6.2 (c). Commentaries of Vākyapadīya

The text of Vākyapadīya has been commented upon by several scholars, but most of these commentaries are not available for the complete text. Ancient commentaries of Vākyapadīya are available for several cantos of the text, while some later commentaries are up to the end of the text. Ancient commentaries include Vṛtti by Harivṛṣabha, Ṭīkā of Puṇyarāja, Paddhati of Vṛṣabhadeva and Commentary of Helārāja. There are some modern commentaries also, which emphasise on imparting a clear idea of the verses of Vākyapadīya for the students. A brief analysis of the commentaries of Vākyapadīya is given here.

1. Vṛtti

There is an old tradition, which says that Bhartṛhari himself had written a commentary on Vākyapadīya, named Vṛtti. This is probably the oldest commentary available on Vākyapadīya. I-tsing, the Chinese traveller, who visited India in 670 CE, records that Bhartṛhari had written a work containing 700 kārikas and Bhartṛhari himself had written a commentary on it consisting 7000 kārikas. If so, the original commentary is in the form of kārikas, but it is available in the form of prose commentary. In the commentary of Brahmakāṇḍa, the name of the author is found as Harivṛṣabha (iti śrī Harivṛṣabhamahāvaiyākaraṇaviracite Vākyapadīye āgamasamuccayo nāma brahmakāṇḍaṃ samāptam, 2006, p.236). Many scholars in Sanskrit explains the word ' Vṛṣabha' in praise of Hari (Bhartṛhari), just as Indra in Rājendra. This commentary is available for the first two kāṇḍas. 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 Vākyapadīya-Vṛtti", published in 1972. He sets forth many evidences to prove that the author of the kārikas 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. Puṇyarāja

Puṇyarāja is believed to be born in Kashmir in the last decades of 800 CE. The details about the life of Puṇyarāja have not come to light fully. He himself says that he was known as Rājānakaśūravarma and studied the entire second canto of Vākyapadīya from Śaśāṅkaśiṣya (V Pāṇini Limaye and K V Abhyankar, Appendix II, 1965, p.213). Vāmanācārya, who authored Kāvyālaṅkārasūtra, was known to be the disciple of Śaśāṅka. If Śaśāṅka, who is referred to by Puṇyarāja and the teacher of Vāmanācārya are the same, then Puṇyarāja should be flourished after Vāmana, whose date is known to be in 800 CE (M Srimannarayana Murthy, 1997, p.13). These are the available details about the life of Puṇyarāja. But M S Murthy holds that this information is subject to controversy.

Puṇyarāja wrote commentaries on the first and second canto of Vākyapadīya. The first two cantos along with the Ṭīkā of Puṇyarāja 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 Ṭīkā on the second canto including the Vṛtti of Harivṛṣabha is available in full. Peri Sarveswara Sharma is of the opinion that the commentary on the first canto is an abridged version of Bhartṛhari's own Vṛtti and it is wrongly attributed to Puṇyarāja (1972, p.3).

Puṇyarāja has also composed a synopsis of the contents of the second canto of Vākyapadīya 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 Vākyapadīya.

3. Helārāja

Helārāja has composed commentary on all the three cantos of Vākyapadīya, but his Prakīrṇaprakāśa, the commentary on the third canto alone is extant now.

In one of the introductory verses of his commentary on third kāṇḍa, Helārāja says:

kāṇḍadvaye yathāvṛtti siddhāntārthasatattvataḥ
prabandho vihito'ísmabhirāgamārthānusāribhiḥ (7-8).

Thus it is observed that he has written commentaries on the first two cantos. The commentary on the first kāṇḍa was named as Śabdaprabhā.

Helārāja himself says that:

"vistareṇāgamaprāmāṇyam vākyapadīye'ë smābhiḥ prathamakāṇḍe śabdaprabhāyām nirṇītam"
  —(1994, p.54).

Aklujkar holds that Helārāja's commentary on Brahmakāṇḍa was named as Śabdaprabhā and that on the second kāṇḍa as Vākyakāṇḍaṭīka or Vākyapradīpa (1972, p.193). References can be found that Helārāja has composed another three works viz. Advayasiddhi (Vākyapadīya, 1994, p.117), Kriyāviveka (Vākyapadīya, 1994, p.60) and Vārtikonmeṣa (Vākyapadīya, 1994, p.149). But none of which is available now. Among these works, Vārtikonmeṣa, as the name indicates, was an explanation of Kātyāyana's Vārtikas. Kriyāviveka was intended to establish action (kriyā) as the main idea expressed by a sentence. The third, named Advayasidhi, seems to have been a work on śabdādvaita or linguistic monism (Coward and Raja, 2007, p.193).

A few references of the personal details of Helārāja can be found in his commentary Prakīrṇaprakāśa. Helārāja gives the following information about himself in the last portion of his commentary on Padakāṇḍa.

He says that Helārāja, the son of Bhūtirāja, born in the family of Lakṣaṇa, who was a generous minister at the court of wealthy and famous Kashmiri King, popular with the name of Muktāpīḍa, composed this commentary called Prakāśa.

muktāpīḍa iti prasiddhimagamat kāśmīradeśe nṛpaḥ
śrīmān khyātayaśā babhūva nṛpatestasya prabhāvānugaḥ
mantrī lakṣaṇa ityudāracaritastasyānvaye bhavo
helārāja imam prakāśamakarocchrī bhūtirājātmajaḥ.
  —(Vākyapadīya, 3.14, Helārāja, 1-2)

Abhinavagupta, who have studied with Bhūtirāja, refers to the son of Bhūtirāja, whom he calls 'Indurāja'. Raja argues that Abhinavagupta refers to Helārāja in some passages as; he is credited with having written a grammatical work named Prakīrṇakavivaraṇa. This is probably the commentary of Vākyapadīya by Helārāja known as Prakīrṇakaprakāśa (Coward and Raja, 2007, p.193). It is evident that Kalhaṇa, in his famous work Rājataraṅgiṇī, refers to a King called Lalitāditya Muktāpīḍa, who lived in Kashmir at about 650-736 CE (2009, p.130). Kalhaṇa also says that the King has many ministers in his court (2009, p.144). Lakṣaṇa may have been one of these ministers. From these references, scholars conclude that Helārāja lived in the second half of 10^th century CE.

Helārāja's commentary on the third canto appears in the manuscripts sometimes as Prakīrṇaprakāśa and sometimes as Prakīrṇakaprakāśa. Both may be deemed correct because the real name of the commentary is Prakāśa and Prakīrṇa or Prakīrṇaka is the name of the third canto of Vākyapadīya. While we go through the commentary, it can be found that Helārāja composed it according to the Vṛtti of Bhartṛhari. In the opening verse itself he says " yathāvṛtti", which means, this commentary is in accordance with the Vṛtti (Helārāja, p.1). This makes the commentary more authentic. Several chapters in the Padakāṇḍa seem to be very difficult to understand as they deal with certain complicated philosophical as well as linguistic problems. Helārāja's commentary helps to have a vivid understanding of those complicated ideas. While going through the verses of Bhartṛhari, sometimes we may get confused to determine Bhartṛhari's own view, since he also quotes the views of others. In such situations, Helārāja distinguishes Bhartṛhari's views from others. While explaining the concept of time (kāla) in Kālasamuddeśa, Bhartṛhari states that some call it as śakti, while others call it as devatā (Vākyapadīya, 3.7.62). Helārāja, commenting on this verse, opines that Bhartṛhari is of the view that time as power (śakti). To satisfy this, he refers to the third verse of the Brahmakāṇḍa which reads together with the Vṛtti (Vākyapadīya, 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 Phullarāja (Introduction, 1994, p.13-14)

4. Vṛṣabhadeva

A commentary of Vākyapadīya called Paddhati is attributed to Vṛṣabhadeva. He commented upon Bhartṛhari's kārikas and the Vṛtti 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 rājño viduṣaḥ śri viṣṇuguptadevasya bhṛtyena tadanubhāvācchridevayaśastanujena bandhena vinodārthaṃ śrīvṛṣabheṇa sphuṭākṣaram nāma kriyate Paddhatireṣa vākyapadīyodadheḥ sugamā. (1)

It can be deduced from this verse that Vṛṣabhadeva was the son of Śridevayaśa, who was in the court of King Sri Viṣṇuguptadeva. Vṛṣabhadeva mentions that there were many scholars who commented upon Vākyapadīya before him. Unfortunately, none of which are available now. According to S Murthy, Vṛṣabhadeva is supposed to have lived before the first half of 8th century CE (1997, p.28). Again he opines that Vṛṣabhadeva have commented upon the first two cantos along with the Vṛtti, 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 Vṛtti of Vākyapadīya by this commentary. This is probably the only ancient commentary available for the first canto, which follows the traditional style of commenting śāstra 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 Vākyapadīya.

5. Dravyesa Jha

Sanskrit grammarians consider Vākyapadīya as authentic as Mahābhāṣya of Patañjali. Hence this text has been included in the curriculum from old days. The verses of Vākyapadīya 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 Pratyekārthaprakāśikā on the first canto of Vākyapadīya, in this dimension. This was published from Vrindavan in 1926. The commentary is only for the verses of Vākyapadīya, but not for the Vṛtti. 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 kārikas of Bhartṛhari.

6. Suryanarayana Sukla

Bhāvapradīpa, a commentary on the Brahmakāṇḍa of Vākyapadīya 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 paramopādeyatāmālocya tattatparikṣādhyakṣaiḥ vyākaraṇācārya parikṣāyām niveśitasya tasya yathārtham arthāvabodhāya saralavyākhyām anviṣyadbhiḥ chātraiḥ tadalābhena prārthitena mayā Vākyapadīyabhāvapradīpanāmnī vyākhyā viracayya viśveśvaracaraṇakamalayoḥ samarpya bhavatāṃ karakamalayoḥ upahārīkriyate. (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 Vākyapadīya. 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:

pradīpasāhāyyam avāpya bhāśyam vigāhya tantrāntaram āgamāmśca
vitanyate vākyapadīyabhāvapradīpa eṣo'titarāmudāraḥ.
  —(Suryanarayana Sukla, 1)

This verse shows that he wrote Bhāvapradīpa commentary, absorbing the views from Mahābhāṣya of Patañjali along with the commentary Pradīpa by Kaiyaṭa as well as other tantras or schools of thought. He quotes from other texts also to give a clear idea of Bhartṛhari's verses, wherever necessary. While commenting upon the 31^st kārikā of Vākyapadīya, Sukla quotes from Ślokavārtika. 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 Vākyapadīya, which is equally praised by scholars and students. Probably this commentary, named Ambākartrī is the only commentary available for the whole text of Vākyapadīya along with the Vṛtti. 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 Vākyapadīya, 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 Vākyapadīya along with the commentary Ambākartrī have been published from Sampurnananda Sanskrit Visvavidyalaya, Varanasi. The Ambākartrī commentary of the first canto of Vākyapadīya is published along with the Svopajñavṛtti, while the second canto is with the Svopajñavṛtti and Ṭīkā of Puṇyarāja and the third canto is with the Prakīrṇaprakāśa of Helārāja. Hence this edition can be taken as a complete reference about the text Vākyapadīya.

Sarma took 16 years to complete his commentary Ambākartrī on the whole Vākyapadīya. He admits that he wrote commentary on the first book of Vākyapadīya by studying the verses and Vṛtti of Bhartṛhari and Paddhati commentary of Vṛṣabhadeva (acknowledgement). Though Raghunatha Sarma admits that he follows the commentary of Vṛṣabhadeva, this commentary can be considered an independent work.

8. Vamadeva Acarya

Vamadeva Acarya wrote a commentary on the first canto of Vākyapadīya, which is named Pratibhā. 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 śāstra text, Vamadeva Acarya had a new approach to Vākyapadīya. The text has an elaborated preface, which expounds the ideas of Bhartṛhari 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 Bhartṛhari and Vākyapadīya. He has critically edited all the three cantos Vākyapadīya along with the authentic commentaries. The first canto of Vākyapadīya is edited with the Vṛtti and the ancient commentary Paddhati of Vṛṣabhadeva from Deccan College, Pune. The second canto is edited with the Vṛtti and Ÿīkā of Puṇyarāja, which has been published from Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi. He compiled and edited the third canto along with the Prakāśa commentary of Helārāja in two parts, which is published in Deccan College Series. He also translated all the three kāṇḍas 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 Bhartṛhari and Vākyapadīya.

10. Dr. K Raghavan Pillai

There are several scholars from Kerala, who have endeavoured in the studies oh Vākyapadīya and Bhartṛhari. 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 Vākyapadīya into English. Though several translations of Vākyapadīya 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 śiṣya 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 Vākyapadīya into Malayalam. Prof. M H Sastri, who was a great scholar in more than one school of thought, wrote a commentary named Hariharaputrīyam. 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 Hariharaputrīyam.