________________
xviii
Dr. M. Krishnamacharyar says that Siṁhabhūpāla who wrote the commentary on the Sangītaratnākara is different from the author of Rasārņavasudhākara'. He does not give any explanation. It is true that while he gives an elaborate description of his ancestry in the introductory portion of the Rasārņavasudhākara, he gives little information about himself in his commentary. This must be due to the fact that he wrote the commentary after he wrote the Rasārnavasudhākara. It is not possible at this stage to investigate the point on the basis of any internal evidence. I must wait for that till the whole of the commentary is published. But the colophon in the two works proves the identity of the authors beyond any doubt. The question of a work called Nāta kaparibhāsa, the question of Rasārņavasudhākara having been written by another person who was a favourite in the court and the question of the authors of the two works being different-such questions should not have been raised, and if the points had been properly investigated such doubts would not have been raised. But since they are found in works well known and relied on by many, it has become necessary for me to investigate the points and make certain remarks on them.
See Classical Sanskrit Literature, footnote 1, p. 853. The colophon in Rasārņavasudhākara read as follows: इति श्रीमदन्ध्रमण्डलाधीश्वरप्रतिगण्डभैरवश्रीयनपोतनरेन्द्रनन्दनभुजबलभीमश्री
faxzafa faa Taraguaalfa etc. This may be compared with the colophon at the end of the first chapter of the commentary. Further the identity of the names gut in both works too point out to the identity of the authors.
Scanned by Gitarth Ganga Research Institute
