The Nāmalingānus'āsana (Amarakosha) of Amarasimha with the Commentary (Amarakoshodghātana) of Kshīrasvāmin

Citation preview

THE AMARAKOSA (Namalinganusasana)

of

Amarasimha

With Critical Notes, Exhaustive Index of words and the commentary of Ksheeraswamin

THE

NAMALINGAINUS'ASANA (AMARAKOSHA) OF

AMARASI1KHA With the Commentary

(

Amarakoshodgharana.)

OF

KSHXRASVAXKZN.

Edited with critical Notes, an Essay on the time of

and Kshirasvdmin, a

list

Amarasimha

of works and authors

quoted, glossary of words, &c.

,

This edition of Amarakosha with the commentary of Kshirasvamin has been prepared from the following Manuscripts from the Deccan College collections :

A

No. 88 of 1871-72. The age of the Ms. is Samvat 1678 i. e. 1622 A. D. It is very old and tolerably correct. It contains the text and the commentary on the 2nd and 3rd Ka>idas and not on the 1st, as the first 52 leaves of the

B

It

copy are wanting.

copyist is

somewhat

is

reliable,

though the

careless.

No. 333 of 1875-76. The age of the Ms. is Samvat 1690 It is complete and comes from Jaipur. i. e. 1634 A. D. It is very reliable, as the copyist never interpolates extraneous information.

It

is,

therefore, taken as basis

in preparing the present Edition.

2005829

C

No. 332 of 1875-76. This Ms. is a new copy and contains the text and the commentary on the 1st K&nda and the first two vargas of the 2nd. It is said to be one of the Kashmere collections.

D

It is full of mistakes.

No. 273 of 1880-81. The age of the Ms. is Samvat 1812 It is complete and probably copied i.e. 1756 A.D. from the same original as A. It is, unreliable, as the copyist interpolates not only extraneous information, but his own information and that from later commentators as well.

very

E

It is

very incorrect and the copyist

is

careless.

No. 505 of 1884-87. This Ms. is correct and reliable, but it contains the text and the commentary only on the 1st

F

No. 506 of 1884-87. This Ms. does not contain the text and the commentary on the 1st K$Wa and the first It is otherwise reliable and four Vargas of the 2nd. tolerably correct.

somewhat N. B.

It is very old

and the copyist

is

careful.

Besides omissions and additions of letters, pi for a 3/a^ra for anusi&ra and a line

for

Visarga

5(rt

are

very frequent in the Manuscripts. The letters ^ for q or q for q, ^ for ^ or ^ for 3, sr for tf or s for 51, 5 for ? or for 5, ?r for * or * for ^ t &c. are met with on every page.

INTRODUCTION is

Amarasiinha's lexicon well-known to every Sanskrit student, work of the kind now extant. It is of great interest

the oldest

to note that,

though the production of a Buddhist,

it

has been uni-

versally accepted as an authority by the Brahmans and the Jainas alike. The fact that it has been commented upon by Buddhists like

Subhutichandra, by Jainas like ^sadharapandita andNachiraja,and by Brahmans like Kshirasv^min, Mallinatha* and Appayyadikshita testifies to its usefulness to

every class of Sanskrit students.

well-known fact that translations of the Amarakosha Chinese and Thibetan have been recently discovered.

a

It is

into

Many commentaries on the Amarakosha have been published, the most well-known of these being the one by Mahesvara and the other called Vyakhyasudha by Bh^nuji-Dikshita. But the and most important commentary now extant is the one by Kshirasvamin which is here offered to Sanskrit scholars. Its in-

oldest

terest

mainly

lies in

the fact that Kshirasvamin quotes numerous naming them, in support of his state-

authorities, sometimes without

The date of this commentator is now known. He quotes is quoted and Bhoja by Vardhamsina in the Ganaratnamahodadhi, and therefore belongs to the second half of the eleventh century. He was a man of profound learning, proofs of his erudition being found on every page. His works will be noticed in the Notes. He appears to have been a native of Central His atIndia from his use of the words snr, sRffar, ^Cir, &c. tachment to Rajasekhara and to Sn Bhoja makes this view highly probable. His mention of many words as Desi, which are really found in the Hindi and other Northern dialects, points to the same conclusion. Kshirasvamin was a devotee of Siva, as is obvious from the introductory verse and other indications in the commentary, and his name seems to have been suggested by the god ments.

*

Mallinatha'a commentary

is

called Amarapadaparijatam.

(

Kshiresvara

Mahadeva

at

4

)

In his com-

Kakupada near Kanoj.

all the well-known towns mentary, on page 47, he enumerates circumstance This situated in Central India. may also be taken of the view that he was not a native of Southern as

confirmatory

India, but belonged to Central India.

A

list

of authorities quoted by

him

is

given below

:

Lexicographical Authorities.

Abhidhanakara

Katya

9

2

Muni

3

Bhaguri Mala and the Malakftra

10 Abhidhanasesha 11 Anekartha

1

4 5

Nighanto

(

6

S'asvata

7

Amaramala Namamala

8

12 S'riharsha

13 Durga 14 Bhoja 15 Budra,

Vedic)

Commentators. 1

2

Upadhyaya Gauda

3

Bhoja

4

Medical

5

^charyah Narayanah

6

7ika.

Authorities.

Indu Chandranandana 8 Dhatuvidah

1

Susruta and Sausrutah

2 3

Vaidyah (chiefly Charaka) and his Dhanvantari

4

Nighaniu (medical) Vahato or Vagbham

9

5

Chandra

10 Haramekhalam.

6

7

Nimih

Kesava in his Kalpadruma enumerates the Koshakaras thus: i

^Ff^i^j?rt5ii?ii

i%5f^^ f^Riforin:

11

which Kesava enumerates the names, may be order, taken as chronological, Katya necessarily stands as foremost in He is cited with great respect and so often by Kshirasvatime. min as to suggest his priority to Amarasimha. AVe are told that the year begins with Hemanta irfl^cTrf^ 3rB^rc*?:, and

If the

in

:

Kshirasvamin

cites

Katya as his authority thus

:

i

(

p.

23

)

(

From

5

)

it would appear that Katya is older than AmaraThe same remark may be made as regards muni who may probably be identified with Vyadi. The third in the list is Bh&-

this

simha.

guri, as to

whose priority to Amarasimha, Kshirasvamin thus

remarks on

p.

70

:

On page 148 we meet with the remark of Kshirasvamin that Malakara was led astray by mistaking for 5R in Bhaguri's state-

^

ment

^^

^3

and that this author,

i. e. Amarasimha, was in by the latter. It is thus clear that in the opinion of Kshirasvamin Bhaguri and the Malakara preceded Amarasimha B It may be pointed out here that the author of the Mala is not only* frequently quoted as an authority, but is sometimes adversely criticized by Kshirasvamin. :

?ic^

his turn misled

S'asvata, as it contains

Anekartha Samuchchaya only,

is

an

It ncomplete work though frequently quoted by Kshirasvamin. is nevertheless much fuller than Amarasimha's Nanarthavarga,

though in some places both agree word for word, e.g. e*g and 3?gw. On these grounds the S'asvata may be regarded as a later work than the Amarakosha. According to the last verse in Prof. Zachariae's edition

it

was composed

:

in

consultation with

Varaha who

may

be

On page

118 Amarasimha says that means 3TTi%s*i means 3Ti^3?4, while Katya and Mala say that inftT: Kshirasvamin adds that sn^Rf x^Twwf 'for this very 3Ti%ft:.

identified with Varahamihira.

:

reason S'asvata gives both the meanings'. This constitutes a further proof o S'asvata's posteriority to Amarasimha.

The next authority quoted by Kshirasvamin is Durga who together with Bhoja are his latest authorities. The Vedic Nighantfu is twice quoted. The Amaramala is thrice quoted though we know The Namamala is thrice nothing as to its age and authorship. Some quotations appear on pp. 72, 75 and or four times quoted. 169 which are ascribed to Eudra by Bhanuji Dikshita.

Among

the

Kshirasvamin, are

commentators on Amarakosha, who preceded to Upadhyaya, Gauda and Bhoja. According

6

(

)

Radhakanta, Upadhyayais Achyutopadhyaya whose commentary on Amarakosha is called Vyakhya-pradipa. Gauofowas another commenBoth these commentator on Amarakosha before Kshirasvamin. The third is Bhoja about whose tators are quoted and criticized. commentary we know nothing. Nor do we know anything about the commentators ^charyah, Narayanan, &c.

A uthorities.

Medical Since

Kshirasvamin

SgciSTO (p. 80), qsfrti