Authorship Of Vakya Kanda Tika

Here's a comprehensive summary of Ashok Aklujkar's article "The Authorship of the Vākya-Kānda-Ṭikā":

The article challenges the long-held attribution of the commentary on the second book of Bhartṛhari's Trikāṇḍī (also known as Vākyapadīya) to Punya-rāja. While most scholars and manuscript catalogues have assigned it to Punya-rāja, Aklujkar presents a strong case for the commentary being the work of Helā-rāja, the renowned commentator of the third book.

Aklujkar's argument is based on several lines of evidence:

1. Manuscript Evidence:

• He examines twenty-seven manuscripts of the Vākya-kānda-ṭikā.
• While fourteen manuscripts ascribe the commentary to Punya-rāja, two manuscripts (E[7] and E[14]) ascribe it to Helā-rāja.
• Crucially, the manuscript attributing it to Helā-rāja (E[7]) is older than the manuscripts attributing it to Punya-rāja, dating back to 1609/1610 AD.
• Aklujkar suggests that the ascriptions to Punya-rāja might stem from a misunderstanding or error, possibly due to Punya-rāja's name appearing in the summary verses at the end of the commentary. Those who attributed it to Helā-rāja likely did so because the attribution was present in the manuscripts they copied, implying they were preserving an older tradition.

2. The Summary Verses:

• The concluding summary verses contain a crucial passage (verse 58) that mentions Punya-rāja as composing "a statement of mutual connections in the form of verses" or "relating to the verses of the Vākya-kända."
• Another verse (verse 57), however, attributes the composition of a statement of the topics to Rājānaka Sūra-varman.
• Aklujkar argues that Punya-rāja's contribution is limited to these summary verses, not the entire commentary. This aligns with the idea that he might have been a compiler or summarizer, rather than the primary commentator.

3. Internal Evidence from the Commentary:

• The Vākya-kānda-ṭikā itself contains references to the first book, suggesting the author had written a commentary on it. Helā-rāja is known to have written a commentary on the first book (Śabda-prabha).
• Aklujkar identifies a specific passage in Helā-rāja's commentary on the third book (Prakīrņaka-prakāśa) concerning "properties of persons" that has a strikingly similar passage in the Vākya-kānda-ṭikā (specifically on verse 2.78). This similarity in content and diction strongly suggests a single author.

4. Comparative Study of Helā-rāja's Works:

• Aklujkar undertakes an extensive comparison between the Vākya-kānda-ṭikā and Helā-rāja's known commentary on the third book, the Prakīrņaka-prakāśa.
• Similarities in quotations: Both works quote from the same secondary authors like Kumārila, Jayāditya-Vāmana, Dharma-kīrti, and Maṇḍana-miśra, with some quotations appearing in the same contexts and even identical expressions (e.g., from Sphota-siddhi and Pramāņa-vārttika).
• Similarities in style and vocabulary: The article highlights shared stylistic features, including the use of specific, less common compound expressions (e.g., adūraviprakarşa, ayah-salakakalpa, kāla-parivasa, dṛśyavikalpa, paramarşi, paśūdakavat, sarva-pārṣada), frequent use of the word ācchurita, preference for the term adhyāsa over Bhartṛhari's terms for identification, and the use of kila and yadi param with specific nuances.
• Similar theoretical discussions: Both works share particular ways of characterizing Bhartṛhari's arguments (e.g., prauḍha-vāda), accept the primacy of identification over other relations, link cause-effect relations to Vijñāna-vādins, and distinguish between saṁghāta and sphoța.

5. Punya-rāja's Identity:

• Aklujkar explores the identity of Punya-rāja, suggesting he might be the same person as Puñja-rāja, a grammarian. However, he finds difficulties with this identification, as Puñja-rāja's known works and associations don't align with the Punya-rāja mentioned in the Vākya-kānda verses (e.g., his connection to Śaśānka-śiṣya and Śūra-varman).
• He posits that Punya-rāja, the author of the summary verses, is likely older than Puñja-rāja and perhaps even a direct disciple of Sahadeva (whom he identifies as Śaśānka-śiṣya).
• He also briefly considers the possibility of Punya-rāja being identical with Phulla-rāja, who seems to have supplemented Helā-rāja's work, but concludes this is not definitively proven.

Conclusion:

Aklujkar concludes that the cumulative evidence strongly suggests that Helā-rāja is the author of the Vākya-kānda-ṭikā. The attribution to Punya-rāja is likely a later error, possibly stemming from his authorship of the summary verses. The article also speculates on the possible title of Helā-rāja's commentary on the second book as Vākya-pradīpa. This re-attribution significantly impacts the understanding of the commentaries on Bhartṛhari's work and the scholarly landscape of Sanskrit grammar.