghavan Pillai (1971: xvii) apparently is of the opinion that rājānaka Śūra-varman is simply another designation of Punya-rāja. In that case I fail to see why so many words intervene between räjänaka-Śūra-varma-nāmnā and Pun ya-rājena and why viracitā and uktā are employed to form mutually independent sentences with the two expressions in the instrumental case (rājānaka-Ślira-varma-nāmni viracită and Pun ya-rājena uktā). Would not one rather expect the sentence to be rijānuka-Sira-varma-nämnā Punya-rõjena viracita (or uktā), if what Raghavan Pillai says were to be the case ? (a) It follows from this observation that Kunhan Raja (1936:292-293) cannot be correct when he maintains that Punya-rāja wrote commentaries on all the three books of the Trikāndi. (b) Raghavan (1963:745. 10-20) refers to Punya-rāja as the author of the commentary on the third book, but that is obviously due to oversight.

Page #6

170
Charu Deva Shastri Felicitation Volume
commonly)' established.” Helā-rāja's authorship of the Vakyakānda-ţikā, on the other hand, can be easily reconciled with these indications; from his Prakirnaka-prakāśa, we know for certain that he had written a commentary called Sabda-prabha, on the first book of the Trikāndi (S. Iyer 1969:36-37,410-411). Thus, it would be natural for Helā-rāja, and definitely not for Punya-rāja of the summary verses, to presuppose a reader's awareness of the existence of his commentary on the first book.
2.3 In his commentary on the third book, Helā-rāja refers many times to the points discussed in the preceding books. Most of such references pertain or can be said to pertain, to Bhartshari's kārikas and Vịtti (Aklujkar 1972:181-198) of the first two kāndas or to Helā-rāja's so far undiscovered commentary on the first kända. Consequently, they cannot be used to determine Helā-rāja's relationship to the Vakya-kānda-ţiki. However, there is one reference which can be said to have been made by Helā. rāja with his own commentary on the Vakya-kānda in mind. While explaining verse 3.9.105 (p.93.18-20; cf. Helā. 3.7.125 p. 329.6-7), he remarks : abadhādivad yuktan sabda-saṁskāra-nimittatvam asya. puruşa-dharmeşu api hi śāstram adhikstam iti vicāritam Vākyapadtyé. “It is proper for this (property of the speaker called āśaṁsā) to become a cause in the derivation of a word as it is for anguish (or distress, ābādha). It has been (already] discussed in the Vākyapadiya that the science (of grammar) is concerned also with the properties of persons [since, in the derivation of sentence-usable words, whether or not a particular suffix should be added to an inflectional base depends on the emotional state to be conveyed]." A statement corroborating this reference to what precedes is found only in the fika on verse 2.78 (pp. 109.17-111.8-11; cf. p. 146.16): Sastrasya tu śabdārtha-puruşa-dharmeşv adhikāraḥ ...... puruşa-dharmā vaktstva-pratipattstvaprabhstayaḥ, tatra vaktsdharma abādhasāyā-sammati-kopa-kutsanabhartsanādayaś ceti. pratipatt-dharmās tu kutsyamānatva-prabhịtaya eva tatra śāstrasya pluta-dvir-vacanādi-vidhāyakatven idhikāra iti. “The science (of grammar] is concerned with word (or linguistic unit), meaning, and the properties of persons.... The properties of persons are being a speaker,' 'being a hearer,' etc. Among them, the properties of the speaker are anguish, envy, respect, anger, censure,
1. i.c. with respect to both the word and the sentence, and without indulging
in the problem of determining the fundamental or primary expressive unit. 2. This should be evident from the critical study of the Prakirnaka-prakāśa on
which I am working at present and which I hope to publish in the future. 3. In Helā-räja's usage, the term Vökyapadiya refers only to the first two books
of the Trikāndi; cf. Aklujkar 1969:549-550.

Page #7

The Authorship of the Vakya-Kānda-Tikā
171
scolding, etc. The properties of the hearer are, on the other hand. 'being censured', etc. The science (of grammar] is concerned with them as [a science] enjoining (the use of) prolongated vowels, reduplication, etc. “The similarity of diction (sastra, puruşa-dharma, abadha, adhikr), in addition to that of content, between this statement and Helā-rāja's remark is self-evident. Furthermore, this statement is so far removed from the concerns of the kärikäs that it seems unlikely that a statement similar to it could have once existed in Bhartshari's Vịtti, although such a possibility cannot be ruled out with certainty, since the Vștti on 2. 77-151 is not available for verification in the only known manuscript. Thus, we find that a passage which is unique to a not-too-essential portion of the Vakya-kānda-ţikā answers the expectation arising out of Helā-rāja's rather incidental remark in the Prakirnakaprakāśa. This would be hard to account for, unless both works were authored by one and the same person.
2.4 Our present problem of authorship can be studied from one more angle. Suppose for a moment that Helā-rāja is the author of the Vakya-kānda-tīkā and the Prakirņaka-prakāía. Then, since the same mind has produced both works, we should find some similarity of associations in them, just as, say, in the case of Sankara's philosophical commentaries or of Kālidāsa's literary works. A careful examination of the two ļākās reveals that this indeed is the case with the quotations in them as well as with their diction.
2.5 The Vakya-kānda-trkā quotes sixteen verses from the third book : pp. 98.6.8 (3.1.75cd, 3.1.75ab) 98.11-12 (3.1.76), 140.1-2 (3.3.55), 145.21-22 (3.14.485), 146.9-10 (3.14.484), 162.5-7 (3.14. 156), 163.11-12 (3.7.156), 164.9.10 (3.7.159), 167.17-18 (3.1.1,3.1. 2ab), 176.17-18 (3.14.248), 208.18-21 (3.10.7-9), 213.4-5 (3.1.75cd), 240.1-2 (3.3.29). No discord is noticed between the explanations of these verses in the Prakırnaka-prakāśa and the contexts in which they are quoted in the Vakya-kānda-ţikā. In fact, there exists a certain degree of correspondence in terms of associations: (a) On BSS p. 162.5-7, verse. 3. 14. 156 is cited in discussing the expression pañcālā jana-padaḥ. In the Prakirnaka-prakaśa (p. 78.11-13), this cited verse is explained in the context of pañcala jana-padaḥ. (b) After the conclusion of the section on karma-pravacanīyas (BSS p. 167.17-18), the Vākya-kānda-!īkā quotes verse 3.1.1. In the Prakırnaka-prakasa on verse 3.1.1 (pp. 3.18-7.14), the karma-pravacanīya section of the Vakya-kanda is summarized. (c) The Pāṇinian aphorism (4.4.2) tena divyati khanati jayati jitam forms the context in which verses 3.10.7-9 are cited on BSS p. 208.18-21. The same is taken as an illustration, when verses 3.10.7-9 are explained in

Page #8

172
Charu Deva Shastri Felicitation Volume
the Prakirnaka-prakāśa.
2.6 To look from the other direction, about fifteen1 verses from the second book are quoted in Helā-rāja's commentary on the third book : 3.1.1. p. 5.1-4, 16-17, p. 7.11.12 (2.197, 199, 204, 202), 3.1.3 p. 10.14-15 (2. 70), 3.1.52 p. 61.15 (2.382a), 3.1.58-59 p. 66.21-22 (2.247), 3.1.74 p. 78.11-12 (2.15), 3.1.87 p. 84.22 (2.14), 3.3.31 p. 145.6 (2.118), 3.7.24 p. 255.5-6 (2.203), 3.7.58 p. 275.2 (2.250), 3.7.158 p. 359.5-6 (2.204), 3.9.97 p. 90.7-8 (2.15), 3.11.15 p: 108.24 (2.57a), 3.14.75 p. 40.4-5 (2.15), 3.14.76 p. 41.4-5 (2.233), 3.14.94 p. 49.9 (2.250), 3.14.205 p. 99.1 (2.425), 3.14.249 p. 115.13 (2.14). Here again no irreconcilable elements are noticed between the contexts in which the verses are cited in the Prakırnaka-prakasa and the explanations of the cited verses which are given in the Vakya-kānda-țzka. Quite to the contrary, the following point of similarity is noticed: The Vākyakānda-fikā on 2.233 (BSS p. 179.56) remarks etad uktam bhavaty avidyaiva vidyopāya iti. Helā-rāja's Prakırnaka-prakāśa on 3.14.76, where 2.233 is quoted, reads avidyaiva hi vidyopāyaḥ. ?
2.7 Let us now move on to associations indicated by quotations from works other than those of Bhartphari. In this respect one would not arrive at a justifiable conclusion by studying the passages from Pāņini, Kātyāyana, and Patañjali. Since the material we are dealing with belongs to the Pāṇinian school of Sanskrit grammar, quotations from the muni-traya are only to be expected. Now, if with the exclusion of such quotations in mind we study the Vakya-kānda-tīkā and the Prakirņaka-prakaśa, we find that both works agree in quoting from the following authors : Kumārila : BSS pp. 93.21-23 (SV, Sphoța-vāda, 69), 117.13) ŚV, Apoha-vāda, 33); Hela. 3.1.50 p. 60. 5-6 (TV 2.1.4. p. 411), 3.7.15 p. 243.14 (ŚV, Śūnyavada, 254), 3.11.30 p. 120.14 (ŚV, Vākyādhikarana, 160). JayādityaVāmana: BSS pp. 164. 1-2 (kašika on Pāṇini 2.3.52), 210.4-5 (Kašika 1.2.32); Helā. 3.1.34 p. 41. 21 and 3.8.1 p. 18.29 (Kāśika 2.3.46). Dharma-kirti: BSS p. 182.9-10 (PV 4.226 p. 439); Helā. 3.1.40 p. 47.15 (PV 2.356cd p. 205), 3.1.93-94 p. 94.15-16 (PV 3.162cd-163ab p. 307), 3.1.100 p. 100. 3-4 (PV 3.92 p. 288), 3.2.9. p. 113.12-13 (PV 2.435 p. 226, fn. 1), 3.3.1 p. 123.2-3 (PV 1.4 pp. 4-5), 3.3.42 p. 153.10-11 (PV 4.226 p. 439), 3.7.24 p. 252. 10.-1I (PV 1.26 p. 17). Mandana-misra: BSS p. 145.23-24 (Sphoțasiddhi 9); Helā. 3.14. 484 p. 213.21-22 (Sphoța-siddhi 9). In this
a and the Prak wing authors : Kumas. 33); Helā.
1. I say "about" because 2.382a and 2.57a in the list given here may not have
been intended to be quotations by Helā-rāja; it is quite probable that he may have used them simply as familiar phrases.

Page #9

The Authorship of the Vākya-Kānda-Tikā
173
inclination toward quoting only certain texts, one more peculiarity is noticed. Two quotations are common to both works (BSS p. 182.9-10, Helā. 3.3.42 p. 153.10-11 : PV 4.226 p. 439; BSS p. 145.23-24, Helā. 3.14.484 p. 213.21-22: Sphoța-siddhi 9), and one of those quotations (Sphoto-siddhi 9) is strongly associated with the Mahābhasya (Paspaśahnika p. 1.12.18-20; and on Pāṇini 2.2.6 p. 1.411.19-20) passage tailam bhuktam, ghrtam bhuktam in both of them; it occurs in exactly the same context, thus indicating the possible working of one mind.
2.8 The evidence furnished by the similarities of association is corroborated by some common stylistic features: (a) Use of certain not too common compound expressions (the components of most of these expressions can be found in many other works; but the combinations in which they appear in the Vākya-kānda. tikā and the Prakirņaka-prakaśa do not seem to be common): adūraviprakarşa 'without being removed too far, keeping together as much as possible'i BSS pp. 199.17, 266.9; Helā. 3.10.8 p. 101.2122, 3.14.49 p. 28.1, 3.14.53 p. 30.11, 3.14.213 p. 102.2; ayah-salakakalpa ‘[mutually unconnected or unmerged] like sticks of iron BSS pp. 129.21,2 255.6, 265. 20, 267.12; Helā. 3.4.. 1-2 p. 182. 15, 3.7. 156 p. 355. 13; kāla-parivasa 'covering or envelop in the form of time' BSS p. 285.10; Helā. 3.7.2 p. 232.11, 3.7.56 p. 273.23, 3.9.24 p. 58.8, 3.9.26 p. 58.24, 3.14.372 p. 163.22; drsyavikalpa: 'perceived object and the intellectal construct' BSS pp. 137.22, 269.5-6; Helā, 3.1.6 p. 17.18, 3.1.19 p. 32.14, 3.3.33 p. 147.1, 3.3.42 p. 153.16, 3.7.3 p. 234.5, 3.7.6 p. 237.12, 3.8.24 p. 31.21, 3.9.40 p. 63.22-23, 3.14.273 p. 125.11, 3.14.473 p. 210.5-6, 3.14.569 p. 248.1-2; paramarşi 'great sage advocating existence (bhava), teacher of Sākhya," BSS pp. 139.22, 204.22, 287.8; Helā.
1. This expression is used at least once by Kşira-svāmin. See his commentary
on Amara-si mha's Amara-koşa 2.6.122-123. From 2.8e below it is clear that here the printed text should be corrected to
read kila. ayah-salākā-kalpānam... 3. A similar dvandva compound, drsya-vikalpya, is found in Jayantabhaîța's
Nyāya-mañjari, part I, p. 23. 4. (a) In Isvara-krsņa's Samkhya-kārikā (verse 69), the term paramarși is used
to refer to Kapila. (b) A derivative adjective, pāramar şa, is found in the writings of Hela-rāja (3.9.59 p. 71.4), Vācaspati-miśra (Nyāya-kanikā on Mandana-misra's Vidhi-viveka p. 461), Mallişeņa (Syād-vāda-mañjari on Hema-candra's Anyayoga-vyavacchedikā or Vyavaccheda-dvätrinsikā, verses 11-12), and Krspa-lilasuka-muni (Puru şakāra on Deva's Daiva, p. 15). It does not always mean "stated by the teachers of Samkhya', as one would expect it to mean.

Page #10

174
Charu Deva Shastri Felicitation Volume
3.3.64 p. 169.13.; pasūdakavat "like dust and water'l BSS pp. 108.22, 171.22; Helā. 3.14.53 p. 30.14, 3.14.59 p. 33.2, 3.14.95 p.51.11; and sarva-pärşada 'serving as basis of, accommodating, all branches of knowledge" BSS pp. 186 24, 253.21; Helā. 3.3.1 p. 122.15. (b) Frequent use of the word äcchurita 'coloured, tinged:' BSS pp. 173.2-3, 260.12, 261.8; Helā. 3.1.7-8 p. 20.7, 3.14.15 p. 8. 24, 3.14.25 p. 13.1-3, 3.14.204 p. 98.1, 3.14.624 p. 272.26. (c) Choice of the term adhyāsa to express the relation of identification between word and meaning (BSS. pp. 67.1-10, 85 7-14, 141.5, 189. 11-13.; Helá. 3.1.6 p. 18.17, 3.1.11 p. 23.5-7, 3.3.1 p. 123.5, 3.3.2p. 126. 7-17, 127.2-3, 3.3.29 p. 143.3-4, 3.3.32 p. 145.15-17) in the place of Bhartphari's (Tripādi pp. 26. 4-5, 249.10-15; Vrtti 1.23 p. 59.1-4, 1.67 p. 126.3, 1.24-26 p. 71.4; 2.128) tadrūpyāpādana, so 'yam ity abhisambandha, pratyastarūpatā, vipariņāma, asyedambhāva, svarūpādhyāropa, adhyavasāya and abhijalpa, and Vịşabha's (p. 59.10-22) abhinna-rūpatā, abhedalaksana-sambandha, and sārūpya. (d) Preference for the terms jāti-sphota and vyakti-sphoța respectively for sphoța viewed as a universal and sphoța viewed as a particular (BSS pp. 64.4.15, 76.19-20, 81.11-13 Helā. 3.1.6 p. 18.15-16, 3.1.7-8 p. 20. 5-6). in the place of Bhartshari's and Vrsabha's sabdākşti (or sabda-jāti) and sabda-vyakti. (Vrtti 1.23 p. 52.2-7, p. 57.1-4, 1.93 p. 159.6) Employment of the indeclinable kila at the end of a sentence to suggest slight disapproval or less than hearty acceptance of a view:4 BSS. pp. 97.13-14, 129.21 (see fn. 20 above), 176.19, 183.9-10, 194.18-19; Helā. 3.1.45 p. 50.19-20, 3.1.68p. 73.4-5, 3.7.70 p. 287.4-5, 3.7.85 p. 300.14-15, 3.11.22 p. 115.14, 3.13.10 p. 141.17, 3.14.32 p. 18.11-12, 3. 14. 188-189, p. 93. 17, 3.14.360 p. 159. 21-22, 3.14.367 p. 161.17. (f) Use of yadi param in the sense 'if at the most': BSS pp. 258.15-22, 259.; Helā. 3.3.39 p. 151.8. (8)Paraphrase of odanaṁ pacati in exactly the same word as viklidyatas tandulan vikledayati: BSS p. 244.21-22; Helā. 3.8.1 p. 20.18.
1. According to Raghavan (1963:21), this expression is used by Bhoja in the
eighth chapter of the Srrgāra-prakāśa. 2. (a) As Raghavan (1963:722) mentions, Bhoja also employs the compound
sarvapārşada in his Srrgåra-prakāśa. (b) For the relation of sarva-pārsada to Patañjali's sarva-veda-pārişada, see
S. Iyer 1951:86, 1969:74-75. 3. It need not be supposed that Bhartp-hari did not know the term adhyāsa.
Patañjali's Yogas ütra 3.17 and Vyāsa's (?) bhāsya on it employ the term As I shall argue in a forthcoming article, both these works are older than
Bhartr-hari's. 4. (a) Such use of kila is noticed also in the writings of Bhartr-hari (3.7.70),
Jayanta-bhatta (Nyāya-mañjari, part 1, p. 7). and Vaşu-bandhu (see the references to Yaso-mitra in (b) below).

Page #11

The Authorship of the Vākya-Kānda-Tikā
175
2.9 Finally, attention must also be drawn to certain features of theoretical discussion that are shared by the commentary ascribed to Punya-rāja ani by Helārāja's Prakirnaka-prakāśa. It should be noted that these features are not necessitated by the contexts in which they appear and hence can be satisfactorily explained only as stemming from the author's personality and associations with theoretical concepts. Among them are: (a) Characterization of Bhartr-hari's effort as praudha-vāda or praudhirāda, when, in the view of the commentator, he is over-generous in offering options to his philosophical adversaries : BSS pp. 116.22, 250.19; Helā. 3.1.11 p. 23.7, 3.3.18 p. 135.17, 3.3.28 p. 142.7. (b) Acceptance of the relation of identification (adhyāsa) as more basic than that of capability (yogyata) or that of cause and effect (kāryakārana-bhāva): BSS pp: 67.1-10, 85.7-14, 141.4-6, 189.11-12; Helā. 3.1.11. p. 23.5-7, 3.3.1. p. 123.5, 3.3.2 p. 126.7-17, 3.3.29 p. 143. 3-4. (c) comment to the effect that the relation of cause and effect between word and meaning is stated in deference to the view of the Vijñāna-vādins :1 BSS p. 67.4-5; Helā. 3.3.1 pp. 122.11-123.7. (d) Clarification of the distinction between samghāta (or samudāya) and sphoța: BSS p. 173.1-3; Helā. 3.8.7-8 p. 23.14-16.
... 3.1 I believe that the evidence I have presented above makes Helā-rāja's authorship of the Vākya-kānda-ţika more than a likely proposition. Even when not taken cumulatively, it is sufficient at least to caution a reader against an uncritical acceptance of the descriptions "wrongly assigns" and "fälschlich" attached respectively by Abhyankar-Limaye (1965:11; cf. p. 231. 30-32) and Rau (1971:33) to the colophons of manuscripts E[7] and E[14]. Its force would diminish only (a) if we discovered ascription to Punya-rāja in manuscripts or works older than 1609/ 1610 A.D., the date of E[7], (b) if we came across quotations from or statements on the contents of Helā-rāja's commentary on the second book and did not find passages answering our
(b) kila-sabdah para-mata-dyotanárthah (Yaso-mitra, Sphusārthābhidharma-kosavyākhyā, Kosa-sthāna I, p. 12; cf. pp. 24,31,66,74,93,100; Kosa-sthāna II, pp. 2,42. 47; Kośa-sthāna III, pp. 6,75). kila iti sırayaḥ pramāṇānupapannatvenarucim prakasayanti (Vidyānanda on Samanta-bhadra's Yukty-anu'sāsana verse 39, pp. 88-89), kilety ēgamāruci-nyakkarane su. 'jaghäna Kamsam kila.' '[evan kila kecid vadanti.' 'ayam kila yotsyate'. (Danda-nātha Nārāyana. Hrdaydhärini on Bhoja's Sarasvati-kanthabharana, part I, p. 35. The acceptance by the Buddhists of karya-karana-bhäva between word and meaning is evident from Abhidharma-dipa with Vibhāsā-prabhā-urtti,' p. 274, and Sucarita-misra's Käsikä on Kumārila's SV, part III. p. 223. Besides PV 1.4, which is cited by Helā-rāja in the passage referred to here, the oftquoted verse vikalpa-yonayah sabda vikalpah sabdayonayah from Din-nőga also expounds the same view.
1.

Page #12

176
Charu Deva Shastri Felicitation Volume
expectations in the present Vākya-kāņda-țīkā, or (c) if we found in the present Väkya-kända-ţikā quotations from or references to works or authors later than the tenth century A. D., the most likely date for Helā-rāja (Charu Deva Shastri 1930:652-653; S. Iyer 1963:xi 1969:39-40; Swaminathan 1967:23-35). As far as I am aware, such counter-evidence does not exist.
3.2 Nāgesa (circa 1670-1750 A. D.) is the earliest author known so far who mentions Punya-rāja, mostly in the form Puñja-rāja (see 5.2 below), as the author of the commentary on the second book (cf. Madhava Krishna Sarma (1942:412): See Laghumañjūşā with the commentaries Kuñcikā and Kala pp. 63, 109, 110, 148, 221, 229, 337, 344 (Abhyankar-Limaye 1965:223; cf BSS p. 137), 400-401, 403-404, 409, 413, 417-419, 421, 444, 451, 589, 609 (Abhyankar-Limaye 1965:226; cf. BSS p. 157), 612, 616, 654, 684 (Abhyankar-Limaye 1965:234; cf. BSS p. 232), 817 (AbhyankarLimaye 1965:220; cf. BSS p. 115), 1155, 1188 Abhyankar-Limaye 1965:217; cf. BSS pp. 69-70), 1367 (Abhyankar-Limaye 1965: 238; cf. BSS p. 274), 1368, 1437, 1494, 1568; and BỊhac-chabdendusekhara p. 797. However, Nāgeśa's date is later by at least sixty years than that of the earliest manuscript ascribing the commentary to Helā-rāja. Moreover, along with the commentators of his Laghu-mañjūsā (e.g. Kalä p. 113.6-7), he occasionally refers to the commentary also as Helā-rāja's work (see 3.3 below), thus indicating his manuscript sources were not unanimous on the matter of authorship.
3.3 To come to references by later authors to Helā-rāja's commentary on the second kānda, I can at present think of only the following: (a) Kaunda-bhatta, Vaiyakarana-bhūşaņa-sāra pp. 113114: ek-tin vākyam iti vadatām Vārttikakārāņāṁ mate paraṁ na (pacati bhavati Deva-datta ity-ādau nighātaḥ) vastutas tu “ekatinvišesyakam vākyam' iti tad-abhiprāyasya Helārāj yadau..... pratipăditatvāt tan mate 'pi bhavaty evety avadheyam. (b) Nāgesa, BỊhacchabdendusekhara p. 31 : tad uktam Hariņā 'pramānam eva hrasvādāv anupattam pratīyate' (Vaky apadiya 2.307cd) iti. anupāltam api [ardha-]mātrā-rūpam pramāņam evopalaks yata ity artha iti Helā-rājaḥ. (c) Nāgeśa, [Laghu-]śabdaratna p. 29 (Abhyankar-Limaye 1965:231): Harir apy āha "pramānam eva hrasvādāv anupāttañ pratiyate' (Vakyapadiya 2.307cd).
1. (a) I assume here that Nāgesa is the real author of the [Laghu-]šabda-ratna,
not Hari Dikṣita. (b) My notes show that Nāgesa refers to Helā-rāja as the author of the commentary on the second book also on Laghu-manj ūsā, pp. 1133 and 1161. However, due to the unavailability of the edition from which I noted these pages, I am at present unable to verify the references.

Page #13

The Authorship of the Väkya-Kānda-Țikā
177
iti anupattam apy ardha-matra-rūpam pramānam evopalak syata ity arthas lity artham?] tasya Hela-rāja aha. evam ca loke 'nya-sākhāsu ca dirghadişu apy ardha-mitraivodätteti bhāvaḥ: From among these, (a) summarizes the remark Vārttikakārasyāpy eka-tin ity-atraika-tintvaṁ pradhinatin-antā peksayā pratipadyamānam Sūtrakāra-matānugun yaṁ bhajata evety ( nayor nāsti mata-bhedah, appearing on BSS p. 270.22-24.1 Corresponding to (b) and (c) is the passage on BSS pp. 209. 16-210. 1: atra cardha-hrasva-grahanam ardha-mātrā-laksanasya pramāṇasyopalaksanam iti tad eva tasmāt pratiyate...dirgha-plutayor apy adibhūtārdhamātrodättety ucyale. To be sure, Kaunda-bhatta and Nāgesa do not reproduce the exact words from Helā-rāja's commentary on the Vākya-kānda, but whatever they report as the gist of his remarks therein is found in the present Vākya-kanda-tika. We have, therefore, no justification to suppose that they had access to two distinct commentaries, one by Punya-rāja and the other by Helā-rāja, and that the commentary by Helā-rāja to which they had access was different from the available Vakya-kānda-ţikā. It seems more straight-forward to assume that at least Nāgesa was not uniformly informed on the matter of authorship by the manuscripts at his disposal.
, 3.4 One possible reference by Helā-raja himself to his commentary on the second book has been discussed in 2.3 above. In that case a corresponding passage could be located in the çika published in the Benares Sanskrit Series However, there are two more possible references by Helā-rāja in the case of which, as far as I can determine, at present, passages expressing the same points - are not found in the BSS fikā: (a) 3.7.84 p. 300.1: tantrena hi Śakti-dvayam apy abhidadhāti pratyaya iti Vākyapadiye nirnītam. (b) 3.8.12 p. 26.15-17: kriyopapadaśrayas tu pratyayaḥ praksty-arthāśrayaḥ (iti) bhoktuṁ paka iti bhavatity anantara-kānde nirnītam. ihāpy agre nirnes yate. Note that here Helä-rāja does not employ any expres
2.
(a)
1. Hari-vallabha Sāstri's Darpana commentary on Vaiyākarana-bh īşana-sāra
p. 11 + says that the remark of Helā-rāja referred to by Kaunda-bhatta is found in Helā-rāja's commentary on 2.444 (bahuşu api...). Actually, it is found in the commentary on 2.446 (tin-antāntara— ). (a) The point is this : In a sentence like i syate grāmo gantum, the suffix in israte is capable of indicating the abhihitatva of the object gräma with reference to both the actions that of desiring and that of going. It is said to accomplish this two-way indication through tantra. (b) Tantra is touched upon in 2.77 (BSS pp. 104.17-105.5) and 2.475-477 (BSS pp. 281-283). The possibly relevant discussion of pratyāyya and pratyayaka is found in 2.98-111 (BSS pp. 124-129). (a) The places where one expects a discussion or mention of the point specified by Helā-rāja are as follows: 2.195 (BSS p. 161.18-20), 2.307 (BSS p. 209. 4), 2 330ab (BSS p. 224. 13-16), 2.430-431 (BSS p. 264. 20-23).

Page #14

178
Charu Deva Shastri Felicitation Volume
sions like asmabhiḥ or svavyākhyāyām. The guess that (a) and (b) can be references to his commentary on the second book is entirely based on the observation that statements closely correspon. ding to what he says are not found either in the karikās or the Vștti of the second book. This negative observation cannot assume any definitive force in the present state of our sources, as the text of the Vstti of the Vakya-kāņda is full of the gaps and hence does not preclude the possibility that it once contained the theses referred to by Helā-rāja. Besides, the Vakya-kānda-tīka is yet to be critically edited; we do not as yet know whether any of its manuscripts indicate a loss of portions in the course of time.
3.5 As to the objections to Helā-rāja's authorship which may arise out of a study of the quotations in the Vākya-kānda-ţikā, I would like to state that there is not a single quotation in that work which can be assigned with certitude to a period later than the tenth century A. D. I hope to substantiate this point in a future textual study. In the meanwhile, it would not be improper to discuss one quotation which is especially likely to give rise to a doubt. According to Madhava Krishna Sarma (1942:411-412), the verse satāṁ ca na niședho 'sti, so 'satsu ca na vidyatel jagaty anena nyāyena nan-arthaḥ pralayam gataḥ|| quoted in the ţikā on 2.241 (BSS p. 182) probably comes from one of the works of Sri-harsa who lived sometime during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries A. D. However, new material has become available since Sarma wrote his article. Now we know definitely that the verse in question is at least six centuries older and that it actually belongs to the Pramāņa-vārttika (4.226) of Dharma-kīrti. As 2.7 above shows, it is found also in the Prakirņaka-prakāśa (3.3.42 p. 153), Helā-rāja's authorship of which is incontestable.
4.1 Having thus argued in favour of ascribing the Vākyakānda-tikā to Helā-rāja, I would like to proceed on the assumption that it in fact is a work of Helā-rāja .and would like to consider some of the implications of so doing. Firstly what sort of impact would this discovery have on our knowledge of the commentaries of the Trikāndi ? As is amply evident, the first two books of the Trikā, di constitute a relatively independent work, called Vākyapadiya, in Helā-rāja's view (Aklujkar 1969:549-550). One can, therefore, assume that he must have written similar commentaries on them. In other words, we should be able to guess at least a few features of Helā-rāja's yet undiscovered Sabda-prabhā commen
(b) The remark ihāpy agre nirņeşrate refers to the Prakirņaka-prakāśa on 3.8.58 p. 47. 4-7 and 3.14.444 p. 196.19-26.

Page #15

The Authorship of the Vakya-Kanda-Tikā
tary on the first book by studying his commentary on the second book. These features seem to me to be the following: (a) The Sabda-prabha could not have been like Vṛṣabha's commentary in that it must have principally explained only the kärikäs, whereas Vṛṣabha's commentary explains both the kārikās and the Vṛtti. (b) Although primarily concerned with explaining only those verses which are intended by Bhartṛ-hari to form the karika-text of the Brahma-kinda, the Sabdaprabha, in all probability, briefly commented also on those verses which are quoted by Bhartṛ-hari in his Vṛtti from such works as the Samgraha (e. g. pp. 102, 142, 153, 185, 194-195, 202-203, 209, 217-220); cf. BSS pp. 193, 239. (c) Besides the desire to explain the kāriki text, the motivation in writing the Sabda-prabha must have been to supplement the Vṛtti wherever possible. Such a supplementation must have been achieved in the following respects: (i) Specification of Bhartṛhari's own view when a multitude of views is presented in his work; cf. e. g. BSS pp. 67.9-11, 71.7, 164.11-15; note siddhāntārthasatattvataḥ in the second introductory verse of the Prakirnaka-Prakāśa. (ii) Setting Bhartṛ-hari's views in relation to the views of others; cf. e. g. BSS pp. 66.5-15, 71.2-9. (iii) Justification of Bhartṛ-hari's views wherever additional arguments favouring them could be offered; cf. e. g. BSS p. 76.8-12; note the expression nirrita, nirnaya, etc. in Prakirṛaka-prakāśa 3.137 pp. 44.23-45. 3, 3.1.46 p. 54.8-9, 3.2 14 pp. 116.7-117.14, 3.9.62 pp. 72.26-73. 1, 3.9.70 p. 76.19-22. (iv) Elaboration of points that were not fully elaborated in the Vṛtti; cf. lesataḥ in BSS p. 104. 4-6. (v) Clarification of the mutual connections of the kārikās and of the order followed in the discussion of various topics; cf. BSS pp, 64.1-17, 75.6-8, 76.16, 77.6-7, 81.14-17, 85.17-18, 86.22-87.2, 89.15-16, 90.18-91.1, 93.24-94.3, 130.23-131.4, 143.19-21, 152.1-4, 156.19-157.3, 162.18-19, 167.15.168.5, 173.4-5, 177.5-7, 186.8-16, 205.9-10, 212.9-19, 221.11-13, 234.9-15, 242.19-20, 269.21-22, 271.2-4, 271.22-23, 275.10-12, 216.10-17.
179
4.2 It seems that Helā-rāja completed his Prakirṇaka-prakasa long after he had completed the commentaries on the first two books. This is what one would expect in view of the impressive size of the Prakirṇaka and in view of the difficulty involved in explaining it due to the absence of a Vrtti by Bhartṛ-hari. The guess is supported also by the absence of references to the Prakiraaka-prakāśa in the Vakya-kanda-tika (references to the Prakiraaka itself are found on BSS pp. 67, 141, 264-265), by the fact that the Prakirṇaka-prakāśa and the Vakya-kaṇḍa-tika are not

Page #16

180
Charu Deva Shastri Felicitation Volums
found together in one manuscript and by the maturity and self-confidence noticeable in the style of the Prakirņaka-prakāśa. However, these observations cannot be said to assume a conclusive force. Helā-rāja obviously had access to at least a couple of older commentaries on the Prakiraaka (see 31.50 p. 60, 3. 1. 57 p. 66, 3.1.65 p. 70, 3.1.68 p. 73, 3. 1. 71. p. 75, 3.1.87 p. 86, 3.1.105 pp. 103-104, 3.3.22 p. 138, 3.3.39 p. 151, 3.6.13 p. 221, 3.7.26 p. 256, 3.7.32 p. 260, 3.7.97 p. 310, 3.7.164 p. 368, 3.9.62 p. 72, 3.11.31 p. 121, 3.14.124 p. 63, 3.14.330 p. 148, 3.14.415 p. 181; also possibly 3.3.17 p. 135, 3.7.49 pp. 268-269; 3.8.15 pp. 27-28, 3.14.410 p. 179). Hence the absence of a Vịtti might not. have been a great handicap to him. The separation of the Prakirņaka-prakāśa manuscripts from those of the Vākya-kānda-tikā may also be a result of the tradition of thinking of the Prakırnaka as a relatively independent book; it need not necessarily imply that the composition of the two works was marked by a long interval. The maturity of style too cannot be attributed to the time factor alone; it may quite possibly be due to the influence of or indebtedness to, the works of previous commentators. Finally, the silence of the Vākya-kānda-fikā regarding the points discussed in the Prakiraaka-prakāśa could be a matter of pure coincidence.
4.3. We know the names of Helā-rāja's commentaries on the first and the third books of the Trikāndi. They are respectively Śabda-prabha and Prakirņaka-prakāśa. (or with the omission of svārthe-ka-, Prakirna-prakasa). A question, therefore, arises as to the name of his commentary on the second book. S. Iyer (1969:37) has drawn attention to the possibility that Sabda-prabha might have been intended as the title of Helā-rāja's commentary not only on the first kānda, but also on the second kanda. This, however, seems unlikely to me. If at all Helā-rāja chose one name for his commentaries on the first two kändas, I would expect
1.
The only exception to this statement is likely to be furnished by manuscript E[2] or F[2]. In this manuscript preserved in the library of the Oriental Institute at Baroda, fragments of the Vākya-kanda-fikā are found mixed with the fragments of the Prakirnaka-prakā'sa (Rau 1971:31, 35-36). However, the very lack of order among its leaves indicates that the two works have been put together out of necessity rather than out of an awareness that they belong together. Compare, for example, the accounts of how a mirage is seen:..grişme maricayo bhaumenoṣmaṇā syandamānā (spandamānā ?] dirasthasya jala-jñānam upajanayanti (BSS p. 204); dinakara-kara-nikarāḥ prasarpanto nabho-deśam urdhvadharabhāvena samākrāmantas tarańgākāra-pratyayam upadadhati pipāsūnām (Helā. 3.13.8-9 p. 140). In the former, the author seems to have leaned heavily on Vâtsyāyana's Nyāya-bhāsya, pp. 18 and 345.

Page #17

The Authorship of the Vakya-Kānda-Țikā
181
it to be Vakyapadiya-prakāśa or Vakyapadiya-prabha. Then alone would it balance with Prakirņaka-prakāśa, the name for the com: mentary on the remaining kāņda. Furthermore, it is quite clear from the opening statement of the Vākya-kanda-ţika (BSS p. 63) as well as from the contents of the first two books that sabda is the principal concern of the first book and vākya of the second. The title Sabda-prabhā would, therefore, be hardly appropriate for the second book. In fact, any title not containing the word Vákya would not suit that book. Therefore, I am inclined to think that the title of Helā-rāja's Vākya-kānda-ţikā was Vākya-pradipa. It alone would form an appropriate link with Sabda-prabha and Prakirnakaprakāśa, and suggest a progression from prabhā 'flame' to pradipa ‘lamp' to prakāśa 'light'. It would also perhaps explain why the scribes have been occasionally misled to write Vākya-pradipa in the place of Vakyapadiya in certain manuscripts (AbhyankarLimaye 1965:57 fn. 6; Rau 1962:379-382, 384, 386; S. Iyer 1963: 119.20). Note also that in the second concluding verse of his Prakimnaka-prakaśa (after 3.14.624, p. 272) Helā-rāja likens his commentary to a pradipa.
5.1 As should be clear from 2.2 above, the aim of this paper is not to refute the claim of Punya-rāja's association with the second book, or to deny him the authorship of the summary verses, or to establish his identity with Helä-rāja. Within its context, therefore, one can justifiably ask who this Punya-rāja is and where he stands in relation to Helā-rāja. Rajendralāla Mitra (1877:112) and Ramakrishna. Kavi (1930:235 fn. 3) have suggested that Punya-rāja may be the same person as Puñja-rāja, the author of a commentary on the grammar Sārasvata-prakriya and of two works on poetics entitled Dhvani-pradipa and Sisu-prabodhalańkāra.1. This identification may be said to derive some support from Nägeśa's use of the form Puñja-rāja (see 3.2 above), from the similarity between the two names (ñj can simply be a dialectal variation of ny), and from the fact that both Punya-rāja and Puñja-rāja are associated with works in the discipline of grammar. The date of Punja-rāja would also not stand in the way of identification. That Sārasvata grammarian is definitely known to have lived between 1475 and 1520 A.D. (Gode 1941:120-124, 1953:6872; cf. Haraprasāda Shāstri 1931:134-136; Jambūvijayaji 1966:32), whereas the earliest manuscript in which Puṇya-rāja's summary verses are most probably (see 2.1 above) found, namely E[4],
1. The last work is edited and published by B. L. Shanbhogue in the Journal
of the Oriental Institute, vols. 12-14, 1962-1965, Baroda. It is also published as no. 7 in the M.S. University Oriental Series.

Page #18

182
Charu Deva Shastri Felicitation Volume
belongs to 1534:1535 A. D. (Rau 1971:32). Therefore, until a manuscript containing the summary verses and written before 1475 A. D. is found, one cannot reject the thesis of possible identity at least on the basis of manuscript evidence. However, there are other serious difficulties in identifying Punya-rāja. In the first place, no manuscript of the Vakya-kānda-ţika, as far as I am aware, gives Puñja-rāja as the form of the name of the author. Secondly, nowhere in the fairly extensive information about Puñja-rāja, the Sārasvata grammarian, (see Haraprasāda Shăstri 1931 and Gode 1941, 1953) do we find any mention of his association with either Saśānka-sisya or Śūravarman as we find in the case of Punya-rāja (2.2 above). Nor does Puñja-rāja claim in the list of his works that he wrote a work concerning Bhartr-hari or the Trikāndi. I am, therefore, at present disposed to conclude that Punya-raja, the author of the summary verses, is older than Puñjarāja. This is all the more likely to be the case, if. taking our cue from Charu Deva Shastri (1930: 653-654), we identify Sasankaśisya, from whom Punya-rāja 'heard' the Vākya-kānda, with Sahadeva, the earliest known commentator of Vāmana's Kavyalankārasūtra-vịtti. 1 In fact, the hypothesis that Punya-rāja was a direct disciple of Saha-deva is strongly supported by the verses with which Saha-deva introduces and concludes his work: akarnya bhavatas tasmad dayitasya vidhiyate) vivrtih Saha-devena Vamaniyasya samprati|/...caturdaśānāma pi yah prasiddho vidyā-sthitināṁ para-pāradssva/Saśānka-pūrvam Dhara2 ity udaraṁ yan-nāma loke nitarāṁ prasiddham||tadiya-sisyah Saha. deva-nāmā kule prasūtah (or kule 'bhijatah) khalu Tomarānām) vyākhyām imām kavya-vicāra-śāstre vyadhatta laghvim iha Vāmaniyel| Kāśmiradeśad apasarpato me sabdanuśuddhim tri-muni nisamyal avāpta-siddhet varunātmajasya prayojako 'bhūd iha Padma-nabhaḥ // A comparison of these verses with the concluding verses of Punya-rāja quoted in 2.2 above will reveal the following points of similarity: akarnya tasmāt, nisamya Saśānka-sisyāt śrutvā; Saśānka-......-sis yah+Sasankafisyat; Saha-deva-nima Śūra-varma-namnā; laghuimt laghvi; apasar
1. Raghvan Pillai (1971: xvii) draws our attention to the possibility that
Sasanka-sisya may mean a disciple of Candra-gomin, the grammarian.' But there is little, if any, likelihood that this could be the case. If we take Sasanka-sişya to mean 'a disciple of Candra-gomin,' then Punya-raja would be a disciple of the disciple of Candra-gomin. In that case he would be probably older than even Bhartr-hari, a part of whose work he is said to have summarized ! Moreover, Raghavan Pillai has not pointed out any
references to Candra-gomin with the word Sasanka. 2. According to Yudhisthira Mimāṁsaka (samvat 2019:84-85), Kșira-svāmin
(circa 1058-1108 A.D.) refers to Bhasta Saśānka-dhara on p. 7 of his Kșiratarangini on Panini's Dhätu-patha.
ari-hari, wasomin. In that clunya-rāja would

Page #19

The Authorship of the Vākya-Kända-Tiki
183
patah tapasstya; yan-nāma loke nitarāṁ prasiddham + vidvaj jananānh yak khalu sarvatra giyate jagati. Such an impressive similarity of diction and pattern even in the writing of incidental verses would be hard to account for unless either author is supposed to be within the range of direct influence by the other.
5.2 A further question is whether Punya-rāja is older than or contemporaneous with Helā-räja. In other words, is it probable that the summary verses were known and available to Helā-rāja and that it was he who incorporated them toward the end of his commentary ? Since the verses are found in all complete manuscripts (see 2.1 above) and are inc'uded before the statement of ascription in manuscripts E[7] and E[14] which ascribe the commentary to Helā-rāja, one is inclined to conclude that they probably formed a part of the Vakya-kānda-tikā manuscripts from a very early time and that Helā-rāja could have possibly appended them to his Vākya-kanda-ţikā. But the manuscript evidence does not indicate anything more than this; it does not imply that the verses are definitely older than Helā-rāja's work. In fact, on the basis of evidence gleaned from a different source, one can almost conclusively prove that they cannot be older than the Vakya-kāndafikā. A comparison of them with the summary and comments at various points in the Vakya-kāņda-tikā (see 4. lc(v) above) reveals, as I shall demonstrate in a future study, that the author who composed them has made every effort to follow as closely as possible the prose summary and comments. Thus, Punya-rāja seems to have lived after Helā-rāja not far removed in time. To judge from the component-raja in his name, he can also be said to have probably come from the same family as Helā-rāja. That component is characteristic of the names in Helā-rāja's family as we can see from Helā-rāja's own name and those of his father and brother, Bhūti-rāja and Indu-rāja.
5.3 Ramakrishna Kavi (1930:235 fn. 3) and S. Iyer (1963: xiii) have hinted at the possibility that Punya-rāja may be identical with Phulla-rāja, from whose work (krti) two gaps in the text of the Prakirnaka-prakāśa have been filled (S. Iyer 1963: 261.8-268. 13, 280. 17-283.1). Since it does not seem very likely that three persons having so similarly structured names as Helā-rāja, Pusya-rāja, and Phulla-rāja could be associated with the same work as commentators of the one sort or the other and since either form from the pair "Punya-rāja" phullarāja can be a result of the miswriting of the other, the identification of Punya-rāja with Phulla-rāja is a tempting proposition. Furthermore, like the former, Phulla-rāja seems to be later than

Page #20

184
Charu Deva Shastri Felicitation Volume
Hela-rāja and seems to have written the available commentarial pieces, not with the intention of commenting on the whole Prakirnaka or Trikīndi, but with the specific intention of supplementing Helā-rāja's work (see Aklujkar, forthcoming). His interest in explaining the order of discussion (sangati) is also evident from pp. 265.2.13 and 282.1-5. However, these considerations being probabilistic in character, can hardly be called conclusive. Until the manuscripts furnish us with definite evidence that either the form Phulla-rāja or the form Punya-rāja could have resulted from a miswriting of the other, we cannot be certain that both the forms actually refer to one and the same person.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
(To avoid repetition of particulars, the names of commentators are listed in almost all cases only under the names of the authors commented upon.)
Abhidharma-dipa with Vibhāṣā-prabhā-výtti. (Ed.) Jaini, Padmanabh S. Tibetan Sanskrit Works Series no. 4. Patna: K. P. Jayaswal Research Institute. 1959. [Author conjectured to be Vimalamitra by the editor on p. 133 of the introduction.)
Abhyankar-Limaye. See Bhartr-hari. Trikāņdi (b).
Aklujkar, Ashok. 1969. “Two Textual Studies of Bhartrhari.” Journal of the American Oriental Society, 89:547-63. New Haven.
1972. “The Authorship of the Vakyapadiya-vrtti". Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Sudasiens, 16:181-198. Vienna.
Amara-simha. Amara-kosa with Kstra-svämnin's Commentary. (Eds.) Sharma and Sardesai, N. G. Poona Oriental Series no. 43. Poona: Oriental Book Agency. 1941.
Bhartr-hari. Trikandi (a) kanda í. (Ed.) Subramania Iyer, K. A. Vakya padiya of Bharty-hari with the Vịtti, and the Paddhati of Vīşabha-deva. Deccan College Monograph Series no. 32. Poona: Deccan College. 1966 (b) kända 2. kārikās : (Eds.) Abhyankar, K. V. and Limaye, V. P. Vakyapadiya of BhartȚ-hari. University of Poona Sanskrit and Prakrit Series no. 2. Poona : University of Poona: 1965. Vịtti: See Aklujkar 1969:555-556. ţika: (Ed.) Mānavalli, Gangadhara Sāstri. Vakyapad yam...Sri-Bhartr-hari-...-viracitam SriPunja-rāja-kyta-prakāśākhya-tikā-yutam. Benares Sanskrit Series nos. 11, 19, 24. Benares: Braj B. Das & Co. 1887. (c) kanda 3 with Helā-raja's Prakirnaka-prakāía commentary, samuddeśas 1-7: (Ed.) Subramania Iyer, K. A. Deccan College Monograph Series

Page #21

The Authorship of the Vākya-Kanda-Tika
185
no. 21. Poona: Deccan College. 1963. samuddesas 8-13:(Ed.) Samba. siva Šāstri, K. Trivandrum Sanskrit Series no. 106. Trivandrum. 1935. samuddesa 14: (Ed.) Ravi Varmā, L. A. University of Travancore Sanskrit Series no. 148. Trivandrum. 1942.
- Tripadi. (Eds.) Abhyankar, K. V. and Limaye, V. P. Mahābhāsya-dipika of Bharts-hari. Post-graduate and Research Department Series no. 8. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. 1967-1970.
Bhattacharya, Ram Shankar. 1954. "A New Verse of the Samgraha.” Poona Orientalist, 19:4-5. Poona.
Bhattoji Dikșita. Praudha-manoramā with the Commentaries Prabha, Vibhā, Jyotsna, Kuca-mardini, and Nagesa's (see fn. 28 above] Sabda-ratna. (Ed.) Shastri, Sadashiva Sharma. Haridasa Sanskrit Grantha-mālā no. 23. Varanasi: Chowkhamba. 1934.
--Nagesa's Bfhacchabdendu-sekhara Commentary on Bhattoji Diksita's Siddhāntakaumudi. (Ed.) Šāstri, Sītā Rāma. Sarasvati Bhavana Grantha-mālā no. 87. Varanasi. 1960.
Bhoja. Sarasvati-kanthābharana with Danda-nātha Nārāyana's Hşdaya-hāriņi Commentary. (Ed.) Sambaśiva Sāstrī, K. Trivandrum Sanskrit Series no. 117. Trivandrum. 1935.
BSS. See Bhartr-hari, Trikāndi (b), (ikā. . Charu Deva Shastri, 1930. "Bhartr-hari a Critical Study with Special Reference to the Vākyapadiya and Its Commentaries." Proceedings and Transactions of the Fifth Indian Oriental Conference, 1: 630-665. Lahore.
1934. (Ed.) Vaky apadiya Prathamam Kāndam. Lahore: Ramlal Kapoor Trust.
Deva. Daiva with Kīşņa-lila-suka-muni's Puruşakāra Commentary. (Ed.) Yudhisthira Mimāmsaka. Ajmer: Bhāratiya Präcya-vidya Pratisthāna. samvat 2019.
Dharma-kirti Pramāna-vārttika with Manoratha-nandin's Vrtti Commentary. (Ed.) Dvārikādāsa Sāstri, Svāmi. Bauddha Bharat) Series no. 3. Varanasi. 1968.
Dvivedi, K. D. 1961. Artha-oijñāna aura Vyākar ana-darsana. Allahabad: Hindustani Academy.
Gautama. Nyāya-sūtras with Vätsyāyana's Bhäsya and Visva-nātha Bhattācārya's Vitti. (Ed.) Joshi, Digambar Nagesh. Anandāśrama Sanskrit Series no. 91. Poona: Anandashram. 1922.
Gode, P. K. 1941. “The Oldest Dated Manuscript of Punja. räja's Commentary on the Sārasvata-prakriyā-Dated A. D. 1556 (Samvat 1612)." Adyar Library Bulletin, 5:3:120-124. Madras. Reprinted in Studies in Indian Literary History, 1:68-72. Singhi Jain Series no. 37. Bombay Bhāratiya Vidya Bhavana. 1953.

Page #22

186
Charu Deva Shastri Felicitation Volume
" Haraprasāda Shastri. 1931. A Descriptive Catalogue of the Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Collections of the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal. Vol. 6. Calcutta.
Hema-candra. Anya-yoga-vyavacchedikā or Vyavaccheda-dvātrinSikh with Mallisena's Syād-vāda-mañjari Commentary. (Ed.) Dhruva, A. B. Bombay Sanskrit and Prakrit Series no. 33. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. 1933.
Isvara-krsna. Sākhya-kārikā with Vacaspati-misra's Sünnkhyatattva-kaumudi Commentary and Siva-nārāyaṇa Šāstri's Sāra-bodhini Commentary. Bombay: Nirnaya Sāgar Press. 1940. : Jambūvijayaji, Muni. 1966. (Ed.) Dvādaśāra-naya-cakra of Malla-vadin with Simha-sūri-gamin's Commentary. Bhavnagar: Jain Ātmānanda Sabhā.
Jayanta-bhatta. Nyāya-mañjari. (Ed.) Sukla, Sürya Nārayana. Kashi Sanskrit Series no. 106. Benares: Chowkhamba. 1934/1936. -
Kaunda-bhatta. Vaiyakarana-bhūsana-sāra with Balakrsna Pancoli's Prabha Commentary and Hari-vallabha. Šāstri's Darpana Commentary. (Ed.) Pancholi, Balakrishna. Kashi Sanskrit Series no. 188. Varanasi : Chowkhamba. 1969.
Kosambi, D. D. 1945. "The Authorship of the Satakatrayi”. Journal of Oriental Research, 15:64-77. Madras. D
Kumārila. Mimāṁsā-śloka-vārttika with Pārtha-sārathi-misra's Nyāya-ratnākara Commentary. Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series no 3. Benares. 1898.
--Mimāṁsā-sloka-vārttika with Sucarita-miśra's Käsikā Commentary. (Eds.) Sambaśiva Šāstri, K. and Ramaswami Sastri, V. A. Trivandrum Sanskrit Series nos. 90, 99, 150. Trivandrum. 1926. 1943.
- Tantra-vārttika. Anandāśrama Sanskrit Series no. 97. Poona: Anandashram. 1929-1934. in Kunhan Raja, C. 1936. "I-tsing and Bhartr-hari's Vākyapadiya." S. Krishnaswami Aiyangar Commemoration Volume, 285-298 Madras.
Madhava Krishna Sarma, K. 1942. “Gleanings from the Commentaries on the Vākyapadiya" Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 23:405-412. Poona.
Mandana-miśra. Sphoța-siddhi. (Ed., tr.) Subramania Iyer, K. A. Deccan College Building Centenary Series no. 25. Poona: Deccan College. 1966.
Vidhi-viveka with Vācaspati-miśra's Nyāya-kanikā Commentary. (Ed.) Mānavalli, Tailanga Rāma-śāstrī. Kashi: Medical Hall. 1907...!

Page #23

The Authorship of the Vākya-Kända-Ţikā
187
Mitra, Rajendralala. 1877. A Descriptive Catalogue of Sanskrit MSS. in the Library of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. Part 1. Calcutta.
Nāgesa. Vaiyākarana-siddhānta laghu-mañjūsā with Bālam Bhatt ta's (=Vaidya-nātha Pāyagunde's?] Kalā Commentary and Durbalācārya's Kuncikā Commentary. (Ed). Bhāņdārī, Mādhava Šāstri and Pathak, Madan Mohan. Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series no. 44 or Nos. 191-192, 211-214, 227-228, 237-238, 253, 328, 333, 340, 345. Benares : Chowkhamba. 1925.
Pānini. Aştādhyāyi with the Kāśikā Commentary of Jayāditya and Vāmana. (Ed.) Miśra, Sobhita. Kashi Sanskrit Series no. 373 Banaras: Chowkhamba. 1952.
! - Patañjali. Vyākarana-mahābhāsya. (Ed.) Kielhorn; F: Third edition. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. 1962.
---Yoga-sūtras with Vyāsa's ? Bhāşya and Sankara's Commen. tary on the Sutras and the Bhāsya. (Eds.) Rama Sastri, Polakam and Krishnamurthi Sastri, S. R. Madras : Government Oriental Manuscripts Library. 1952. [This Patañjali may be different from Patañjali, the grammarian.]
PV. See Dharma-kīrti.
Raghavan, V. 1963. Bhoja's Śrngāra-prakāśa. Madras: Punarvasu. . Raghavan Pillai, K. 1971. (Ed., tr.) The Vākyapadiya [Books 1-2). Delhi, Patna, Varanasi : Motilal Banarsidass.
Ramakrishna Kavi, M. 1930. “The Discovery of the Au. thor's Vịtti on the Vākyapadīya.” Journal of the Andhra Historical Research Society, 4:235-241. Rajahmundry.
Rau. Wilhelm. 1962. “Uber Sechs Handschriften des Vākya. padiya.” Oriens, 15:374-398. Wiesbaden.
--1971. Die Handschriftliche Überlieferung des Vākyapadiya und Seiner Kommentare. · Abhandlungen der Marburger Gelehrten Gesellschaft no. 1. München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag.
Samanta-bhadra. Yukty-anuśāsana with Vidyānanda's Commentary. (Eds.) and Srilala. Māņikacandra Jain Grantha-mālā no. 25. 1919.
Sastri. P. P. S. 1930. A Descriptive Catalogue of the Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Tanjore Mahārāja Serfoji's Sarasvati Mahāl Library, Tanjore. Vol. 10. Srirangam.
Subramania Iyer, K. A. 1951. "The Point of View of the Vaiyakaranas." Journal of Oriental Research. 18:84-96. Madras.
--1963. See Bhartshari, Trikā, di (c).
--1969. Bharts-hari: a Study of the Vakyapadiya in the Light of the Ancient Commentaries. Deccan College Building Centenary and Silver Jubilee Series no. 68. Poona: Deccan College.

Page #24
188 Charu Deva Shastri Felicitation Volume Sv. See Kumarila, Mimamsa-sloka-varttika. Swaminathan, V. 1967. "On the Date of Hela-raja." Sri Venkateshwar University Oriental Journal, 10 : 23-35. Tirupati. TV; See Kumarila, Tantra-varttika. Varma, Satyakam. 1970. Vakyapadiyam. (Brahma-kanda)...with Trilingual Commentary. New Delhi : Munshiram Manoharlal. Vssabha, See Bhartr-hari, Trikandi (a). Yaso-mitra. Abhidharma-kosa-vyakhya (I-III). (Ed.) Law, Narendra Nath. Calcutta Oriental Series no. 31. London : Luzac & Co. 1949. Yudhisthira Mimamsaka. samvat 2019. Samsksta Vyakaranasastra ka Itihasa. Vol. 2. Ajmer : Bharatiya Pracya-vidya Pratisthana.