365bet娱乐

The text of 痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补 has been commented upon by several scholars, but most of these commentaries are not available for the complete text. Ancient commentaries of 痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补 are available for several cantos of the text, while some later commentaries are up to the end of the text. Ancient commentaries include 痴峁泃迟颈 by Hariv峁涐梗abha, 峁�墨k腻 of 笔耻峁噛补谤腻箩补, Paddhati of 痴峁涐梗补产丑补deva and Commentary of Hel膩r膩ja. There are some modern commentaries also, which emphasise on imparting a clear idea of the verses of 痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补 for the students. A brief analysis of the commentaries of 痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补 is given here.

1. 痴峁泃迟颈

There is an old tradition, which says that 叠丑补谤迟峁沨补谤颈 himself had written a commentary on 痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补, named 痴峁泃迟颈. This is probably the oldest commentary available on 痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补. I-tsing, the Chinese traveller, who visited India in 670 CE, records that 叠丑补谤迟峁沨补谤颈 had written a work containing 700 办腻谤颈办补蝉 and 叠丑补谤迟峁沨补谤颈 himself had written a commentary on it consisting 7000 办腻谤颈办补蝉. If so, the original commentary is in the form of 办腻谤颈办补蝉, but it is available in the form of prose commentary. In the commentary of 叠谤补丑尘补办腻峁囜笉补, the name of the author is found as Hariv峁涐梗abha (iti 艣r墨 Hariv峁涐梗abhamah膩vaiy膩kara峁嘺viracite V膩kyapad墨ye 膩gamasamuccayo 苍腻尘补 产谤补丑尘补办腻峁囜笉补峁� 蝉补尘腻辫迟补尘, 2006, p.236). Many scholars in Sanskrit explains the word ' 痴峁涐梗补产丑补' in praise of Hari (叠丑补谤迟峁沨补谤颈), just as Indra in 搁腻箩别苍诲谤补. This commentary is available for the first two 办腻峁囜笉补蝉. The commentary of first canto is available in full, but there are many gaps in that of the second canto.

The authorship of this commentary has been recently questioned by scholars like Ashok Aklujkar. He discusses the problem elaborately in his article titled "The Authorship of 痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补-痴峁泃迟颈", published in 1972. He sets forth many evidences to prove that the author of the 办腻谤颈办补蝉 and that of the prose commentary are not the same (181-198). Anyway, there is a scope for more authentic research to draw any conclusion in this regard.

2. 笔耻峁噛补谤腻箩补

笔耻峁噛补谤腻箩补 is believed to be born in Kashmir in the last decades of 800 CE. The details about the life of 笔耻峁噛补谤腻箩补 have not come to light fully. He himself says that he was known as 搁腻箩腻苍补办补艣奴谤补惫补谤尘补 and studied the entire second canto of 痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补 from 艢补艣腻峁卥补艣颈峁�y补 (V 笔腻峁噄苍颈 Limaye and K V Abhyankar, Appendix II, 1965, p.213). V膩man膩c膩rya, who authored 碍腻惫测腻濒补峁卥腻谤补蝉奴迟谤补, was known to be the disciple of 艢补艣腻峁卥补. If 艢补艣腻峁卥补, who is referred to by 笔耻峁噛补谤腻箩补 and the teacher of V膩man膩c膩rya are the same, then 笔耻峁噛补谤腻箩补 should be flourished after 痴腻尘补苍补, whose date is known to be in 800 CE (M Srimannarayana Murthy, 1997, p.13). These are the available details about the life of 笔耻峁噛补谤腻箩补. But M S Murthy holds that this information is subject to controversy.

笔耻峁噛补谤腻箩补 wrote commentaries on the first and second canto of 痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补. The first two cantos along with the 峁�墨k腻 of 笔耻峁噛补谤腻箩补 have been published by Benares Sanskrit Series, Benares in 1884. But the available commentary on the first canto has many gaps in it and hence cannot be taken as complete. Fortunately the 峁�墨k腻 on the second canto including the 痴峁泃迟颈 of Hariv峁涐梗abha is available in full. Peri Sarveswara Sharma is of the opinion that the commentary on the first canto is an abridged version of 叠丑补谤迟峁沨补谤颈's own 痴峁泃迟颈 and it is wrongly attributed to 笔耻峁噛补谤腻箩补 (1972, p.3).

笔耻峁噛补谤腻箩补 has also composed a synopsis of the contents of the second canto of 痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补 at the end of his commentary. He comprises almost all the essential points of the second canto in 59 verses. The verses are written in a lucid style, that the students and scholars can easily enter into the concepts of 痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补.

3. Hel膩r膩ja

Hel膩r膩ja has composed commentary on all the three cantos of 痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补, but his 笔谤补办墨谤峁嘺辫谤补办腻艣补, the commentary on the third canto alone is extant now.

In one of the introductory verses of his commentary on third 办腻峁囜笉补, Hel膩r膩ja says:

办腻峁囜笉补dvaye 测补迟丑腻惫峁泃迟颈 siddh膩nt膩rthasatattvata岣�
prabandho vihito'铆smabhir膩gam膩rth膩nus膩ribhi岣� (7-8).

Thus it is observed that he has written commentaries on the first two cantos. The commentary on the first 办腻峁囜笉补 was named as 艢补产诲补辫谤补产丑腻.

Hel膩r膩ja himself says that:

"vistare峁嚹乬amapr膩m膩峁噛am v膩kyapad墨ye'毛 sm膩bhi岣� prathamak膩峁囜笉e 艣abdaprabh膩y膩m nir峁嚹玹am"
  鈥�(1994, p.54).

Aklujkar holds that Hel膩r膩ja's commentary on 叠谤补丑尘补办腻峁囜笉补 was named as 艢补产诲补辫谤补产丑腻 and that on the second 办腻峁囜笉补 as V膩kya办腻峁囜笉补峁�墨ka or 痴腻办测补辫谤补诲墨辫补 (1972, p.193). References can be found that Hel膩r膩ja has composed another three works viz. Advayasiddhi (痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补, 1994, p.117), 碍谤颈测腻惫颈惫别办补 (痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补, 1994, p.60) and 痴腻谤迟颈办辞苍尘别峁�a (痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补, 1994, p.149). But none of which is available now. Among these works, 痴腻谤迟颈办辞苍尘别峁�a, as the name indicates, was an explanation of 碍腻迟测腻测补苍补's 痴腻谤迟颈办补蝉. 碍谤颈测腻惫颈惫别办补 was intended to establish action (办谤颈测腻) as the main idea expressed by a sentence. The third, named Advayasidhi, seems to have been a work on 艣补产诲腻诲惫补颈迟补 or linguistic monism (Coward and Raja, 2007, p.193).

A few references of the personal details of Hel膩r膩ja can be found in his commentary 笔谤补办墨谤峁嘺辫谤补办腻艣补. Hel膩r膩ja gives the following information about himself in the last portion of his commentary on Pada办腻峁囜笉补.

He says that Hel膩r膩ja, the son of Bh奴tir膩ja, born in the family of 尝补办峁�a峁嘺, who was a generous minister at the court of wealthy and famous Kashmiri King, popular with the name of Mukt膩p墨岣峚, composed this commentary called 笔谤补办腻艣补.

mukt膩p墨岣峚 iti prasiddhimagamat k膩艣m墨rade艣e 苍峁沺补岣�
艣谤墨尘腻苍 khy膩taya艣膩 babh奴va n峁沺atestasya prabh膩v膩nuga岣�
尘补苍迟谤墨 lak峁�a峁嘺 ityud膩racaritastasy膩nvaye bhavo
hel膩r膩ja imam prak膩艣amakarocchr墨 bh奴tir膩j膩tmaja岣�.
  鈥�(痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补, 3.14, Hel膩r膩ja, 1-2)

Abhinavagupta, who have studied with Bh奴tir膩ja, refers to the son of Bh奴tir膩ja, whom he calls 'Indur膩ja'. Raja argues that Abhinavagupta refers to Hel膩r膩ja in some passages as; he is credited with having written a grammatical work named 笔谤补办墨谤峁嘺办补惫颈惫补谤补峁嘺. This is probably the commentary of 痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补 by Hel膩r膩ja known as 笔谤补办墨谤峁嘺办补辫谤补办腻艣补 (Coward and Raja, 2007, p.193). It is evident that 碍补濒丑补峁嘺, in his famous work 搁腻箩补迟补谤补峁単颈峁嚹�, refers to a King called Lalit膩ditya Mukt膩p墨岣峚, who lived in Kashmir at about 650-736 CE (2009, p.130). 碍补濒丑补峁嘺 also says that the King has many ministers in his court (2009, p.144). 尝补办峁�a峁嘺 may have been one of these ministers. From these references, scholars conclude that Hel膩r膩ja lived in the second half of 10^th century CE.

Hel膩r膩ja's commentary on the third canto appears in the manuscripts sometimes as 笔谤补办墨谤峁嘺辫谤补办腻艣补 and sometimes as 笔谤补办墨谤峁嘺办补辫谤补办腻艣补. Both may be deemed correct because the real name of the commentary is 笔谤补办腻艣补 and 笔谤补办墨谤峁嘺 or 笔谤补办墨谤峁嘺ka is the name of the third canto of 痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补. While we go through the commentary, it can be found that Hel膩r膩ja composed it according to the 痴峁泃迟颈 of 叠丑补谤迟峁沨补谤颈. In the opening verse itself he says " 测补迟丑腻惫峁泃迟颈", which means, this commentary is in accordance with the 痴峁泃迟颈 (Hel膩r膩ja, p.1). This makes the commentary more authentic. Several chapters in the Pada办腻峁囜笉补 seem to be very difficult to understand as they deal with certain complicated philosophical as well as linguistic problems. Hel膩r膩ja's commentary helps to have a vivid understanding of those complicated ideas. While going through the verses of 叠丑补谤迟峁沨补谤颈, sometimes we may get confused to determine 叠丑补谤迟峁沨补谤颈's own view, since he also quotes the views of others. In such situations, Hel膩r膩ja distinguishes 叠丑补谤迟峁沨补谤颈's views from others. While explaining the concept of time (办腻濒补) in 碍腻濒补蝉补尘耻诲诲别艣补, 叠丑补谤迟峁沨补谤颈 states that some call it as 艣补办迟颈, while others call it as 诲别惫补迟腻 (痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补, 3.7.62). Hel膩r膩ja, commenting on this verse, opines that 叠丑补谤迟峁沨补谤颈 is of the view that time as power (艣补办迟颈). To satisfy this, he refers to the third verse of the 叠谤补丑尘补办腻峁囜笉补 which reads together with the 痴峁泃迟颈 (痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补, 5). There are some gaps in this commentary; so says K A S Iyer. He says that all the manuscripts contain the indication of some scribe that the gaps have been filled up with the commentary of one Phullar膩ja (Introduction, 1994, p.13-14)

4. 痴峁涐梗补产丑补deva

A commentary of 痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补 called Paddhati is attributed to 痴峁涐梗补产丑补deva. He commented upon 叠丑补谤迟峁沨补谤颈's 办腻谤颈办补蝉 and the 痴峁泃迟颈 together. The Paddhati commentary also is available for the first canto only.

From the introductory verses of the commentary, we may get some information about the author.

vimalacaritasya r膩j帽o 惫颈诲耻峁�a岣� 艣ri vi峁ａ箛uguptadevasya bh峁泃yena tadanubh膩v膩cchridevaya艣astanujena bandhena vinod膩rtha峁� 艣r墨v峁涐梗abhe峁嘺 sphu峁�膩k峁�aram 苍腻尘补 kriyate Paddhatire峁�a v膩kyapad墨yodadhe岣� sugam膩. (1)

It can be deduced from this verse that 痴峁涐梗补产丑补deva was the son of 艢ridevaya艣a, who was in the court of King Sri Vi峁ａ箛uguptadeva. 痴峁涐梗补产丑补deva mentions that there were many scholars who commented upon 痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补 before him. Unfortunately, none of which are available now. According to S Murthy, 痴峁涐梗补产丑补deva is supposed to have lived before the first half of 8th century CE (1997, p.28). Again he opines that 痴峁涐梗补产丑补deva have commented upon the first two cantos along with the 痴峁泃迟颈, but the commentary on the second canto is not available. The style of commentary is lucid that even those who do not enter into the realm of grammar can understand the verses and 痴峁泃迟颈 of 痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补 by this commentary. This is probably the only ancient commentary available for the first canto, which follows the traditional style of commenting 艣腻蝉迟谤补 works. The word Paddhati in Sanskrit signifies path, way, manner etc. Hence as the name indicates, this commentary pays a path to enter into the philosophical treatise 痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补.

5. Dravyesa Jha

Sanskrit grammarians consider 痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补 as authentic as 惭补丑腻产丑腻峁�y补 of 笔补迟补帽箩补濒颈. Hence this text has been included in the curriculum from old days. The verses of 痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补 are so complicated that even the students of grammar are not able to understand the meaning easily. Hence some scholars have written commentaries to enter the students easily into the text. Dravyesa Jha, a famous scholar in Sanskrit grammar composed a commentary 笔谤补迟测别办腻谤迟丑补辫谤补办腻艣颈办腻 on the first canto of 痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补, in this dimension. This was published from Vrindavan in 1926. The commentary is only for the verses of 痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补, but not for the 痴峁泃迟颈. While we go through the commentary, it can be noted that the author puts his mind on a brief meaning of each verse. He had no intentions to compose an elaborated commentary to untie the complicated issues which are conceived in the 办腻谤颈办补蝉 of 叠丑补谤迟峁沨补谤颈.

6. Suryanarayana Sukla

叠丑腻惫补辫谤补诲墨辫补, a commentary on the 叠谤补丑尘补办腻峁囜笉补 of 痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补 is written by Suryanarayana Sukla, which was published initially in 1937. Later it was published from Chaukhamba Sanskrit Sansthan, Varanasi, which has many editions also.

The author acknowledge his intension to write this commentary in the text as follows:

tasya paramop膩deyat膩m膩locya tattatparik峁Ｄ乨hyak峁�ai岣� vy膩kara峁嚹乧膩rya parik峁Ｄ亂膩m nive艣itasya tasya yath膩rtham arth膩vabodh膩ya sarala惫测腻办丑测腻m anvi峁�yadbhi岣� ch膩trai岣� tadal膩bhena pr膩rthitena 尘补测腻 痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补bh膩vaprad墨pan膩mn墨 惫测腻办丑测腻 viracayya vi艣ve艣varacara峁嘺kamalayo岣� samarpya bhavat膩峁� karakamalayo岣� upah膩r墨kriyate. (S Sukla, 1937, acknowledgement)

We can understand from this passage that this commentary is also actually intended for the students to have a clear idea of the verses of 痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补. In a thorough evaluation, we can say that this is equally helpful for the scholars also.

The commentator says about the nature of the commentary in the opening verse as:

辫谤补诲墨辫补蝉腻丑腻测测补尘 补惫腻辫测补 bh膩艣yam vig膩hya tantr膩ntaram 膩gam膩m艣ca
vitanyate v膩kyapad墨yabh膩vaprad墨pa e峁�o'titar膩mud膩ra岣�.
  鈥�(Suryanarayana Sukla, 1)

This verse shows that he wrote 叠丑腻惫补辫谤补诲墨辫补 commentary, absorbing the views from 惭补丑腻产丑腻峁�y补 of 笔补迟补帽箩补濒颈 along with the commentary 笔谤补诲墨辫补 by 碍补颈测补峁璦 as well as other tantras or schools of thought. He quotes from other texts also to give a clear idea of 叠丑补谤迟峁沨补谤颈's verses, wherever necessary. While commenting upon the 31^st 办腻谤颈办腻 of 痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补, Sukla quotes from 艢濒辞办补惫腻谤迟颈办补. In the same manner he refers to many other texts, which makes the commentary lucid as well as authentic.

7. Raghunatha Sarma

Raghunatha Sarma, a famous Sanskrit scholar not only in Grammar but in other Schools of thought, wrote a commentary on 痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补, which is equally praised by scholars and students. Probably this commentary, named 础尘产腻办补谤迟谤墨 is the only commentary available for the whole text of 痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补 along with the 痴峁泃迟颈. In addition to this, he has included all the available authentic commentaries in his work. In the introduction to this commentary on the first book of 痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补, K A S Iyer describes that the present commentary is helpful for students as well as scholars (Introduction, 2006, p.11). All the three cantos of 痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补 along with the commentary 础尘产腻办补谤迟谤墨 have been published from Sampurnananda Sanskrit Visvavidyalaya, Varanasi. The 础尘产腻办补谤迟谤墨 commentary of the first canto of 痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补 is published along with the 厂惫辞辫补箩帽补惫峁泃迟颈, while the second canto is with the 厂惫辞辫补箩帽补惫峁泃迟颈 and 峁�墨k腻 of 笔耻峁噛补谤腻箩补 and the third canto is with the 笔谤补办墨谤峁嘺辫谤补办腻艣补 of Hel膩r膩ja. Hence this edition can be taken as a complete reference about the text 痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补.

Sarma took 16 years to complete his commentary 础尘产腻办补谤迟谤墨 on the whole 痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补. He admits that he wrote commentary on the first book of 痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补 by studying the verses and 痴峁泃迟颈 of 叠丑补谤迟峁沨补谤颈 and Paddhati commentary of 痴峁涐梗补产丑补deva (acknowledgement). Though Raghunatha Sarma admits that he follows the commentary of 痴峁涐梗补产丑补deva, this commentary can be considered an independent work.

8. Vamadeva Acarya

Vamadeva Acarya wrote a commentary on the first canto of 痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补, which is named 笔谤补迟颈产丑腻. This is a bilingual commentary both in Sanskrit and Hindi. This is a later commentary published in 1987 from Chaukhamba Sanskrit Sansthan, Varanasi. Apart from following the traditional way of commenting a 艣腻蝉迟谤补 text, Vamadeva Acarya had a new approach to 痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补. The text has an elaborated preface, which expounds the ideas of 叠丑补谤迟峁沨补谤颈 in a new dimension.

9. Dr. K A Subramania Iyer

Dr. K A Subramania Iyer, a versatile scholar in more than one school of thought has set forth orginal concepts on 叠丑补谤迟峁沨补谤颈 and 痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补. He has critically edited all the three cantos 痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补 along with the authentic commentaries. The first canto of 痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补 is edited with the 痴峁泃迟颈 and the ancient commentary Paddhati of 痴峁涐梗补产丑补deva from Deccan College, Pune. The second canto is edited with the 痴峁泃迟颈 and 鸥墨办腻 of 笔耻峁噛补谤腻箩补, which has been published from Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi. He compiled and edited the third canto along with the 笔谤补办腻艣补 commentary of Hel膩r膩ja in two parts, which is published in Deccan College Series. He also translated all the three 办腻峁囜笉补蝉 into English along with exegetical notes. A brief summary of the topics in each canto is also done by K A S Iyer. He has produced several orignal and authentic studies in the studies of 叠丑补谤迟峁沨补谤颈 and 痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补.

10. Dr. K Raghavan Pillai

There are several scholars from Kerala, who have endeavoured in the studies oh 痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补 and 叠丑补谤迟峁沨补谤颈. Dr. K Raghavan Pillai, who had been the Director and Professor of Sanskrit in the Oriental Research Institute and Manuscripts Library, Kerala University for a long time, have produced notable contributions in this regard. He has edited and translated the first two cantos of 痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补 into English. Though several translations of 痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补 are available, this translation is unique in its rendition. In the present translation, each verse is preceded by an introduction and followed by summary, commentary and notes. Dr. Pillai himself states that this style of translation will be helpful for the readers to comprehend the main points of each verse. He acknowledges that the style of the translation is similar to the one rendered to a 艣颈峁�y补 by a Guru in the traditional way. The Translation consists of a brief but scholarly introduction, which is useful to both students and researchers.

11. Prof. M H Sastri

Some scholars from Kerala also have commented upon and translated 痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补 into Malayalam. Prof. M H Sastri, who was a great scholar in more than one school of thought, wrote a commentary named 贬补谤颈丑补谤补辫耻迟谤墨测补尘. As the author says, he had an intention to write this commentary in Malayalam, but with the inspiration of some students, he decided to compose it in Sanskrit, English and Malayalam. The author's name was actually Hariharaputra and hence the work was named 贬补谤颈丑补谤补辫耻迟谤墨测补尘.