Tilakmanjarisara

SR No.: 002611
Original Sutra Author: Pallipal Dhanpal
Author: N M Kansara
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad
Publication Year: 1969
Total Pages: 146
Language: Sanskrit, English
Classification: Book_Devnagari & Literature
File Size: 7 MB

Page 41

verse, nor the name of the author. On the other hand the colophon there in is rubbed out and something else is sought to be written on it. Even then some of the words of the portion rubbed out can easily be read, and the name 'Candraprabhasūri' is clearly visible there. This raises a doubt as to the real authorship of the work. Muri Shri Punya. vijayji also expressed his doubt about the authorship of Padmasāgara, since during his time--the sixteenth century A. D.--the practice of wri. ting on palm-leaf was not prevalent and almost all the Mss since about
irteenth century A. D. are generally written on paper. It is possible that the real author might have been some “Candraprabhasūri”, about whom we know nothing beyond bis name. The calligraphy of the MS indicates that the work might have been written about the thirteenth century A. D. and in that case the author might have been a contemporary or a close successor of both Pallipāla Dbanapāla and Lakşmid hasa. The date of the work as mentioned in the B Ms., viz. Sam 1645 (i. e. A. D. 1589) only shows the date of the copyisti and not of the author. Moreover Shri M. D. Desai has not included this one among the works of Padmasāgara.52 Again the verse,53 in the B Ms., mentioning the name of the author as Padmasāgara seenis to have been added later on, as it is written in a slightly different and rather careless handwriting at the top of the last page (folio No. 67), while the colophon mentioned above 54 follows closely after verse No. 1997 which concludes the work with the words..." gagasay: to a fare: 113611 The question of the authorship being thus open, I have taken this work only as being "ascribed to" Padmasāgara for the present purpose. All the quotations from the TMKU here are based on the text of the K Ms.
Now as regards the point at issue. The author of the TMKU clearly mentions that he intends to take pains to rescue or repair the story of the TM65 rather than merely summarising it faithfully. Pallipāla Dhapapāla on the other pand, has tried to summarise the prose-romance with a view to bring out, and preserve, the literary fragrance of its story-element. The author of the TMKU, on the other hand, tried to compose an indepen. dent and elaborate metrical work which is primarily based on the story of the TM, to which, however, he has not fettered himself and has added profusely, not only his own imageries, but also many new ingredients
A
FEJA ATT
51. cf. B MS, folio No. 67 : « 897 9984 The RTI 94099
शुक्लपक्षे १३ तिथि भौमवासरे। मुनि गोव्यंद लषितां ।" 52. cf JSSI (D). p. 586–87. 53. cf supra, ft, nt. No, 50. 54. cf. supra ft, nt. No, 51, 55. cf. supra TMKU verse No. 1."