Authorship Of Vakya Kanda Tika

Author(s): Ashok Aklujkar
Publisher: Ashok Aklujkar

Page 14

178
Charu Deva Shastri Felicitation Volume
sions like asmabhiḥ or svavyākhyāyām. 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 karikās or the Vștti 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-kāņda is full of the gaps and hence does not preclude the possibility that it once contained the theses referred to by Helā-rāja. Besides, the Vakya-kānda-tīka 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 Helā-rāja's authorship which may arise out of a study of the quotations in the Vākya-kānda-ţikā, 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 satāṁ ca na niședho 'sti, so 'satsu ca na vidyatel jagaty anena nyāyena nan-arthaḥ pralayam gataḥ|| quoted in the ţikā 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 Pramāņa-vārttika (4.226) of Dharma-kīrti. As 2.7 above shows, it is found also in the Prakirņaka-prakāśa (3.3.42 p. 153), Helā-rāja's authorship of which is incontestable.
4.1 Having thus argued in favour of ascribing the Vākyakānda-tikā to Helā-rāja, I would like to proceed on the assumption that it in fact is a work of Helā-rāja .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 Trikāndi ? As is amply evident, the first two books of the Trikā, di constitute a relatively independent work, called Vākyapadiya, in Helā-rāja'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 Helā-rāja's yet undiscovered Sabda-prabhā commen
(b) The remark ihāpy agre nirņeşrate refers to the Prakirņaka-prakāśa on 3.8.58 p. 47. 4-7 and 3.14.444 p. 196.19-26.