Siddhi Vinischay Tika Part 01

SR No.: 004038
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Anantviryacharya
Publisher: Bharatiya Gyanpith
Publication Year: 1944
Total Pages: 686
Language: Hindi, Sanskrit
Classification: Book_Devnagari
File Size: 15 MB

Page 51

30
INTRODUCTION
life. Panditji's contention is not without its own value. The Kathākoṣa, in prose, is older than Kathavali; naturally, it cannot have derived such a story from Kathavali. If by varatanayaḥ, it is understood that Akalanka was the elder son, then he must have a younger brother.
The last lines of the 1st Ch. of TV are as follow: Jiyāc-ciramakalankabrahmā laghuhavvanṛpativaratanayaḥ, anavaratanikhilavidvajjananutavidyaḥ prasastajanahṛdyaḥ.
This refers to Akalarka as the elder or pre-eminent son of King Laghuhavva. This verse is not found in the palm-leaf MSS. of Sravanbelgola and Mūḍabidri, but found in the Beawar and other North Indian MSS. The verse cannot claim to be written by Akalanka, because it is written at the end of the very first chapter. If it be that the verse is written by Akalanka himself or by any immediate contemporary, it proves one thing that Laghuhavva was the father of Akalanka. In the Introduction to my Akalanka-Grantha-Traya', some problems have been critically discussed; and the possibility of Laghuhavva and Purusottama being identical has been pointed out therein. Of the Raṣṭrakūta dynasty, Indra II and Kṛṣṇa I were real brothers. After the death of Indra II, his son Dantidurga II became the ruler of the kingdom. In Kannada, the father is called 'abba' or 'appa'. It is not improbable that Dantidurga, addressed his uncle Kṛṣṇa I as 'abba' or 'avva'.
It is almost a general rule, so to say people addressing in the same way as the king would address-abba or avva. Kṛṣṇa I, who had Subhatunga as his biruda, became the king after Dantidurga. It seems Puruşottama might have been a junior-colleague of Kṛṣṇa I; it is for this reason, Dantidurga himself and consequently the subjects would be addressing Purusottama as 'Laghuhabba'. He might have become minister during the regime of Kṛṣṇa I; and Kṛṣṇa was on the throne at his old age1; hence, it may not be inappropriate to suppose that Purusottama was almost of the same age of Kṛṣṇa; and so, on this supposition, we can explain the narration of his debate by Akalarka in the court of Dantidurga alias Sahasatunga2.
The nickname-Laghuhabba of Purusottama might have been so common that he was addressed by this popular name instead of his original name. If it be conceded that the verse of Tattvärthavārtika was written by some body other than Akalanka, it is not unnatural that this unknown author could prefer popular name-Laghuhabba instead of Purusottama;
1 A. S. Altekar: The Rasṭrakūtas and their Times, p. 44.
2 EC. vol. II, 67, Mallişena Prasasti.