Indian Antiquary Vol 42

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 216

204
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
A FEW REMARKS ON PROFESSOR PATHAK'S PAPER ON DANDIN, THE NYASAKARA AND BHAMAHA.
In his paper on "Dandin, the Nyåsakara and Bhamaha," Ante, Vol. XLI p. 232, Prof. K. B. Pathak has said: "Mr Narasimhachar quotes from this verse the words faca acare
and would have us believe that the second word in this verse is the name of Pajyapada's commentary on Panini. This view is amply refuted by the Hebbur plates, which describe king Durvinita:
शब्दावतारकार-देव-भारतीनिव (ब) द्ध-बृहत्पथः Bp. Car., Vol. XII., p. 17. He who was restricted to the path of eminence by the words of Deva [Devanandin], the author of the Sabdâvatára.'
I do not think I have taken the word as the name of Pujyapada's commentary on Panini. A reference to my paper will clearly show that I have taken the word in the sense of a commentary on grammar.
With regard to the passage quoted from the Hebbur plates, it has to be mentioned that the interpretation put on it is no longer tenable, the passage making no manner of reference to either Devanandin or his Sabdávatára. In a set of copperplates, recently discovered at Gummareḍdipura, Srinivasapur Taluk, Kolar District, which is dated in the 40th year of king Durvinita's reign and may be assigned to the early part of the sixth century, the corresponding portion runs thus:
शब्दावतारकारेण देवभारती- निबद्ध-वडकयेन किरातार्जुनीये
This makes it quite plain that Durvinita was himself the author of a Sabdavatára, as also of a Sanskrit (Devabharati) version of the Paiédcht Vadḍakatha or Brihatkatha of Gunâdhya and of a commentary on the fifteenth sarga of the Kiratârjuniya. We thus see that there is no ground at all for the supposed connection or contemporaneity of Devanandin or Pajyapáda with Durvinita. The passage from the Hebbur plates, which are of a later date than the Gummareddipura plates, can now be confidently corrected thus : शब्दावतारकारो देवभारती-निबद्ध-बृहत्कथ: That Durvinita was the author of a commentary on the Kirâtârjunîya had long been known, but
[JULY, 1913.
1 Ante, Vol. XLI, p. 90. See his Essai sur Gundḍhya et la Byhatkatha, p. 147.
his authorship of the other two works is gathered for the first time from these new plates. It is of considerable interest to know that there came
into existence, though unfortunately it has not come down to us, a Sanskrit version of the Brihatkatha as far back as the 6th century A, D. The versions now extant are those of Somadeva and Kshemendra, of the 11th century, and that of Budhasvami, styled Brihatkatha-éloka-samgraha, recently published in Paris by Prof. F. Lacote, who is of opinion that it was composed between the 8th and 9th centuries." Prof. Lacote also writes to me: "I believe Budhasvamin's work is based on an older Sanskrit version of the Brihatkathâ, for his version shows by the side of traits relatively modern traces very curious of archaism." This earlier version may in all probability be Durvinita's.
Further, as shown above, the Sabdavatára mentioned in the passage quoted from the Hebbur plates, is a work by Durvinita himself. It is true that Pajyapâda's Nydsa on Pânini is also named Sabdávatâra in a Mysore inscription, dated A. D. 1530, which is quoted by Prof. Pathak, but this work must be quite different from its namesake referred to above. The latter, which has not likewise come down to us, may have been a Nydsa on Panini just like Pujyapada's; and it is just possible that Bhâmaha's reference is to this work, though, from the nature of the case, it is not possible to lay much stress on the point.
Prof. Pathak says: "Rakrilagomin
Was
परसर्गटीकाकारण दुर्विनीतनामधेवेन. Reverend Rakrila, a Buddhist, and his son
Bhamaha was also a Buddhist." It is not clear on what evidence this assertion is based. If Bhamaha were a Buddhist, we might reasonably expect some clue, however slight, to his religion in the illustrative stanzas, which, according to him, were composed by himself. On the contrary, we find in these stanzas references not only to the stories of the Rámâyana and the Mahabharata but also to the deities Siva, Vishnu, Govinda, Pârvati and so forth. Further, in the fifth chapter of his work, which deals with the logic of poetry, ocours the expression प्रत्यक्षं तस्ववृत्ति हि. I am not sure if a Buddhist would express such an opinion.
See Mysore Archeological Report for 1912, paras 65-69.