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 93

INTRODUCTION
Anantavīrya : How do you know that Pātrakesari is the author ? Opponent: Because he has composed a logical work Trilaksana
kadarthana in the form of uttarabhasya. Anant: If it be so, it must belong to Simandharaswāmi, since he
is the composer of this sloka. Opponent: How is it known? Anant: How do you know that Pātrakesari is the author of TLK ? Opponent: Simply by the tradition of Acāryas. Anant: Exactly so, it holds good in this case also ; besides it
has its own old story. If there is no proof to attribute it to Simandharaswāmi, there is no proof regarding Pātrakesari
also as the author of it. Opponent: That it is composed for Pātrakesari, is the proof that
it is the work of Pātrakesari. Anant: Then all the works and sermons that are meant for the
disciples should be attributed to the disciples themselves. Similarly, this verse cannot belong to Pātrakesari, because he must have written it for someone of his disciples ; for, it
should be regarded of him for whom it is composed. Opponent : Pātrakesari has written a commentary on this topic ;
hence this verse must belong to him. Anant: If so, there will be no author of any sūtras; in that case
the commentators would become the authors; it must, there
fore, be of Sīmandharaswāmi. From this dialogue, it appears that Anantavīrya does not accept the tradition of attributing the authorship of this sloka to Pātrakesariswāmi by explaining the word “svāminah in the phrase ‘amalālīdham padam svāminah (in SV of Akalarka), as referring to Sīmandharaswāmi. Acārya Vidyānanda, while explaining this verse, attributes the authorship to vārtikakara and not to Sīmandharaswāmi. Anantavīrya just manipulates in this way: The goddess Padmāvati had handed over the vārtika to Pātrakesari bringing it from Simandharaswāmi.
The gist of the whole argument is that sometimes he exhibits the elements of dogmatism by attempting to attribute the authorship of the verse to Sīmandharaswāmi and also defending the impact of tradition, in spite of the just opposite opinion of earlier commentator viz., vrddha Anantavirya. It is also proved that there must have been prevalent a legend of this type. Of the available literature till today, it is only Prabhācandra's Kathākośa that refers to the history of Pātrakesari ; this also occurs in the KK of Brahma-Nemidatta of the later period.