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 VAKYA-KANDA-TIKA* ASHOK AKLUJKAR 1.1 Since the date of its publication (1887) in the Benares Sanskrit Series, the cika on the verses of the second book of Bhartshari's Trikandi or Vakyapadiya (Aklujkar 1969:547-555) has been ascribed to Punya-raja. 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 Hela-raja, 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-raja 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-kanda-tika is more likely to be a work of Hela-raja, 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-raja, and Hela raja are the three names of one and the same person, namely, Hela-raja. P. P. S. Shastri (1930:4348) also remarks that Punya-raja and Hela-raja 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 Trikandi, than of Punya-raja.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-raja", 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 Vakyapadiya 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. raja ki (prathama kanda ki] jika ka pramanika sanskarana pan. Raghunatha Sarma ne khandita rupa mer prastuta kiya hai. Pracina upalabdha rupa ki pramanikata nitanta samdigdha hai." (b) Note that in the present article 1 do not wish even to suggest that the tika 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 fika 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 Vakyapadiye dvitiyan kandam. sam ipta ca Vakya-pradipa-karika (see 4.3 below). Sali-vahana-sake 1456 fayabde Sarad-tav Asvina-mase sukla-paksa ekadasyam Goda-tire dak sinakule Nr-simha-ksetre Siddhesvara-deva-samnidhau Visva-nathasya 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-raja-krta Vakyapadiya-doitiyakanda-fika samapta.

Page #3
The Authorship of the Vakya-Kanda-Tika 167 E[7] and E[14]) ascribe it to Hela-raja. Now, it would not be proper in this particular case to conclude that Punya-raja must be the author on the ground that the manuscripts attributing authorship to him are more than those speaking of Hela-raja as the author. In the first place, the manuscripts whose colophons ascribe the commentary to Punya-raja are relatively recent. None of them is as old as manuscript E[7], which ascribes the commentary to Hela-raja. 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-raja 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-raja 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-raja led some scribe into believing that the whole commentary came from Punya-raja'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-Bhuti-raja-tanaya Hela-raja-viracite Vakyapadiya-vyakhyane Vakya-kandah samaptah. The essential similarity (iti Bhuti-raja-tanaya-Hela-raja-samaptah) of this colophon with the statements appearing at the end of each of the fourteen chapters of the Prakirnaka-prakasa indicates its genuineness. 2. E[7] is dated saivat tri-rasa-bhu 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-kanda-lika in a future study. In the meanwhile, note that I am not claiming that E[7] is the oldest available manuscript of the Vakya-kanda-tika; it is claimed to be older than only those manuscripts which ascribe the tika to Punya-raja. 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-raja-ky ta Vakyapadiyadvitiya-kanda-karikah samaptah. We can then imagine it to have passed through the following stages and assumed its presently accepted form (fn. 5 above): (a)-kanda-rikah samaptah (omission of the second ka through haplography) > (b)-kanda-tikah samaptam (mistaking ri for fi, which is not improbable in the Deva-nagari script) (c) -kanda-tikah samapta (realization that i in lika is the long one)+(d) -kanda-tika samaptah (realization that it would be odd to use a plural form for one tika) + (e)-kanda-tika samapta (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 tika instead of the expected tika. 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 Hela-raja with the authorship ? Since the name Helaraja is not mentioned either in the prose commentary or the summary verses, they must have written the colophons ascribing the work to Hela-raja 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) Vakya-kandasya prameya-visayah smrtah (sphutam) | samgatih kirtita laghui samasena nirakula ||56|| vidvaj-jananam yah khalu sarvatra glyate jagati / tata upasstya viracita rajinaka-Sura-varma-namna vai (namnaiva) 1/57|| Sasanka-sisy ic chrutvaitad Vaky a-kandam samasatah| Punya-rajena tasyokta sangatih karikasrita ||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 rajanaka Sura-varman has composed [this]. Having heard (learned) this Vakya-kanda briefly from the disciple of Sasanka, Punya-raja has given a statement of mutual connections in the form of verses (or relating to the verses of the Vakya-kanda)".2 Here I do not know how to reconcile 1. To say that the copyists had read Hela-raja'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-raja's authorship prior to the date of the oldest manuscript ascribing the commentary to Hela-raja, 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 sri-gopi-jana-vallabha vijayatetaram, 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-Panini-Kalyayana-Patanjalibhyah, which again characteristically belongs to the Prakirnaka-prakasa (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 Vakya-Kanda-Tika 169 verse 57 with verse 58. The former is composed in some variety of the arya metred and seems to give the credit of composing a statement of the topics discussed in the Vakya-kanda to Rajanaka Suravarman. Verse 58, on the other hand, is composed in the anustubh metre and declares Punya-raja to be the composer of the statement summarizing the contents of the Vakya-kanda.2 In any case, it is evident that Punya-raja does not claim, or is not given, credit for writing the commentary on the Vakya-kanda; his contribution is clearly limited to the composition of the summary verses (contrast S. Iyer 1969:41.2-4). Nor is Punya-raja credited with having written a commentary on, or even having read for that matter, any other book of the Trikandi.3 This hardly agrees with the indications in the Vakya-kanda-tika itself. It is clear from that cika 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-rupadikan lesato nirnitam. tasya ca sadharanyena vacakatvam 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 karika'srita with the Iucture of the verses (of the Vakya-kanda)' or 'linking of the karikas.' 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-jananam in the place of vidvaj-janana 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 Sura-varman or to Punya-raja. The verse which contains the name of sara-varman appears to contain a clerical error; probably the author meant that Punya-raja wrote his commentary for Sura-varman." (b) Raghavan Pillai (1971: xvii) apparently is of the opinion that rajanaka Sura-varman is simply another designation of Punya-raja. In that case I fail to see why so many words intervene between rajanaka-Sura-varma-namna and Pun ya-rajena and why viracita and ukta are employed to form mutually independent sentences with the two expressions in the instrumental case (rajanaka-Slira-varma-namni viracita and Pun ya-rajena ukta). Would not one rather expect the sentence to be rijanuka-Sira-varma-namna Punya-rojena viracita (or ukta), 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-raja wrote commentaries on all the three books of the Trikandi. (b) Raghavan (1963:745. 10-20) refers to Punya-raja 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." Hela-raja's authorship of the Vakyakanda-tika, on the other hand, can be easily reconciled with these indications; from his Prakirnaka-prakasa, we know for certain that he had written a commentary called Sabda-prabha, on the first book of the Trikandi (S. Iyer 1969:36-37,410-411). Thus, it would be natural for Hela-raja, and definitely not for Punya-raja 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, Hela-raja 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 karikas and Vitti (Aklujkar 1972:181-198) of the first two kandas or to Hela-raja's so far undiscovered commentary on the first kanda. Consequently, they cannot be used to determine Hela-raja's relationship to the Vakya-kanda-tiki. However, there is one reference which can be said to have been made by Hela. raja with his own commentary on the Vakya-kanda in mind. While explaining verse 3.9.105 (p.93.18-20; cf. Hela. 3.7.125 p. 329.6-7), he remarks : abadhadivad yuktan sabda-samskara-nimittatvam asya. purusa-dharmesu api hi sastram adhikstam iti vicaritam Vakyapadtye. "It is proper for this (property of the speaker called asamsa) to become a cause in the derivation of a word as it is for anguish (or distress, abadha). It has been (already] discussed in the Vakyapadiya 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 sabdartha-purusa-dharmesv adhikarah ...... purusa-dharma vaktstva-pratipattstvaprabhstayah, tatra vaktsdharma abadhasaya-sammati-kopa-kutsanabhartsanadayas ceti. pratipatt-dharmas tu kutsyamanatva-prabhitaya eva tatra sastrasya pluta-dvir-vacanadi-vidhayakatven idhikara 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-prakasa on which I am working at present and which I hope to publish in the future. 3. In Hela-raja's usage, the term Vokyapadiya refers only to the first two books of the Trikandi; cf. Aklujkar 1969:549-550.

Page #7
The Authorship of the Vakya-Kanda-Tika 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, purusa-dharma, abadha, adhikr), in addition to that of content, between this statement and Hela-raja's remark is self-evident. Furthermore, this statement is so far removed from the concerns of the karikas that it seems unlikely that a statement similar to it could have once existed in Bhartshari's Vitti, although such a possibility cannot be ruled out with certainty, since the Vstti 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-kanda-tika answers the expectation arising out of Hela-raja's rather incidental remark in the Prakirnakaprakasa. 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 Hela-raja is the author of the Vakya-kanda-tika and the Prakirnaka-prakaia. 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 Kalidasa's literary works. A careful examination of the two lakas reveals that this indeed is the case with the quotations in them as well as with their diction. 2.5 The Vakya-kanda-trka 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 Prakirnaka-prakasa and the contexts in which they are quoted in the Vakya-kanda-tika. 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 pancala jana-padah. In the Prakirnaka-prakasa (p. 78.11-13), this cited verse is explained in the context of pancala jana-padah. (b) After the conclusion of the section on karma-pravacaniyas (BSS p. 167.17-18), the Vakya-kanda-!ika quotes verse 3.1.1. In the Prakirnaka-prakasa on verse 3.1.1 (pp. 3.18-7.14), the karma-pravacaniya section of the Vakya-kanda is summarized. (c) The Paninian 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-prakasa. 2.6 To look from the other direction, about fifteen1 verses from the second book are quoted in Hela-raja'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 Prakirnaka-prakasa and the explanations of the cited verses which are given in the Vakya-kanda-tzka. Quite to the contrary, the following point of similarity is noticed: The Vakyakanda-fika on 2.233 (BSS p. 179.56) remarks etad uktam bhavaty avidyaiva vidyopaya iti. Hela-raja's Prakirnaka-prakasa on 3.14.76, where 2.233 is quoted, reads avidyaiva hi vidyopayah. ? 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 Panini, Katyayana, and Patanjali. Since the material we are dealing with belongs to the Paninian 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-kanda-tika and the Prakirnaka-prakasa, we find that both works agree in quoting from the following authors : Kumarila : BSS pp. 93.21-23 (SV, Sphota-vada, 69), 117.13) SV, Apoha-vada, 33); Hela. 3.1.50 p. 60. 5-6 (TV 2.1.4. p. 411), 3.7.15 p. 243.14 (SV, Sunyavada, 254), 3.11.30 p. 120.14 (SV, Vakyadhikarana, 160). JayadityaVamana: BSS pp. 164. 1-2 (kasika on Panini 2.3.52), 210.4-5 (Kasika 1.2.32); Hela. 3.1.34 p. 41. 21 and 3.8.1 p. 18.29 (Kasika 2.3.46). Dharma-kirti: BSS p. 182.9-10 (PV 4.226 p. 439); Hela. 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 (Sphotasiddhi 9); Hela. 3.14. 484 p. 213.21-22 (Sphota-siddhi 9). In this a and the Prak wing authors : Kumas. 33); Hela. 1. I say "about" because 2.382a and 2.57a in the list given here may not have been intended to be quotations by Hela-raja; it is quite probable that he may have used them simply as familiar phrases.

Page #9
The Authorship of the Vakya-Kanda-Tika 173 inclination toward quoting only certain texts, one more peculiarity is noticed. Two quotations are common to both works (BSS p. 182.9-10, Hela. 3.3.42 p. 153.10-11 : PV 4.226 p. 439; BSS p. 145.23-24, Hela. 3.14.484 p. 213.21-22: Sphota-siddhi 9), and one of those quotations (Sphoto-siddhi 9) is strongly associated with the Mahabhasya (Paspasahnika p. 1.12.18-20; and on Panini 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 Vakya-kanda. tika and the Prakirnaka-prakasa do not seem to be common): aduraviprakarsa 'without being removed too far, keeping together as much as possible'i BSS pp. 199.17, 266.9; Hela. 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; Hela. 3.4.. 1-2 p. 182. 15, 3.7. 156 p. 355. 13; kala-parivasa 'covering or envelop in the form of time' BSS p. 285.10; Hela. 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; Hela, 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; paramarsi 'great sage advocating existence (bhava), teacher of Sakhya," BSS pp. 139.22, 204.22, 287.8; Hela. 1. This expression is used at least once by Ksira-svamin. See his commentary on Amara-si mha's Amara-kosa 2.6.122-123. From 2.8e below it is clear that here the printed text should be corrected to read kila. ayah-salaka-kalpanam... 3. A similar dvandva compound, drsya-vikalpya, is found in Jayantabhaita's Nyaya-manjari, part I, p. 23. 4. (a) In Isvara-krsna's Samkhya-karika (verse 69), the term paramarsi is used to refer to Kapila. (b) A derivative adjective, paramar sa, is found in the writings of Hela-raja (3.9.59 p. 71.4), Vacaspati-misra (Nyaya-kanika on Mandana-misra's Vidhi-viveka p. 461), Mallisena (Syad-vada-manjari on Hema-candra's Anyayoga-vyavacchedika or Vyavaccheda-dvatrinsika, verses 11-12), and Krspa-lilasuka-muni (Puru sakara 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.; pasudakavat "like dust and water'l BSS pp. 108.22, 171.22; Hela. 3.14.53 p. 30.14, 3.14.59 p. 33.2, 3.14.95 p.51.11; and sarva-parsada 'serving as basis of, accommodating, all branches of knowledge" BSS pp. 186 24, 253.21; Hela. 3.3.1 p. 122.15. (b) Frequent use of the word acchurita 'coloured, tinged:' BSS pp. 173.2-3, 260.12, 261.8; Hela. 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 adhyasa to express the relation of identification between word and meaning (BSS. pp. 67.1-10, 85 7-14, 141.5, 189. 11-13.; Hela. 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 (Tripadi 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) tadrupyapadana, so 'yam ity abhisambandha, pratyastarupata, viparinama, asyedambhava, svarupadhyaropa, adhyavasaya and abhijalpa, and Visabha's (p. 59.10-22) abhinna-rupata, abhedalaksana-sambandha, and sarupya. (d) Preference for the terms jati-sphota and vyakti-sphota respectively for sphota viewed as a universal and sphota viewed as a particular (BSS pp. 64.4.15, 76.19-20, 81.11-13 Hela. 3.1.6 p. 18.15-16, 3.1.7-8 p. 20. 5-6). in the place of Bhartshari's and Vrsabha's sabdaksti (or sabda-jati) 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; Hela. 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.; Hela. 3.3.39 p. 151.8. (8)Paraphrase of odanam pacati in exactly the same word as viklidyatas tandulan vikledayati: BSS p. 244.21-22; Hela. 3.8.1 p. 20.18. 1. According to Raghavan (1963:21), this expression is used by Bhoja in the eighth chapter of the Srrgara-prakasa. 2. (a) As Raghavan (1963:722) mentions, Bhoja also employs the compound sarvaparsada in his Srrgara-prakasa. (b) For the relation of sarva-parsada to Patanjali's sarva-veda-parisada, see S. Iyer 1951:86, 1969:74-75. 3. It need not be supposed that Bhartp-hari did not know the term adhyasa. Patanjali's Yogas utra 3.17 and Vyasa's (?) bhasya 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 (Nyaya-manjari, part 1, p. 7). and Vasu-bandhu (see the references to Yaso-mitra in (b) below).

Page #11
The Authorship of the Vakya-Kanda-Tika 175 2.9 Finally, attention must also be drawn to certain features of theoretical discussion that are shared by the commentary ascribed to Punya-raja ani by Helaraja's Prakirnaka-prakasa. 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-vada or praudhirada, when, in the view of the commentator, he is over-generous in offering options to his philosophical adversaries : BSS pp. 116.22, 250.19; Hela. 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 (adhyasa) as more basic than that of capability (yogyata) or that of cause and effect (karyakarana-bhava): BSS pp: 67.1-10, 85.7-14, 141.4-6, 189.11-12; Hela. 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 Vijnana-vadins :1 BSS p. 67.4-5; Hela. 3.3.1 pp. 122.11-123.7. (d) Clarification of the distinction between samghata (or samudaya) and sphota: BSS p. 173.1-3; Hela. 3.8.7-8 p. 23.14-16. ... 3.1 I believe that the evidence I have presented above makes Hela-raja's authorship of the Vakya-kanda-tika 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 "falschlich" 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-raja 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 Hela-raja's commentary on the second book and did not find passages answering our (b) kila-sabdah para-mata-dyotanarthah (Yaso-mitra, Sphusarthabhidharma-kosavyakhya, Kosa-sthana I, p. 12; cf. pp. 24,31,66,74,93,100; Kosa-sthana II, pp. 2,42. 47; Kosa-sthana III, pp. 6,75). kila iti sirayah pramananupapannatvenarucim prakasayanti (Vidyananda on Samanta-bhadra's Yukty-anu'sasana verse 39, pp. 88-89), kilety egamaruci-nyakkarane su. 'jaghana Kamsam kila.' '[evan kila kecid vadanti.' 'ayam kila yotsyate'. (Danda-natha Narayana. Hrdaydharini on Bhoja's Sarasvati-kanthabharana, part I, p. 35. The acceptance by the Buddhists of karya-karana-bhava between word and meaning is evident from Abhidharma-dipa with Vibhasa-prabha-urtti,' p. 274, and Sucarita-misra's Kasika on Kumarila's SV, part III. p. 223. Besides PV 1.4, which is cited by Hela-raja in the passage referred to here, the oftquoted verse vikalpa-yonayah sabda vikalpah sabdayonayah from Din-noga also expounds the same view. 1.

Page #12
176 Charu Deva Shastri Felicitation Volume expectations in the present Vakya-kanda-tika, or (c) if we found in the present Vakya-kanda-tika quotations from or references to works or authors later than the tenth century A. D., the most likely date for Hela-raja (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 Nagesa (circa 1670-1750 A. D.) is the earliest author known so far who mentions Punya-raja, mostly in the form Punja-raja (see 5.2 below), as the author of the commentary on the second book (cf. Madhava Krishna Sarma (1942:412): See Laghumanjusa with the commentaries Kuncika 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 BIhac-chabdendusekhara p. 797. However, Nagesa's date is later by at least sixty years than that of the earliest manuscript ascribing the commentary to Hela-raja. Moreover, along with the commentators of his Laghu-manjusa (e.g. Kala p. 113.6-7), he occasionally refers to the commentary also as Hela-raja'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 Hela-raja's commentary on the second kanda, I can at present think of only the following: (a) Kaunda-bhatta, Vaiyakarana-bhusana-sara pp. 113114: ek-tin vakyam iti vadatam Varttikakaranam mate param na (pacati bhavati Deva-datta ity-adau nighatah) vastutas tu "ekatinvisesyakam vakyam' iti tad-abhiprayasya Helaraj yadau..... pratipaditatvat tan mate 'pi bhavaty evety avadheyam. (b) Nagesa, BIhacchabdendusekhara p. 31 : tad uktam Harina 'pramanam eva hrasvadav anupattam pratiyate' (Vaky apadiya 2.307cd) iti. anupaltam api [ardha-]matra-rupam pramanam evopalaks yata ity artha iti Hela-rajah. (c) Nagesa, [Laghu-]sabdaratna p. 29 (Abhyankar-Limaye 1965:231): Harir apy aha "pramanam eva hrasvadav anupattan pratiyate' (Vakyapadiya 2.307cd). 1. (a) I assume here that Nagesa is the real author of the [Laghu-]sabda-ratna, not Hari Diksita. (b) My notes show that Nagesa refers to Hela-raja as the author of the commentary on the second book also on Laghu-manj usa, 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 Vakya-Kanda-Tika 177 iti anupattam apy ardha-matra-rupam pramanam evopalak syata ity arthas lity artham?] tasya Hela-raja aha. evam ca loke 'nya-sakhasu ca dirghadisu apy ardha-mitraivodatteti bhavah: From among these, (a) summarizes the remark Varttikakarasyapy eka-tin ity-atraika-tintvam pradhinatin-anta peksaya pratipadyamanam Sutrakara-matanugun yam bhajata evety ( nayor nasti 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-matra-laksanasya pramanasyopalaksanam iti tad eva tasmat pratiyate...dirgha-plutayor apy adibhutardhamatrodattety ucyale. To be sure, Kaunda-bhatta and Nagesa do not reproduce the exact words from Hela-raja's commentary on the Vakya-kanda, but whatever they report as the gist of his remarks therein is found in the present Vakya-kanda-tika. We have, therefore, no justification to suppose that they had access to two distinct commentaries, one by Punya-raja and the other by Hela-raja, and that the commentary by Hela-raja to which they had access was different from the available Vakya-kanda-tika. It seems more straight-forward to assume that at least Nagesa was not uniformly informed on the matter of authorship by the manuscripts at his disposal. , 3.4 One possible reference by Hela-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 cika published in the Benares Sanskrit Series However, there are two more possible references by Hela-raja in the case of which, as far as I can determine, at present, passages expressing the same points - are not found in the BSS fika: (a) 3.7.84 p. 300.1: tantrena hi Sakti-dvayam apy abhidadhati pratyaya iti Vakyapadiye nirnitam. (b) 3.8.12 p. 26.15-17: kriyopapadasrayas tu pratyayah praksty-arthasrayah (iti) bhoktum paka iti bhavatity anantara-kande nirnitam. ihapy agre nirnes yate. Note that here Hela-raja does not employ any expres 2. (a) 1. Hari-vallabha Sastri's Darpana commentary on Vaiyakarana-bh isana-sara p. 11 + says that the remark of Hela-raja referred to by Kaunda-bhatta is found in Hela-raja's commentary on 2.444 (bahusu api...). Actually, it is found in the commentary on 2.446 (tin-antantara-- ). (a) The point is this : In a sentence like i syate gramo gantum, the suffix in israte is capable of indicating the abhihitatva of the object grama 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 pratyayya 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 Hela-raja 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 asmabhih or svavyakhyayam. 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 karikas or the Vstti 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-kanda is full of the gaps and hence does not preclude the possibility that it once contained the theses referred to by Hela-raja. Besides, the Vakya-kanda-tika 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 Hela-raja's authorship which may arise out of a study of the quotations in the Vakya-kanda-tika, 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 satam ca na nisedho 'sti, so 'satsu ca na vidyatel jagaty anena nyayena nan-arthah pralayam gatah|| quoted in the tika 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 Pramana-varttika (4.226) of Dharma-kirti. As 2.7 above shows, it is found also in the Prakirnaka-prakasa (3.3.42 p. 153), Hela-raja's authorship of which is incontestable. 4.1 Having thus argued in favour of ascribing the Vakyakanda-tika to Hela-raja, I would like to proceed on the assumption that it in fact is a work of Hela-raja .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 Trikandi ? As is amply evident, the first two books of the Trika, di constitute a relatively independent work, called Vakyapadiya, in Hela-raja'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 Hela-raja's yet undiscovered Sabda-prabha commen (b) The remark ihapy agre nirnesrate refers to the Prakirnaka-prakasa on 3.8.58 p. 47. 4-7 and 3.14.444 p. 196.19-26.

Page #15
The Authorship of the Vakya-Kanda-Tika 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 Vrsabha's commentary in that it must have principally explained only the karikas, whereas Vrsabha's commentary explains both the karikas and the Vrtti. (b) Although primarily concerned with explaining only those verses which are intended by Bhartr-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 Bhartr-hari in his Vrtti 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 kariki text, the motivation in writing the Sabda-prabha must have been to supplement the Vrtti wherever possible. Such a supplementation must have been achieved in the following respects: (i) Specification of Bhartrhari'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 siddhantarthasatattvatah in the second introductory verse of the Prakirnaka-Prakasa. (ii) Setting Bhartr-hari's views in relation to the views of others; cf. e. g. BSS pp. 66.5-15, 71.2-9. (iii) Justification of Bhartr-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 Prakirraka-prakasa 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 Vrtti; cf. lesatah in BSS p. 104. 4-6. (v) Clarification of the mutual connections of the karikas 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 Hela-raja completed his Prakirnaka-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 Prakirnaka and in view of the difficulty involved in explaining it due to the absence of a Vrtti by Bhartr-hari. The guess is supported also by the absence of references to the Prakiraaka-prakasa in the Vakya-kanda-tika (references to the Prakiraaka itself are found on BSS pp. 67, 141, 264-265), by the fact that the Prakirnaka-prakasa and the Vakya-kanda-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 Prakirnaka-prakasa. However, these observations cannot be said to assume a conclusive force. Hela-raja 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 Vitti might not. have been a great handicap to him. The separation of the Prakirnaka-prakasa manuscripts from those of the Vakya-kanda-tika may also be a result of the tradition of thinking of the Prakirnaka 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 Vakya-kanda-fika regarding the points discussed in the Prakiraaka-prakasa could be a matter of pure coincidence. 4.3. We know the names of Hela-raja's commentaries on the first and the third books of the Trikandi. They are respectively Sabda-prabha and Prakirnaka-prakasa. (or with the omission of svarthe-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 Hela-raja's commentary not only on the first kanda, but also on the second kanda. This, however, seems unlikely to me. If at all Hela-raja chose one name for his commentaries on the first two kandas, 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 Vakya-kanda-fika are found mixed with the fragments of the Prakirnaka-praka'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:..grisme maricayo bhaumenosmana syandamana (spandamana ?] dirasthasya jala-jnanam upajanayanti (BSS p. 204); dinakara-kara-nikarah prasarpanto nabho-desam urdhvadharabhavena samakramantas tarangakara-pratyayam upadadhati pipasunam (Hela. 3.13.8-9 p. 140). In the former, the author seems to have leaned heavily on Vatsyayana's Nyaya-bhasya, pp. 18 and 345.

Page #17
The Authorship of the Vakya-Kanda-Tika 181 it to be Vakyapadiya-prakasa or Vakyapadiya-prabha. Then alone would it balance with Prakirnaka-prakasa, the name for the com: mentary on the remaining kanda. Furthermore, it is quite clear from the opening statement of the Vakya-kanda-tika (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 vakya of the second. The title Sabda-prabha would, therefore, be hardly appropriate for the second book. In fact, any title not containing the word Vakya would not suit that book. Therefore, I am inclined to think that the title of Hela-raja's Vakya-kanda-tika was Vakya-pradipa. It alone would form an appropriate link with Sabda-prabha and Prakirnakaprakasa, and suggest a progression from prabha 'flame' to pradipa 'lamp' to prakasa 'light'. It would also perhaps explain why the scribes have been occasionally misled to write Vakya-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-prakasa (after 3.14.624, p. 272) Hela-raja 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-raja's association with the second book, or to deny him the authorship of the summary verses, or to establish his identity with Hela-raja. Within its context, therefore, one can justifiably ask who this Punya-raja is and where he stands in relation to Hela-raja. Rajendralala Mitra (1877:112) and Ramakrishna. Kavi (1930:235 fn. 3) have suggested that Punya-raja may be the same person as Punja-raja, the author of a commentary on the grammar Sarasvata-prakriya and of two works on poetics entitled Dhvani-pradipa and Sisu-prabodhalankara.1. This identification may be said to derive some support from Nagesa's use of the form Punja-raja (see 3.2 above), from the similarity between the two names (nj can simply be a dialectal variation of ny), and from the fact that both Punya-raja and Punja-raja are associated with works in the discipline of grammar. The date of Punja-raja would also not stand in the way of identification. That Sarasvata grammarian is definitely known to have lived between 1475 and 1520 A.D. (Gode 1941:120-124, 1953:6872; cf. Haraprasada Shastri 1931:134-136; Jambuvijayaji 1966:32), whereas the earliest manuscript in which Punya-raja'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-raja. In the first place, no manuscript of the Vakya-kanda-tika, as far as I am aware, gives Punja-raja as the form of the name of the author. Secondly, nowhere in the fairly extensive information about Punja-raja, the Sarasvata grammarian, (see Haraprasada Shastri 1931 and Gode 1941, 1953) do we find any mention of his association with either Sasanka-sisya or Suravarman as we find in the case of Punya-raja (2.2 above). Nor does Punja-raja claim in the list of his works that he wrote a work concerning Bhartr-hari or the Trikandi. I am, therefore, at present disposed to conclude that Punya-raja, the author of the summary verses, is older than Punjaraja. This is all the more likely to be the case, if. taking our cue from Charu Deva Shastri (1930: 653-654), we identify Sasankasisya, from whom Punya-raja 'heard' the Vakya-kanda, with Sahadeva, the earliest known commentator of Vamana's Kavyalankarasutra-vitti. 1 In fact, the hypothesis that Punya-raja 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|/...caturdasanama pi yah prasiddho vidya-sthitinam para-paradssva/Sasanka-purvam Dhara2 ity udaram yan-nama loke nitaram prasiddham||tadiya-sisyah Saha. deva-nama kule prasutah (or kule 'bhijatah) khalu Tomaranam) vyakhyam imam kavya-vicara-sastre vyadhatta laghvim iha Vamaniyel| Kasmiradesad apasarpato me sabdanusuddhim tri-muni nisamyal avapta-siddhet varunatmajasya prayojako 'bhud iha Padma-nabhah // A comparison of these verses with the concluding verses of Punya-raja quoted in 2.2 above will reveal the following points of similarity: akarnya tasmat, nisamya Sasanka-sisyat srutva; Sasanka-......-sis yah+Sasankafisyat; Saha-deva-nima Sura-varma-namna; 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-sisya 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 Mimamsaka (samvat 2019:84-85), Ksira-svamin (circa 1058-1108 A.D.) refers to Bhasta Sasanka-dhara on p. 7 of his Ksiratarangini on Panini's Dhatu-patha. ari-hari, wasomin. In that clunya-raja would

Page #19
The Authorship of the Vakya-Kanda-Tiki 183 patah tapasstya; yan-nama loke nitaram prasiddham + vidvaj janananh 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-raja is older than or contemporaneous with Hela-raja. In other words, is it probable that the summary verses were known and available to Hela-raja 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 Hela-raja, one is inclined to conclude that they probably formed a part of the Vakya-kanda-tika manuscripts from a very early time and that Hela-raja could have possibly appended them to his Vakya-kanda-tika. But the manuscript evidence does not indicate anything more than this; it does not imply that the verses are definitely older than Hela-raja'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-kandafika. A comparison of them with the summary and comments at various points in the Vakya-kanda-tika (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-raja seems to have lived after Hela-raja 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 Hela-raja. That component is characteristic of the names in Hela-raja's family as we can see from Hela-raja's own name and those of his father and brother, Bhuti-raja and Indu-raja. 5.3 Ramakrishna Kavi (1930:235 fn. 3) and S. Iyer (1963: xiii) have hinted at the possibility that Punya-raja may be identical with Phulla-raja, from whose work (krti) two gaps in the text of the Prakirnaka-prakasa 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 Hela-raja, Pusya-raja, and Phulla-raja could be associated with the same work as commentators of the one sort or the other and since either form from the pair "Punya-raja" phullaraja can be a result of the miswriting of the other, the identification of Punya-raja with Phulla-raja is a tempting proposition. Furthermore, like the former, Phulla-raja seems to be later than

Page #20
184 Charu Deva Shastri Felicitation Volume Hela-raja and seems to have written the available commentarial pieces, not with the intention of commenting on the whole Prakirnaka or Trikindi, but with the specific intention of supplementing Hela-raja'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-raja or the form Punya-raja 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 Vibhasa-prabha-vytti. (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. Trikandi (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 fur die Kunde Sudasiens, 16:181-198. Vienna. Amara-simha. Amara-kosa with Kstra-svamnin's Commentary. (Eds.) Sharma and Sardesai, N. G. Poona Oriental Series no. 43. Poona: Oriental Book Agency. 1941. Bhartr-hari. Trikandi (a) kanda i. (Ed.) Subramania Iyer, K. A. Vakya padiya of Bharty-hari with the Vitti, and the Paddhati of Visabha-deva. Deccan College Monograph Series no. 32. Poona: Deccan College. 1966 (b) kanda 2. karikas : (Eds.) Abhyankar, K. V. and Limaye, V. P. Vakyapadiya of BhartT-hari. University of Poona Sanskrit and Prakrit Series no. 2. Poona : University of Poona: 1965. Vitti: See Aklujkar 1969:555-556. tika: (Ed.) Manavalli, Gangadhara Sastri. Vakyapad yam...Sri-Bhartr-hari-...-viracitam SriPunja-raja-kyta-prakasakhya-tika-yutam. Benares Sanskrit Series nos. 11, 19, 24. Benares: Braj B. Das & Co. 1887. (c) kanda 3 with Hela-raja's Prakirnaka-prakaia commentary, samuddesas 1-7: (Ed.) Subramania Iyer, K. A. Deccan College Monograph Series

Page #21
The Authorship of the Vakya-Kanda-Tika 185 no. 21. Poona: Deccan College. 1963. samuddesas 8-13:(Ed.) Samba. siva Sastri, K. Trivandrum Sanskrit Series no. 106. Trivandrum. 1935. samuddesa 14: (Ed.) Ravi Varma, L. A. University of Travancore Sanskrit Series no. 148. Trivandrum. 1942. - Tripadi. (Eds.) Abhyankar, K. V. and Limaye, V. P. Mahabhasya-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 Diksita. Praudha-manorama with the Commentaries Prabha, Vibha, Jyotsna, Kuca-mardini, and Nagesa's (see fn. 28 above] Sabda-ratna. (Ed.) Shastri, Sadashiva Sharma. Haridasa Sanskrit Grantha-mala no. 23. Varanasi: Chowkhamba. 1934. --Nagesa's Bfhacchabdendu-sekhara Commentary on Bhattoji Diksita's Siddhantakaumudi. (Ed.) Sastri, Sita Rama. Sarasvati Bhavana Grantha-mala no. 87. Varanasi. 1960. Bhoja. Sarasvati-kanthabharana with Danda-natha Narayana's Hsdaya-harini Commentary. (Ed.) Sambasiva Sastri, K. Trivandrum Sanskrit Series no. 117. Trivandrum. 1935. BSS. See Bhartr-hari, Trikandi (b), (ika. . Charu Deva Shastri, 1930. "Bhartr-hari a Critical Study with Special Reference to the Vakyapadiya and Its Commentaries." Proceedings and Transactions of the Fifth Indian Oriental Conference, 1: 630-665. Lahore. 1934. (Ed.) Vaky apadiya Prathamam Kandam. Lahore: Ramlal Kapoor Trust. Deva. Daiva with Kisna-lila-suka-muni's Purusakara Commentary. (Ed.) Yudhisthira Mimamsaka. Ajmer: Bharatiya Pracya-vidya Pratisthana. samvat 2019. Dharma-kirti Pramana-varttika with Manoratha-nandin's Vrtti Commentary. (Ed.) Dvarikadasa Sastri, Svami. Bauddha Bharat) Series no. 3. Varanasi. 1968. Dvivedi, K. D. 1961. Artha-oijnana aura Vyakar ana-darsana. Allahabad: Hindustani Academy. Gautama. Nyaya-sutras with Vatsyayana's Bhasya and Visva-natha Bhattacarya's Vitti. (Ed.) Joshi, Digambar Nagesh. Anandasrama Sanskrit Series no. 91. Poona: Anandashram. 1922. Gode, P. K. 1941. "The Oldest Dated Manuscript of Punja. raja's Commentary on the Sarasvata-prakriya-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 Bharatiya Vidya Bhavana. 1953.

Page #22
186 Charu Deva Shastri Felicitation Volume " Haraprasada 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-vyavacchedika or Vyavaccheda-dvatrinSikh with Mallisena's Syad-vada-manjari Commentary. (Ed.) Dhruva, A. B. Bombay Sanskrit and Prakrit Series no. 33. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. 1933. Isvara-krsna. Sakhya-karika with Vacaspati-misra's Sunnkhyatattva-kaumudi Commentary and Siva-narayana Sastri's Sara-bodhini Commentary. Bombay: Nirnaya Sagar Press. 1940. : Jambuvijayaji, Muni. 1966. (Ed.) Dvadasara-naya-cakra of Malla-vadin with Simha-suri-gamin's Commentary. Bhavnagar: Jain Atmananda Sabha. Jayanta-bhatta. Nyaya-manjari. (Ed.) Sukla, Surya Narayana. Kashi Sanskrit Series no. 106. Benares: Chowkhamba. 1934/1936. - Kaunda-bhatta. Vaiyakarana-bhusana-sara with Balakrsna Pancoli's Prabha Commentary and Hari-vallabha. Sastri'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 Kumarila. Mimamsa-sloka-varttika with Partha-sarathi-misra's Nyaya-ratnakara Commentary. Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series no 3. Benares. 1898. --Mimamsa-sloka-varttika with Sucarita-misra's Kasika Commentary. (Eds.) Sambasiva Sastri, K. and Ramaswami Sastri, V. A. Trivandrum Sanskrit Series nos. 90, 99, 150. Trivandrum. 1926. 1943. - Tantra-varttika. Anandasrama Sanskrit Series no. 97. Poona: Anandashram. 1929-1934. in Kunhan Raja, C. 1936. "I-tsing and Bhartr-hari's Vakyapadiya." S. Krishnaswami Aiyangar Commemoration Volume, 285-298 Madras. Madhava Krishna Sarma, K. 1942. "Gleanings from the Commentaries on the Vakyapadiya" Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 23:405-412. Poona. Mandana-misra. Sphota-siddhi. (Ed., tr.) Subramania Iyer, K. A. Deccan College Building Centenary Series no. 25. Poona: Deccan College. 1966. Vidhi-viveka with Vacaspati-misra's Nyaya-kanika Commentary. (Ed.) Manavalli, Tailanga Rama-sastri. Kashi: Medical Hall. 1907...!

Page #23
The Authorship of the Vakya-Kanda-Tika 187 Mitra, Rajendralala. 1877. A Descriptive Catalogue of Sanskrit MSS. in the Library of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. Part 1. Calcutta. Nagesa. Vaiyakarana-siddhanta laghu-manjusa with Balam Bhatt ta's (=Vaidya-natha Payagunde's?] Kala Commentary and Durbalacarya's Kuncika Commentary. (Ed). Bhandari, Madhava Sastri 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. Panini. Astadhyayi with the Kasika Commentary of Jayaditya and Vamana. (Ed.) Misra, Sobhita. Kashi Sanskrit Series no. 373 Banaras: Chowkhamba. 1952. ! - Patanjali. Vyakarana-mahabhasya. (Ed.) Kielhorn; F: Third edition. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. 1962. ---Yoga-sutras with Vyasa's ? Bhasya and Sankara's Commen. tary on the Sutras and the Bhasya. (Eds.) Rama Sastri, Polakam and Krishnamurthi Sastri, S. R. Madras : Government Oriental Manuscripts Library. 1952. [This Patanjali may be different from Patanjali, the grammarian.] PV. See Dharma-kirti. Raghavan, V. 1963. Bhoja's Srngara-prakasa. Madras: Punarvasu. . Raghavan Pillai, K. 1971. (Ed., tr.) The Vakyapadiya [Books 1-2). Delhi, Patna, Varanasi : Motilal Banarsidass. Ramakrishna Kavi, M. 1930. "The Discovery of the Au. thor's Vitti on the Vakyapadiya." Journal of the Andhra Historical Research Society, 4:235-241. Rajahmundry. Rau. Wilhelm. 1962. "Uber Sechs Handschriften des Vakya. padiya." Oriens, 15:374-398. Wiesbaden. --1971. Die Handschriftliche Uberlieferung des Vakyapadiya und Seiner Kommentare. * Abhandlungen der Marburger Gelehrten Gesellschaft no. 1. Munchen: Wilhelm Fink Verlag. Samanta-bhadra. Yukty-anusasana with Vidyananda's Commentary. (Eds.) and Srilala. Manikacandra Jain Grantha-mala no. 25. 1919. Sastri. P. P. S. 1930. A Descriptive Catalogue of the Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Tanjore Maharaja Serfoji's Sarasvati Mahal 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, Trika, 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.