2023-09-10 12:45:55 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
xviii
Bhaktimandakinī
devotion to Kṛṣṇa is treated in the manner of the Vaiṣṇava po-
ets. This doubt, which is apparently serious, can be dispelled by
a careful knowledge of the details pertaining to the Daśanāmis.
Daśanāmis generally greet each other with the expression, namo
nārāyaṇa. Among the tutelary deities of the four mathas to
which the ten orders of ascetics are attached, Ādivarāha, Ja-
gannātha and Viṣṇu himself are included. This sort of integrated
vision might have naturally encouraged Pūrṇasarasvatī to write
about both Śiva and Viṣṇu.¹4
14
Pūrṇasarasvati and his identification with Viṣṇubhaṭṭa
N. V. P. Unithiri, one of the editors of this volume, attributes three com-
mentaries on Murari's Anargharāghava to Pūrṇasarasvatī, namely: 1) the
Anargharaghavapañcikā, a detailed commentary published in this series, 2)
the Ceriyapañcikā, an abridged version of the Pañcika, and 3) a Tippana.
But another editor of this volume, Hari Narayana Bhat, who in 1998 pub-
lished the Anargharāghavapañcikā (Publications du Department d'indologie
82.1-2), ascribes it to a certain Vișnubhaṭṭa. 15 According to N.V.P. Uni-
thiri, Pūrṇasarasvatī might have been known as Vișnubhaṭṭa during his
purvāśrama, that is to say, before his initiation to asceticism as a disciple of
Pūrṇajyotis, and might have composed the Anargharāghavapañcikā during
this period. Moreover, according to him, there are common references in
the Anargharaghavapañcika and other works of Pūrṇasarasvatī. The spe-
cific one to which attention could be drawn is the eye of the vulture known
for its sharpness of vision, which is alluded to by quoting the same line
from a common source text on medicine. 16 Thus, while N.V.P. Unithiri in
his book Paurṇasarasvati (2004:37-46) concludes that Pūrṇasarasvati and
Viṣṇubhaṭṭa are identical and dates them to the second half of the four-
teenth century and first half of the fifteenth century, Hari Narayana Bhat
differs from this view, for he is not persuaded by the identification of Purna-
sarasvatī with Vișnubhatta. To explain his disagreement, Hari Narayana
Bhat, in his introduction to the Anargharaghavapañcikā, draws attention
to the divergence of opinion between Pūrṇasarasvatī and Viṣṇubhaṭṭa on
matters related to dramaturgy and he highlights the variations in the text
of the Anargharaghava adopted by these two commentators as well as the
14N.V.P. Unithiri (2004), p. 19.
15 Hari Narayana Bhat (1998), pp. xxiii-xxiv.
16
Bhaktimandākinī 51:6-7; Anargharāghavapañcikā on Anargharāghava V.5.
Bhaktimandakinī
devotion to Kṛṣṇa is treated in the manner of the Vaiṣṇava po-
ets. This doubt, which is apparently serious, can be dispelled by
a careful knowledge of the details pertaining to the Daśanāmis.
Daśanāmis generally greet each other with the expression, namo
nārāyaṇa. Among the tutelary deities of the four mathas to
which the ten orders of ascetics are attached, Ādivarāha, Ja-
gannātha and Viṣṇu himself are included. This sort of integrated
vision might have naturally encouraged Pūrṇasarasvatī to write
about both Śiva and Viṣṇu.¹4
14
Pūrṇasarasvati and his identification with Viṣṇubhaṭṭa
N. V. P. Unithiri, one of the editors of this volume, attributes three com-
mentaries on Murari's Anargharāghava to Pūrṇasarasvatī, namely: 1) the
Anargharaghavapañcikā, a detailed commentary published in this series, 2)
the Ceriyapañcikā, an abridged version of the Pañcika, and 3) a Tippana.
But another editor of this volume, Hari Narayana Bhat, who in 1998 pub-
lished the Anargharāghavapañcikā (Publications du Department d'indologie
82.1-2), ascribes it to a certain Vișnubhaṭṭa. 15 According to N.V.P. Uni-
thiri, Pūrṇasarasvatī might have been known as Vișnubhaṭṭa during his
purvāśrama, that is to say, before his initiation to asceticism as a disciple of
Pūrṇajyotis, and might have composed the Anargharāghavapañcikā during
this period. Moreover, according to him, there are common references in
the Anargharaghavapañcika and other works of Pūrṇasarasvatī. The spe-
cific one to which attention could be drawn is the eye of the vulture known
for its sharpness of vision, which is alluded to by quoting the same line
from a common source text on medicine. 16 Thus, while N.V.P. Unithiri in
his book Paurṇasarasvati (2004:37-46) concludes that Pūrṇasarasvati and
Viṣṇubhaṭṭa are identical and dates them to the second half of the four-
teenth century and first half of the fifteenth century, Hari Narayana Bhat
differs from this view, for he is not persuaded by the identification of Purna-
sarasvatī with Vișnubhatta. To explain his disagreement, Hari Narayana
Bhat, in his introduction to the Anargharaghavapañcikā, draws attention
to the divergence of opinion between Pūrṇasarasvatī and Viṣṇubhaṭṭa on
matters related to dramaturgy and he highlights the variations in the text
of the Anargharaghava adopted by these two commentators as well as the
14N.V.P. Unithiri (2004), p. 19.
15 Hari Narayana Bhat (1998), pp. xxiii-xxiv.
16
Bhaktimandākinī 51:6-7; Anargharāghavapañcikā on Anargharāghava V.5.