Authorship Of Vakya Kanda Tika

Author(s): Ashok Aklujkar
Publisher: Ashok Aklujkar

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).