40. Vidyadhara, the author of the Sahityavidyadhari

40. Buhler's mistaken Identity of Vidyadhara, the author of the Sahityavidyadhari, Commentary on the Naisadhiya Carita and of Caritravardhana, the author of Commentaries on Raghuvamsa, Kumarasambhava etc. f In one of my Notes on Indian Chronology on the date of Caritravardhana, I tried to fix the limits of his date. Incidentally I stated in this note that Caritravardhana was also called Vidyadhara or Sahityavidyadhara, son of Ramacandrabhisak. My statement of identity of Caritravardhana and Vidyadhara was based on the following entry in Aufrecht's Catalogue 2:- " caritravarddhana called also vidyadhara or sahityavidyadhara, son of Ramacandrabhisak. kumarasambhavatika, naisadhatika, raghuvamsatika, raghavapandaviyatika, sisupala- vadhatika " Though Aufrecht does not record the source of his identity of Caritravardhana and Vidyadhara, it appears to have its origin in the following statement of Dr. Buhler :- "He (Candupandita) asserts that before his time only one commentary on the Naisadha existed, composed by Vidyadhara (alias Sahityavidyadhara alias Caritravardhana muni). " It is not clear on what evidence Dr, Buhler bases this identity of Vidyadhara and Carit ravardhana. Perhaps it may have been based on mere hearsay. However, in his article on the Age of Calcutta Oriental Journal, Vol. III, pp. 37-40. 1. Annals. Vol. XV, pp. 109-111. (Note No. XIX). 2. Cata. Catalogorum, Part I, p. 186. 3. Report for 1874-75, p. 8. 251

Naisadhiya' published in 1875 Dr. Buhler does not refer to this identity, which leaves an impression that he was not aware of its mistaken character, otherwise he would have taken this opportunity to correct his original statement made in the Report under reference. He observes in his article:- "He (Candupandita) further states that in his time there existed only one commentary on it (Naisadhiya-carita) composed by Vidyadhara, alias Sahityavidyadhara of which I have found fragments at Jesalmere and Ahmedabad.". The pertinent verse² in Candupandita's commentary in which he refers to Vidyadhara reads as follows:- " tikam yadyapi sopapattiracanam vidyadharo nirmame sriharsasya tathapi na tyajati sa gambhiratam bharati | dikkulamkasatam gatairjaladharairudgrhyamanam muhuh paravaramapambu kimiha syajjanudaghnam kvacit || " No clue is furnished by this verse in favour of the identity of Caritravardhana and Vidyadhara as supposed by Dr. Buhler in his Report for 1874-75 and it appears that Aufrecht as a cataloguer has exceeded his powers to a certain extent in presuming this identity to be correct and modifying his entry accordingly by consolidating under the heading "Caritravardhana" works of two different authors viz. Caritravardhana and Vidyadhara. When I wrote my note on the date of Caritravardhana I did not doubt the truth of Aufrecht's entry. Subsequently Prof. Handiqui's edition of the Naissadhiya came to my hands. Prof. Handiqui devotes about 5 pages in the Introduction of this Edition to Vidyadhara and his commentary on the Naisadhiya. Vidyadhara's commentary was based on the text of the Naisadhiya preserved in the library of king Visaladeva of Gujarat, also called Apararjuna, who reigned till: 1264 A. D. Prof. Handiqui, therefore. assigns this commentator to the fifties or sixties of the 13 th century. The above information given by Prof. Handiqui in the light of Buhler's identity of Vidyadhara and Caritravardhana as sug- 1. Journal, BBRAS, Vol. XI (1875), p. 284. 2. Naisadha-Carita by Handiqui (Punjab Ori. Series), Intro p. X.

gested by him in his Report for 1874-75 led me to the belief that if Vidyadhara and Caritravardhana are not two different authors but are identical, then when the date for one of them viz. Vidyadhara is fixed, the date of the other viz. Caritravardhana is automatically settled. This belief had another harmonising factor in the fact that the date A. D. 1250 or 1260 for Vidyadhara was well. within the limits for Caritravardhana's date fixed by me on other evidence viz. A. D. 1172 and 1385. My belief, however, did not last long when I began to verify the source of Buhler's supposed identity of the two commentators viz. Vidyadhara and Caritravardhana. I began to hunt for Mss of Caritravardhana's commentary as such on the Naisadhiya in Aufrecht's Catalogue.' He records the following Mss of this commentary:- (1) B. 2.90 (p. 90 of Fascicule II of Buhler's Catalogue of Mss from Gujarat etc.-1872) (2) X. LXIII ( No. 142 of 1875-76 of the Govt. Mss. Library at the B. O. R. Institute, see extract on p. lxiii of Buhler's Report 1877). The description of the first of the two Mss revealed that it is not a Ms of Caritravardhana's commentary but of Vidyadhara's, judging from the description and name of the author viz. Vidyadhara recorded in the same. The second Ms viz. No. 142 of 1875-76 was examined by me and it also turned out to be a Ms of Vidyadhara's commentary and not of Caritravardhana's. The next question that arose out of the above disillusionment was: Whether Caritravardhana wrote any commentary on the Naisadhiyacarita different and distinct from Vidyadhara's commentary on the same Kavya? The Govt. Mss Library at the Institute has no Mss of this work. Aufrecht also did not record any other Mss of the work except the two mentioned above as wrongly ascribed to Caritravardhana. The answer to the above question is furnished by the statement of Pandit Shivadatta, who in his Sanskrit Introduction to the edition of the Naisadhiya-Carita 2 states that Caritravardhana wrote 1. Cata. Catalogorum, Part I, p. 306 b. 2. Naisadhiya-Carita with the Commentary of Narayana, (N. S. Press, Bo.nbay, 1874 ), p. 17.

a commentary on the Naisadhiya called Tilaka ( caritravardhanena viracita far) and that Vidyadhara wrote another commentary on the same work called Sahityavidyadhari ( vidyadharena viracita sahityavidya f). He further gives a list of the Mss of different commentaries on the Naisadhiya utilised by him and the persons from whom they were borrowed. This list includes a Ms of Tilaka commentary of Caritravardhana borrowed from Rajaguru Dadhica Candresvara of Jaipur and a Ms of Sahityavidyadhari from Rajaguru Narayanabhatta of the same place. Pandit Shivadatta has utilized both these commentaries in his footnotes to the edition e.g. footnote 1 on page 3 reads :- " atra sriharsairyamakamurajasarvatobhadrapramukhanbandhanarthapustikarananadrtyarthapustikaro'nu- prasabhidhasabdalamkarah prayah prayuyuje " iti caritravardhanaviracitatilaka vyakhya | ww The above evidence furnished by Pandit Shivadatta's statements proves that both these commentators viz. Vidyadhara and Caritravardhana are two different persons and that they wrote two different commentaries on the same work Naisadhiya. These commentaries are known by two different names. Caritravardhana's commentary is known by the name Tilaka while Vidhyadhara's is known by the name Sahityavidyadhari. Further we find that Mss of both these commentaries are in existence. One Ms of each of these commentaries was utilised by Pandit Shivadatta as far back as 1894. In my opinion the foregoing data have conclusively proved the mistaken character of Dr. Buhler's supposed identity of Vidyadhara and Caritravardhana and the consequent copying of this error by Aufrecht in his Catalogus Catalogorum at two places as pointed out above.