Kalplata Vivek

SR No.: 032756
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Murari Lal Nagar, Harishankar Shastry
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad
Publication Year: 1968
Total Pages: 550
Language: Hindi, Sanskrit
Classification: Book_Devnagari
File Size: 15 MB

Page 14

Ambaprasada had at his disposal the rich library of Acarya Hemacandra, which contained several works which we now know merely by name. He had thorougbly studied the subject on which he has tried to write a sycretism, which bespeaks his critical aptitude. So long as the original is not recovered it would not be possible to give any opinion regarding the value of the opinions he expressed there. Before we discuss the date of Kalpalata and Viveka it would not be out of place to dispose of a few incidental questions. It may be asked whether the text quoted above from Syadvadaralnakara refers to only two works viz. Kalpalata and Pallava, or to three viz. Kalpalata, s gloss (tatsamketa ), and Pallava. It is possible philologically to interpret the words thus: Kalpalatayam ca tatsamkete ca Kalpa pallave ca', as referring to three works. But it would be quite unwarranted first, because Viveka does not refer to any such gloss as distinct from Pallava, and secondly, because the verse below the colophon of the present work states that Pallava was the only (malra) commentary on Kalpalata.1 This statement is confirmed by the note on this verse waich categorically states that there was only one commentary (vivarana ) on Kalpalata. It rules out the possibility of any other commentary than Pallava, One may ask whether that text quoted from S. R may suggest that both Kalpalata and Pallava are written by Ambaprasada or that they have separate authors. There are several references in Viveka which apparently suggest that the authors of the two were distinct. There are several references in Viveka to Sulrakara, 3 Once there is a reference to the Sulrakara' as distinct from a Vyltikara. Moreover, there are several references to Granthakara." At one place granthakara' is distinguished from vayam'. All these may go to indicate that the authors of Kalpalata and Pallava were different persons. Though it is possible to account for some of these references, we are not at the present stage able to completely explain away these references, which may prima 1. कल्पपल्लवमात्रेण न ये कल्पलतां विदुः &c quoted earlier in extenso. .. अपरः इति एकस्मिन् विवरणे कृतेऽपरविवरणं श्रोतृणामवबोधहेतुतया श्रेयस एव / विवेक P. 320, l. 21. 3. Fagiaasta sita al fangreu CAF &c | ibid P. 237, 1. 4. also platt 57 sa alagrelheta 3747104547791 (ibid P. 265, 1. 22) 4. तत्र सूत्रकृदुदाहरणान्यग्रे प्रदर्शयिष्यते सम्प्रति तु वृत्तिकदेव विनेयविशेषव्युत्पत्त्यर्थ स्वय मदाहरणजातं किञ्चित् प्रदर्शयितुमाह / Viveka P. 280, 1. 21. Here सूत्रकार and वृत्तिकार are separately referred to. 5. Ora 70 TOT 177' etc. (ibid) P. 14, 1. 10. 6. aj , qa: 999 FTTTTTTTTE: 1 (ibid) P. 247, 1. 11.