________________
AUGUST, 1911.)
TRIVIKRAMA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
223
The following few lines of Prof. Hultzsch from his third report are very important, and it will not be out of place to quote them here: "The Srutiraijani, a commentary on Gitagovinda is ascribed to Tirumalaraja I of the third Vizianagara dynasty. The Tanjore Palace Library contains two copies of the same commentary, one of which (No. 6672) has the same beginning as our manuscript (No. 2112), while the second (No. €671) professes to have been composed by Lakshmaņasuri, a worshipper of Dakshiņâmûrti, and younger brother of Kondubhatta of Cherukuru. He was evidently the actual author, and Tiramalaraja his patron. Lakshmaņasûri is identical with Lakşmidhara, the author of Sharbhúsháchandrika." We know from certain inscriptions that Tirumalaraya was reigning until 1574 or 1577. His reign begins from 1565 or 1568. Bat Srutiranjani seems to have been written in the reign of his brother Ramaraja (1541-1565). Lakshmidhara, who was his contemporary, must have belonged to the same period and composed Shadbhdshachandrika in Appayya Dikshita's youth or a little before him.
IV. One more work remains, and that is Prakrita-rlpáratara. The name suggests that the work might have been composed as an appendix to Dharmakirti's Sanskrit Rúpivatdra.
As Trivikrama's authorship of the Shadbháshásútras has been proved above by me beyond all doubt, it seems evident that Simharaja, the author of the Ripdvatdra, must have belonged to a later date, and as such, might have made use of Trivikrama's work. Prof. Haltzsch after expressing his despair at the impossibility of fixing Sinharaja's date from external evidence, proceeds to fix it from internal evidence, and says, "Simharaja mentions the Eastern (pirvavyákarana-praloriyayd tak sal: Tvib-iti dyapuhárah XII, 42) Kaumara and Påniniya grammars." This interpretation of patrva as "eastern" does not reflect favourably upon Oriental scholars.
But, I think, Simharaja's date can be fixed more easily in another way. Simharaja's father was Samudrabandhayajvan and he refers to Ravivarmadeva, author of Pradyumná hyudaya as his contemporary. Mr. T. Ganapati Sastrin, in his preface to Pralyumnábhyulaya, asserts on the authority of three inscriptions that Ravivarmadeva was born in A. D. 1965. Simbaraja, therefore, must have belonged to the last few years of the 13th and the early years of the 14th century.
The last three authors, unlike Trivikrama, were Hindus, though they preferred to comment upon the work of a Jaina. These authors seem to have no clear conception of the difference between the two schools of Prükşit grammar, Brahmanic and Jaina. This misconception, which arose very early, was the cause of the groundless attribution of the Sittras to Valmiki. In the same way, two other Hindu pandits have written in accordance with Hemachandra's grammar, vit., Seshakrishna, author of the Prakrita-chandriled, and Hrishikesa-sêstrin. This is the cause of the preference which the present pandits of our land give to this school. But none of these books apply to Prakṣit forms found in the Sanskțit dramas, Gáthdsaptasati, Setubandha, and other works. The other set of grammars, including Prdkrita-prakúsa, with its many commentaries, Prakrita-kalpataru of Rama Tarkavagiša, Samkshiptaasdra of Kramádiśvara, Prakrita-sarvasva of Märkandeya, &c., only is concerned with them. So this latter set of grammars is more important for practical purposes, and claims greater attention than the others.
So in order to understand the structure of the Prakrit found in Aryan or Sansksit works, we must have recourse to the latter set, leaving the other one, which is concerned only with the Jaina works written in their peculiar Prákțit. So I wish the old order soon changes, giving place to the new.
