________________
222
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
(AUGUST, 1911.
But the colophon clearly states that the author was not Chinabommabhupa, but Appayga Dikshita, and it rans as follows:
" ,... chokkendtha-bhapdla-priyasachiva .... china-bommabhipahridaya-kamala-kuhara-viharamána-sri-sámbasiva-preritena appayya-dikshitena krite...."
So it appears that Appayya Dikshita promised Chinabommabhů pa to publish the work under his name, perhaps accepting some remuneration, and not finding his nature reconcilable to the idea, he inserted his own name at the end. In his Dikshitacharita, Sivanandayogin says that Appayya Dikshita was born in 1554. It is evident from page 149 of the second volume of " Oriental Historical Manuscripts," translated by W. Taylor, that Appayya Dikshita was the contemporary of Muttatiramalai Nayakar, king of Madura, and was invited by the latter to his court in 1626. We do not hear of him any more after that date.
Chinabommabhupala, therefore, must have belonged to the same period, being, as he was, the contemporary of Appayya Diksbita ; and Appayya Dikshita says in the colophon that Chinabommabhûpa was the minister of Chokkanatha (the lord of southern ocean) and Prof. Holtzsch identifies him with either of the two Nayakas of Madura, who bore that name.
At the request of the same Chinabommabhupa, Appayya Dikshita wrote a commentary on the Nilakanthabháshya and named it Sivárka-ma nidipika. Prof. Paltzsch thinks that this Chinabommabhûpa should be distinguished from the Chinabommabhupala, who was said to be the anthor of Prakrita-manidipa at the beginning of the work. But I see no reason why the two should not be identical.
We also learn from Prakrita-manidipa that Appayya Dikshita wrote three more works on Trivikrama's aphorisms : Varrika, arnava and the Bhashya. The vdrtilens, quoted in the present work, might have belonged to his first work. References to thishya are found throughout the work. The whole matter of the work, including that of the vártikas, etc., is contained in Trivikrama's work. But it is doubtful whether the reverse is true. The present author refers to Pushpavananátha as a Prákpit grammarian. Bat we know nothing as to his time or his works. This, as well as the two following authors, shape the Prakrit words cited by them according to the Sútras, but do not apply the Salras to forms already existing in the language. This shows that they are not good masters of the language and they depended entirely on the Sítras.
III. Coming to the third work, Shadbháshá-chandrika, which is the most popular of the set, the author, Lakshmidbara, was a Teluga Brahman of Kayapagotra and Rigvedin. He belonged to the Cherukûri family. He is quoted in Appayya Dikshita's Prákrita-manidipa, and he quotes Singabhûpâla's Ripaka-paribhasha, # chapter of Rasdrnava-sudhakara. This Râvu Sarvajña Singamabhủpa was an ancestor of the present prince of Venkatagiri and flourished in A. D. 1830.
Lakshmidhara also wrote a few other works. His commentary on the Gita-Govinda is entitled Srudiranjani. It is evident from this work that he commented on PrasannaRaghapa. The late Prof. Seshagiri Sastriar, taking into consideration only the latter fact, says: "The drama Prasannardghava was composed in the early part of the 16th century, and the commentator, Lakshmidhara, must belong to a later period.” But since Appayya Diksbita quotes the commentator, both authors must be assigned a date prior to that of Appayya Dikshita. Lakshmidbara after a time became a sanydain, and wrote a commentary on Anarghya-Rághara called Ishtartha-kalpavalli.
