Authorship Of Vakya Kanda Tika

Author(s): Ashok Aklujkar
Publisher: Ashok Aklujkar

Page 16

180
Charu Deva Shastri Felicitation Volums
found together in one manuscript and by the maturity and self-confidence noticeable in the style of the Prakirņaka-prakāśa. However, these observations cannot be said to assume a conclusive force. Helā-rāja obviously had access to at least a couple of older commentaries on the Prakiraaka (see 31.50 p. 60, 3. 1. 57 p. 66, 3.1.65 p. 70, 3.1.68 p. 73, 3. 1. 71. p. 75, 3.1.87 p. 86, 3.1.105 pp. 103-104, 3.3.22 p. 138, 3.3.39 p. 151, 3.6.13 p. 221, 3.7.26 p. 256, 3.7.32 p. 260, 3.7.97 p. 310, 3.7.164 p. 368, 3.9.62 p. 72, 3.11.31 p. 121, 3.14.124 p. 63, 3.14.330 p. 148, 3.14.415 p. 181; also possibly 3.3.17 p. 135, 3.7.49 pp. 268-269; 3.8.15 pp. 27-28, 3.14.410 p. 179). Hence the absence of a Vịtti might not. have been a great handicap to him. The separation of the Prakirņaka-prakāśa manuscripts from those of the Vākya-kānda-tikā may also be a result of the tradition of thinking of the Prakırnaka as a relatively independent book; it need not necessarily imply that the composition of the two works was marked by a long interval. The maturity of style too cannot be attributed to the time factor alone; it may quite possibly be due to the influence of or indebtedness to, the works of previous commentators. Finally, the silence of the Vākya-kānda-fikā regarding the points discussed in the Prakiraaka-prakāśa could be a matter of pure coincidence.
4.3. We know the names of Helā-rāja's commentaries on the first and the third books of the Trikāndi. They are respectively Śabda-prabha and Prakirņaka-prakāśa. (or with the omission of svārthe-ka-, Prakirna-prakasa). A question, therefore, arises as to the name of his commentary on the second book. S. Iyer (1969:37) has drawn attention to the possibility that Sabda-prabha might have been intended as the title of Helā-rāja's commentary not only on the first kānda, but also on the second kanda. This, however, seems unlikely to me. If at all Helā-rāja chose one name for his commentaries on the first two kändas, I would expect
1.
The only exception to this statement is likely to be furnished by manuscript E[2] or F[2]. In this manuscript preserved in the library of the Oriental Institute at Baroda, fragments of the Vākya-kanda-fikā are found mixed with the fragments of the Prakirnaka-prakā'sa (Rau 1971:31, 35-36). However, the very lack of order among its leaves indicates that the two works have been put together out of necessity rather than out of an awareness that they belong together. Compare, for example, the accounts of how a mirage is seen:..grişme maricayo bhaumenoṣmaṇā syandamānā (spandamānā ?] dirasthasya jala-jñānam upajanayanti (BSS p. 204); dinakara-kara-nikarāḥ prasarpanto nabho-deśam urdhvadharabhāvena samākrāmantas tarańgākāra-pratyayam upadadhati pipāsūnām (Helā. 3.13.8-9 p. 140). In the former, the author seems to have leaned heavily on Vâtsyāyana's Nyāya-bhāsya, pp. 18 and 345.