Article contents
A Note on Bhagavadajjukam
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 December 2009
Extract
The only definite statements as to the authorship of the play occur in the commentaries in two different MSS., and are conflicting; one mentions Bodhayana as the author, while the other mentions the name of Indracarumani. There were several Bdhyanas, two of whom were poets and it is not easy to decide to whom the first of the above statements refers. Several plausible guesses have been made, based on evidence other than the statements in the two commentaries. It has been pointed out that the Bhagavadajjukam, in common with the plays of Bhsa, lacks all reference to the author in the text, begins with a Sthpan instead of the usual Prastavana, and bear some resemblances to them in style and diction. On the other hand, it has been shown that the play shows similarities to the Mttavilasa of Mahendra-vikrama Varman. Both plays ridicule Buddhist doctrines and extol Hindu Dharma. This argument gains strength from the fact that in the stone mscription at Mmundr, which has been proved to be that of Mhendra-vikrama, Bhagavadajjukam and Mattavilasa are mentioned in company. Similarities in diction have also been traced between the two. It will therefore be seen that the authorship of the play is still uncertain, and will continue to engage the attention of scholars for some time to come.
- Type
- Papers Contributed
- Information
- Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , February 1928 , pp. 33 - 35
- Copyright
- Copyright School of Oriental and African Studies 1928
References
page 33 note 1 Journal of the Bihar and Orissa Research Society, 3 1924. VOL. 5. PART i.Google Scholar
page 34 note 1 The Nandiverse contains this word. The Commentator says ׃ This commentary is not a published one.
page 34 note 2 South Indian Inscriptions, vol. 4.Google Scholar
page 34 note 3 Trivandrum Sanskrit Series. But in this edition the place where Bhagavadajjukam is mentioned, is not to be seen. I think it is due to an oversight on the part of Dr. Ganapati Sastrin. I give below the omitted portion ׃
- 2
- Cited by