Mallinath Suri

The experience of a literary travellor in the field of ancient literatures is that little is known about the great writers. This is particularly true in the case of Sanskrit writers. A sort of modesty that makes the writer refrain from giving out his bio-data and the absence of a sense for historical facts may be the two reasons for this phenomenon. Great writers like 13harata, Kalidasa Bhavabhati Anandavardhana, Abhinavagupta and most of others, even in the field of kistras followed the examples of their predecessors in not revealing their biographical indentity. As such even to make a scanty sketch of their lives one has to depend upon whatever can be gleaned from the writings of their successors. But here the gap of time between a certain writer and his admirer coming after him cannot be determined with accuracy for want of detailed historical data.

MaInn-Atha, the renowned scholiast of the famous poets and authors in Sanskrit, is no exception to the above observation. Though the commentaries on the popular poetical works like the Raghtwarpaa. Siguptilavadha etc. have made him an unchallenged monarch of commentators, very little is known about his personal history. His nativity still remains a riddle affording opportunities to scholars to claim him as belonging to their pan of country in accordance with their prejudices. Vionanacharya Jhalkikar, for example, proclaims himself as a native of Gajendraghad; but does not adduce any convincing evidence'. Equally inconvincing is the

I. Zhalkikar says that the descendants of Mallinatha ot Kagyapagotra, are still living at Gajendragahad (in Satara Di In Karnataka), ell in the footnote of prastavana to his edit. of k5vyaprakata with his own commentary. Also see M.R. )(ales intro. to Raghuvarnsa, p.xi

stantinatha- A Study theory that he belonged to Devapura, an agrahara in the north2. But scholars like M.S. Sastry3 have argued convincingly that tvIallinatha was a native of Telangana.

Life and Works of Mallinatha

As internal evidence to establish the place of origin of Mallinatha is very scanty, we have to depend upon external evidence. The most valuable in this regard is the evidence of Vcrthataneiroyana, the author of the Padayojati, a commentary on Bhoja's Cam/VS/yap. He claims himself, in the introductory verses of his work to be the eighth descendant of Mallinathas.

We also note that Mallinatha wrote a work called Vai4yavarniasudhakara6.This document contains the findings of Mallinatha, who was called upon by the king Praudhadevaraya II of Vidyanagara to adjudicate on a business dispute between two sects of vai§ya community. In the course of this work Mallinatha refers to a telugu work, the Dharmapalacarita written in Dvipada metre and hither to unknown, and a telugu commentary on the Arnarakoia by Nagabhaya1.These references besides the citation of the Telugu passages in the Vaikyavandasudhakara, undoubtedly establish his Andhra origin. In addition to this the surname of Mallinatha

Kolacala also indicates that he is an Andhra; for there arc even today certain families with the surname Kolacala in Andhra.

  • K.P.Trivcdr s introduction to Ekavali p.xxvii. (Govt. Oriental Book Dept, . Bomaby 1903).
  • Ref. M.R.Kale s introduction to Raghuvantha p.xi. 10opal Narayna &co, Bombay. 19251
  • Madras Govt. Orient. MSS I.ib. Madras. D.12281.S. Ibid.. introductory verses 5 to 8.
  • Cat. Of Ski. Mss. in Govt. Lib. Mysore. 1922 p.563.
  • The Vaigyavam§asudhakara of Kolac.ala Mallinatha by Dr. V.Raghavan. New Indian Antiquary, Vo1.11,NO.7 1939.

Mallinatha's Nativity

Regarding the word kolicala, the surname of Mallinutha, there are different opinions. The name is found in various forms as koldcala, kolacarla and kolacalama. Scholars have located the village going by these three names in different part of India. 1Kolacalaina' is said to be a village near Warangals

Kolacerla is a village near Kanyakumari in the southern part of India. Kolacala is a Sanskritised name of 1-W101pa4a of the Telugu country. As we have already noticed above that Mallinatha belonged to the Andhra country, we can easily dismiss the theory of Kanyakumari vicinity of this village. When the village Kolachalam near Warangal is a certainty there is no reason why we should consider the Sanskritised form of Pandipa4u. and very thought of identifying kohicala as Sanskritised form of PandipMju sounds ridiculous. So on the strength of the evidence adduced we can presume that Mallinatha was a native of the viallage Kolachalam near Warangal and that the variations in the spelling are due to differences in pronunciation in different pans at different times.

Mallinfitha's Family

Mallinatha does not speak of his ancestors anywhere. But Kumfirasviimin, the commentator on the PraMparudrayakbhOwa, popularly known as Pratiparuthiya of Vidyamitha. informs us that he is the son of Mallimitha, who is proficient in all Sistras.and he adds that he is the brother of Kolacala Peddayarya himself, who is a

8. Kolacalamavam an article in Telugu by Veturi Prabhakara Saari; Rel. Andhra Patrika Ugadi special issue, I 922,p.I83. Here V.P.Sastry quotes Iwo verses of Telugu in support from Velugotivari Vainaavali - thus Virundayacaprthvivibbudu phorajM dhad jellan Kolacalamapuri...baliyudai turakala yasvamulanu battinada


Manlinatha A Study great writer. But Venkatanarayana, the author of the Padayojana, states that one Mallinathagatavadhanin who was honoured by Virarudra10 was the father of kapardin and the grandfather of Malliniitha, the famous commentator. Kapardin had two sons Mallinatha and Peddibhatta - who was a Mahopadhylya and commentator on the Naisadha and Kumarasvamin was the son of the Mahopadhyaya Peddibhatta . Thus the genealogies according of Kumarasvamin and Venkatanarayana are as follows:-


Malli tatha

Peddibhatta (Mahopzidhyaya and commentator on Nai:adha)


A glance at these two genealogical lists shows that there is a difference between the two. Whereas Kumarasvamin speaks of Peddibhatta as his brother. Venkatan5rityana speaks of Peddibhatta as the father of Kunarasvamin. Moreover it is not certain whether Peddayirya and Peddibhalla are one and the same. This is a problem yet to be solved. Quite regardless of this riddle we can proceed to assume that the account given by Venicatanarayana, who was separated by eight generations from Mallinotha cannot be more

10. Ile is identified to be Kakatiprataparudra (1296-1323 AD.) of Warranga Ibid

Life and Works of NIallinatha

authentic than the accou nf Kama rasvatnin, a direct descendant of Mallinatha. The hearsay information must have misled Valkapnankyasa to commit this error. Kumerasvimin refers to Mallinatha as his father in a number of places in his Ratnipapalt

Thus we gather that Mallinatha belonged to a family of scholars proficient in kistras and honoured by the then rulers of the place. His grandfather Mallinatha who attained great fame through his iatavailhand had received honours from Vfrarudra of Warangal. the father of Mallinatha, was also a great Pandit who wrote the Srautasistrakarik avail. etc. Ivtallinatha's son Kumarasvamin wrote a commentary on the Prataparudriya, while Mallinatha himself produced a commentary on the EX-avail of Vidyadhara. We note from the introductory verses of Verikapargyana in his Padayojana that the members the Kolacala family so far traced were scholars in the Vedas as well as aastras and that they had also performed sacrifices".

H.Education of Mallinatha

Nothing is known about the childhood and studentship of Mallinatha. Neither he nor his successors have made mention of it anywhere. It is not improbable to assume that he had his schooling under his own father, who himself was a great scholar. We may

  • 11. See introductory verse 4 and pp.18,23,34,99- Prataparudriya Ed. By Dr.V.Raghavan, 1970.
  • 11. The performance of iatavadhana is a peculiar academic feat, and a characteristic feature of Andhra scholars.
  • 12. Kolacalmanvaya'bdhinduh MallinatM, mabayailih Satavadhanavikhyato Virarudrabhivarsitah for Virarudra • S.V.U.O.R.I, Tirupati, Mss•No.128 I.
  • 11.Tanayn stasya catinro mahadevaly tadagrajan mahadeveinnajal, kambhuh saptakraiu mabhigawin tatmlivinirant krmi yajtlaw sarrasvadakkinant aambhuyiyiltmajo trthogrivarayafrikhyo catvor0 redaverlinal, jinataro picatvara etair nirvartitadvarah etc. Ibid

Assume that such a practice prevailed in the past. But because of his characteristic humility he might not have mentioned any fact about himself or his preceptors in any of his works. It is also probable that he is silent over his schooling as he did not study anything under any one excepting his father Kapardin, who was considered a great scholar at that time's. In the absence of any reliable information it is natural to expect a web of stories woven around him and we do find many such stories current in the country. One of them states that Mallinatha was a dunce in the beginning, who afterwards went to Benares and acquired knowledge through hard work. Another informs that Mallinatha being dull-witted was serving a sarpngsth who lived nearby for the sake of knowledge. One day he entrusted this work to his younger brother Peddibhatta, who readily obeyed his commands and this samnyasin, when he was about to leave this world made his mantropadda to Peddibhatta on the promise that the fruits of this upadda should go to Mallinatha on whom the sarnnyasin wanted to bestow his grace. Peddibhafia ever since became more and more brilliant and to keep to his word given to the Sa17717yaSill wrote all the commentaries in the name of Mallinatha. According to yet another story, Peddibhatta and Mallinatha are one and the same and not different personalities. But it is unauthentic and unhistorical, as we know for certain on the testimony of Kumarasvamin that

IS. The following arc the works of Kapardin from V.P.Sastri's article - AY.. Ugadi Special No.1922

  • a. Apastambagrhyasfitrahh4ya.
  • b. Apastambagrparisiga.bhAsya
  • c. Apastamba grautabha,cya.
  • d. Darla paroanasa bhAsya,
  • e.Bharadcaja grhya Salta

f.Nlallinatha and Peddibhatta were neither brothers nor identical personalities. They were not only different persons, but were related as father and son'°, if Peddibhatta and Peddayarya are taken as referring to one and the same person.

g. Though we do not know anything about schooling we understand from his own statement and his son's that he was a Mahopadhyayal 7, a title conferred on outstanding scholars and that he was a great scholar who devoured the ocean-like Jyautisalistram. He was well-versed in Pada, Vilkya and Pram/ins. His commentaries not only testify to this fact, but also show him to be quite at home with the other branches of learning too. In short, there is no branch of literature that he had not mastered. The very fact that he was invited by Devaraya-Il to settle a dispute by interpreting a aasana at Kafichi itself certifies to his oceanlike knowledge.

  • h. Works of Mallinatha
  • i. The following works have been attributed to Mallinatha:
  • j. I. Saiyivani- a commentary on the Kag,huvamga of Kalidasa"
  • k. 16. The introductory verses No.4. and Sand the colophons of Ratnapana AlsilinathasOnuna peddayaryasys anufena Kumirasvimi somapthini
  • l. rte.
  • m. 17 a) Mallinathssucillis so nni AishoptiorhySys Sabdablia Intro.verse.5, in Sisupalavadha.
  • n. b) a.smaninshopfdfr2iya %tens Atighalyzikhyane Ratnapana..p.6, Ed. Dr.V.Raghavan.
  • o. cl Prapsnwitanz asmannishopadhyis Mallhathasariori EktivaliTardo Ibid.,p.95.
  • p. 18 Triskandhakistrajsladhilliculuki kurute sou rjali q. Tasya Sri Mallinathasya - Intr.verse., No.4 Ratnapana. Jyauriss is called TriskandhSfistra since it consists of three branches viz.. Afulnina, Beaks and Siddhanta.
  • r. 19. Printed several editions in different scripts.
  • I 7. Svaramafijariparimala (Vertigo)"

Since Mallinatha is said to have devoured the entire Jyaatia- ifistra there is every reason to believe that he might have composed a book on Jyautitsa also.

Apart from these commentaries Mallinitha is said to have written the following independent works:

Apart from these commentaries Mallinitha is said to have written the following independent works:

(1) Uthirakavyais,.(2) Ragbuviracaritams,(3) Vaidyakalpatarul4) Vaidyaratnanalle(5) Vakfravamaasudhakara or sudithwava>39,(6) Amfigy ran no Vedalakwa work on vowel endings in Tailliriyasamhia

We have to examine carefully the above list to determine the works actually written by Mollinitha. Even here we have to depend upon internal and external evidences only for determining whether they are genuinely the works of Mallinatha. instead of depending on the colophons of the works. The colophons might be misleading at times. For external evidence we can depend on his son Kumarasvimin. In his commentary Rainfipaaa Kumirasvamin alludes to the works of his father. He refers to Mallinitha in two different terms as tfitapida (four times on pp. I 8,23,34,99), upidhytiyi (twice on pp. 163. 268) and as mahoptidhyaya twice (on pp.6,95).

Kumarasvamin mentions Sarylvani. thrice42 , Sarvaiika$ Ghapfaparha once", Tara& thrice', and Siddhalyana once46. The Safijivani referred to here is the name of the commentary for the three works of Kalidasa. Hence we note that Kumarasvamin refers to seven works of his father. As for internal evidence we note that Mallinatha himself makes mention of his works as necessitated in commentaries. In his commenatary Tarala he mentions his five commentaries on the five kavyaf (i.e. Raghuvamea, Kumarasambhava, Meghasamdeaa, Kinitarjuniya, SYS`upilavadha and the Pragastespidabha,spi a. The Tarala, a commentary on Ekavali, speaks of his commentary on Svaramalijariparimalaa. The commentary Siddhanjana" on the Tantravartika is reffered to in his nimbi. From these simple references we understand that Mallinfitha wrote ten works. Apart from the seven commentaries referred to by Kumarasvamin Mallinatha mentions two more commentaries - one on the pragastapadabhei,sya in Ni5lcapiaka and other on the Svaramafijariparfinala in Tarala. If we add the three commentaries on the Tarkikaraksi, on theSvaramaryariparimala and on the Praaastapidabhisya

to the above list of seven the total comes to ten. Besides, he has written commentaries upon two more texts. namely the Na45adhiyacarita and the Bhaoilcdvya. Thus in all he seems to have written 12 works. Mallinatha must have finished only 5 kavyas at the time of writing his commentary on the Tarkikaraksa. Though he does not mention his Vadyavalogasudhlikara anywhere in his works ills clear from the colophon of that work that it is by Mallinatha onlysi. Thus it can be clearly proved that Mallinatha is the author of thirteen works in all.

Regarding the other commentaries such as the Amarapadaparouta on the Amarakota, kivyadada, Nalodaya, Lashugabdendo§ekhara, all ascribed to Mallinatha. it is doubtful whether they are really commented upon by him, for no authoritative evidence can be produced to establish that he is the author of these commentaries on these works. In fact Mallinatha - the commentator of the Amarapadaparijata - is quite different form tvlallinatha - the author of the Safijivani, etc. The former was the son of Nrsimhasetri, while the latter was the son of Kapardin. The author of the Vaimalyavidhayint a commentary on the Kay.rodark is another IvIallinatha and not Mallinatha, the subject of the present study. In the same manner Mallinatha who have written commentaries on the Nalodaya, Laghugabdooduackhara and on Nyisa (Ayfisoddyota > by name), may be different from our Mallinatha. If at all our Mallinatha wrote a commentary on the Katyzfidath,he would have certainly made a mention of it in any

51. Colophon iti pada vakya pratnana paravaraparina kolAcala Mallinatha sorivitacite VaiAyavamAa sudharnave (sudhAkare) V.Raghavan, op.cit

52. P.V. Kane. op.cit

I Alaillinatha- A Study one of his commentaries in view of the importance of the work. He could not certainly have written the commentary on the Lagludabdendukkhara, because he was senior to the author of the Laghu.0abdenduJekhara by about three hundred years.

Regarding the other original works ascribed to Mallinatha like the Udirakivya, Rashuffracarita. Vaidyakalpataru and Vaidyaratnamilii. we do not have any conclusive evidence for his authorship of them. Trivedi informs us that 1'. Ganapati Sastri claimed to have been in possession of a few leaves of the Raghuviracarita53. but they have not so for seen the light of day. Therefore we may assume that our tvlallinatha wrote only the thirteen works menlioned earlier.

Chronology of Mallinatha's works

To determine the chronology of the thirteen works of Mallinatha is very difficult. Mallimitha himself is of little help in this regard as he seems to have paid little or no attention to mention the order of composition of his works. The refernces he makes here and there to his other works in the work on hand are given only to minimize duplication of the work which he has already said in his other works. These references offer some help to determine the chronology of his works.

A glance at these stray references reveals the fact that Mallinatha finished the commentaries on the five kivyas before he proceeded with the commentaries on the kistric works. In his NiM-aptaka, the commentary on the Tarkikaraksa he makes mention of his commentaries on the fivelanyar There itself he

53. See Trivedi s Intro, to Ekãnti, p.XXV.

54. di In.47.

Sa &Ivan! - a commentary on the Kunthrasambhava of Kalidasa
Safijivani - a commentary on the Mahadata of Kalidasa
Ghapthpatha- a commentary on theKiratirjuniya of Bharavi2°
Sarvankasa - a commentary on the SiSupalavadha of 1v1aghan
fivatu - a commentary on the Naisadhiyacarita of Sriharsa2-
Sarvapathina - a commentary on theRivapavadha of 13hat1in
Commentary on the Nalodaya'4
Tarala - a commentary on the Ekavaliof Vidyadhara's
Vannalyavidlthyini - a commentary on theKiityadarta of Daodire

1.Amarapadaparifita - a commentary on the Amarakad
Niskaptaka - a commentary on the Tarkikaraksi of Varadaraja's Nikaa - a commentary on the PraSastapadabhaya(Vaucsika)29
14.Commentary on the Sabdenduackhara (Grammar)1°
IS. Nyasoddyota - a commentary on the Nyasa of linendrabuddhin
16- Siddhafijana - a commentary on the Tantravartika (Mimarnsa)32,
and also mentions his commentary on the Prasastap§dabhasya`i5. His Tarald invites our attention to his Tanzrav5r1ikarikz“{° and the commentary on the Svaramar1ja1ipaninala57. Thus we may note the probable chronological order of these
l. Commentaries on the Paricakavyas,
2. Commentary Mkasé on the Prasastapadabhisya,
3. Commentary Nislrapgaka on the Hrkikaralrsi
4. Commentary on the Tantravarnka,
5. Commentary on the S varamarljarquanrnala, and
6. Commentary Taralé on the Ekavali
After these Mallinatha must have written his commentary Sarvaparhina on the Bhayikavya and followed it by the commentary Jivitu on the Naisadhiyacarita and finally his Vaisya vamsasudhékara. The foregoing account gives the probable chronology of his thirteen works in general. As regards his commentaries on Parlcakivyas, the references to his writings given in these works may help to fix their chronology. The Sarvamkasa, his commentary on the Sisupalavadha. mentions Mallinatha’s commentaries on the other kzivyas. namely. Raghuvamsa, Kumérasambhava, Mcghasamdesa and Kiritarjuniyam. From this we note that Mallinatha completed the commentaries on the three poems of Kalidasa and Kirauyuniya by the time he started his ' commentary upon the Raghuvamsa first for the following reasons:

His commentary on the Raghuvamsa docs not speak of any of his other works. His introductory verses in the Raghuvaméa inform us
S5. Ibid, p.S6.7a.
S6. ef. fn. $0 above.
57. cf. fn. 57
58. tadetat sarvam asmabhih Kalidasa traya safnjivanyim . . . vivecitam - S.V.
N.S. Edu., p.3l9. com. on Xlll-24. Tadetat samyak vivecitam asmabhih
Kiratarjunatikayam Ghantapathe - lbid.. XI]-5.
ii" `I
ta Maminatha- AStiidy
that he thought of writing commentaries on the three poetic works of Kalidasa, as the previous commentaries written by others were not able to explain satisfactorily K5lidasa`s poetic beauties. The line vayam ca kilidisolrtiisva vakisam Iabhamahc. found at the very beginning of the commentary on the Raglzuvamsa shows that this is his first commentary. ln addition to this we can also feel his psychological pulse in writing propitiatory verse at the beginning of i
every canto of the Ragliummsa alone, a feature not found in any other work. Further, his commentaries on the Kumirasamb/za vag and the Mcghasamde§a°0 refer to his commentary on the Raghuvamsia. His commentary on the Kirittijunifva also refers to his Samjfvani on the Raghuvamsa. Hence he should have commented upon the Raghu vaméa at the beginning. Now to determine the order of compositions among the commentaries on the Kumirasambhava, Meghadzita and . Kmfraqungva is a difficult problem. ln all these three works i Mallinatha mentions only Raghuvamsa and no other work. As such we are forced to depend upon indirect evidence only to determine the order in which they were written. The title Samjiwmi is common to all the three commentaries on the three Kalidasa poems. As such we may surmise that Mallinatha wrote commentary on the Kumzirasambhava after finishing the commentary on the Raghuvamsa and followed it by commentaries on the Meg/wdtita and Kirzmigbniva. As all these commentaries are referred to in the commentary on the Sisupalavadham it might be 59. Tad cm! Raghuvamsh sarijivanyzim (Vll—22) suvyaktam avocam—com. on KS
60. a) tad ctat sarvam samyak vivecitam Raghuvamsa
sanjivanyam·Megh. l·40.
blKamasastra samvadcna samyak vivecitam asmabhih Raghuvamsa
saitjivanyim - Ibid., ll.24.
61 .cf. fn. 58.

. Lil}: and Works ol’Ma1linatlta IS
his last commentary on parIcaIr.§vyas°:. The commentary on the Naisadha alludes to the commentaries on the KUm•'.lf3S&mbh8V36`:. and Kiririgunryau. Silence over the Jivétu in Sarvankasa and vice versa presents another riddle as to their order of composition. But we assume that he wrote Jivatu at a later stage as the introductory verses in Mrrsadha do not follow the style and pattern of those found in his commentaries on the other kiryas. lt is interesting to note here that some editions of Naisadha do not contain any introductory verses to the commentary. If the traditional anecdote about Mallinatha can be relied upon, perhaps he did not intend writing a commentary on the !\'a1Qsadha. But prevailed upon by his friends, though he told them that his energies and time had been spent in commenting on the Siéupélavadba and Meghadtlra (méghe meghe galarn vayah), he took up writing a commentary on the Niusadha, to please his friends. That is why, perhaps it is so brief,in spite of the fact that this kivya deserves a detailed commentary.

The fact that his commentary for the last canto of the Naisadha is not available may also suggest that he might not have completed his commentary on the text. because he took it up last. lf this point is conceded we can conclude that he commented on the text. because he took it up last. lf this point is conceded we can conclude that he commented upon those works in the following order: (l) Raghuvaméa, (2) Kumarasarnbhava. (3) Mcghadma, (4) KlTl;IHIjUH];}‘27, (5) Siéupilavadha, (6) Bhamkévyar (7) 62. The traditional way of introducing Kévyas in an order to a student beginning with the Raghuvamsa and ending with the Sisupilavadha followed in these days must have been adhered to by MN in respect of the order of the commentaries written.
63. tad etal samyalt vivecitam asmabhih Kumarasambhava satljtvanyam - NC VIlI»99.
64 . cf. fn.58 (b) I

lo Mal|unatna· A atuuy
Naisadhiyacarira. After the parlcakavyas and before taking up the Bhattilrivya and the Naisadha he commented upon Praéastapadabhasyra. Tantra vartika, Swrramadjaripanhiala and Ekavali. His Vaiéyavaméasudhakara belonged to his old age. and it might be his last work.

Mallinlthfs aim as n commentator:

Mallinatha's objective in writing commentaries are made explicit by him in his commentaries. He was a votary of Kalidasa, whose poctical works had already been commented upon by many a scholar. Mallinatha is in touch with most of the commentaries that were current in his time. He might have even studied a few of them as a student also. As observed before, he made up his mind to write enlightening commentaries on the katyas of Kalidasa free from the shortcomings he had observed in the previous commentaries. His love for Kalidasa was so great that he regarded the utterances of Kalidasa as unparalleled. He says that the essence of Kalidasa’s words can be known only by Kalidasa himself, Sarasvati, the ‘Goddess of speech` and Caturmukha ‘the creator` and not by the person like himselibs. Because of his sensitive appreciation of Kalidasa’s works, already available. They were not capable of revealing the entire personality of Kalidasa. Hinting at this he says: the language or speech lBharatil of Kalidasa lay unconscious because of the poison of the bad commentaries. As such the present commentary Saryivani enlivens it°°. ` The expression durtyalrhy-aid5am0rch:'ta is a somewhat pungent remark against the earlier commentators. But he was conscious of his capacities. and confident of delivering the goods in his comments.
65. Kalidasagiram saram Kalidasas Sarasvati Caturmukho thava saksat Vidur
nanyetu madrsah RV. lntro.St.6.
66. Bharatl Kélidasasya durvyakhyllvisamurchita Esa salljlvani tika tam adyojiivayisyati - RV. intro., St. 8; KS. lntro. $1.5; Mcgh. Intro. St. 4.

Life and Works of Mallinatha ` I-,
Malliuatha did not dismiss all earlier commentators as useless. ne did show due regard to those who were sincere in their attempts. He was humble in acknowledging their merits. He confesses that he is gald to have entrace into the words of Kalidasa through the path beaten by Daksipé vartanétham and others. Mallinatha is fully aware of the needs of the students. who first of all want to grasp the sense of Kalidasa’s works. But also he knows how to bring out the beauties of Ka1idasa`s poetry so as to enable the students to appreciate them. Keeping this in mind he says that he will follow the anvaya method only (in his commentary) and not say anything without authority, not indulge in anything that is unnecessary or irrelevantw.

When Mallinatha takes the Kmitéduniva of Bharavi for commenting, it is noteworthy that he does not speak of Bharavi in glorious terms as he used to in the case of Kalidasa. 'l`he absence of such superlative praise may suggest that Bharavi is not a supranatural poet and with some effort one can understand him. Most probably to hint at this he says that the language of Bharavi is like a coconut. which he is going to break open, so that rasikas can enjoy to their fill, its essence concentrated with rasa lsentimentlw. He further says that his commentary Ghanrzipatha is a royal path to the poetry of Bhiravi whereas hither to the readers have been wearied by treading thc narrow paths provided by the previous
67. Thatapi Dakslnavartanathadyaih _Ksunnavartmasu Vayam ca Kilidasoktisv avakisam labhemahi - RV. Intro. St.7.
68 . Ihdnvaya mulrhcnaiva sanaim tyékhydyale mayi Ndmtllam ldrhysrc Icillcir ndnapcIr,sirat1r1ucyarc— RV. intro. St.9; KS.lntro.Sta.4: Megh. lntro. St.4: Kir. lntro.St.8; amd SV. Intro. St.8.
69. Narikelaphala sammitam vaco Bhataves sapadi tad vibhajyate Svadayantu rasagarbhanirbhatam sara. asya rasiltayathepsitam - Kir. lntro. St.8.t8 Malllinlltha- A Study commentatorsm. We have to note here that he is not directly referring to any ineflicient or inadequate commentaries that have marred the poetic beauty of Bharavi. On the other hand he simply says that the highway he is opening up is only a fresh one that can directly and safely lead to the goal. ln this connection also he tells us that he will adopt the anvaya method only and will not say anything unwanted or irrelevantv I. Commenting on the 5l3‘up.·ilavadha of Magha, Mallinatha says that his commentary Sarvamkaszi is for those who desire to examine the sound and sense, i.e. word and meaning, who are eager to learn the gunas, and alarikiras. and who have a mind to stroll at ease on the roads of Dhvani and who wish to dive deep into the floods of the ambrosia-like Rasa which is wavy with the emotional bhavasn. From this we nolc that his aim in commenting on the Siéupélavadha is to bring out the suggestion (dhvam) embedded in the Icivya. As usual here also he reiterates his motto: nimdlam Iikhyate.

The commentary on the Bbattikérya is called Sarvaparhina. Bhatti composed his kzivya to serve the purpose of providing examples to the rules of grammar and rhetorics. Accordingly he provided examples for the Paninian sfttras in the first half of the work and in the remaining part of this work he made use of Alamkérasésrra. Though the Bhamkatya is verbose. he is not blind

70. Nananibandha visamaikapadc nitantam Sasankacankramana khinnadhiyim aéankam kartum pravesam iha Bhnravikivyabandhe Ghantapatham kamapi kamapi ntttanam itanisyc - Kir. lntro. $1.7.

7l . Ref. lhanvayamukhena etc. - Kir. lntro. St. 8. cl`.Rahu.intr.9.

72. Ye sabdérthapatlksartapranayinah ye va gunalankriyiéiksakautukints vihartumanaso ye ca dhvancr adhvani Ksubhyadbhavatarangite rasadudhipure mimanksanti ye Tesa mcva lute karomi vivrtim Mighrasya Sarvankasam SV. lntto. St. 8.

life and Works of Mallinatha 19 to Rasa and Dhvani Mallinatha’s commentary on this work is comprehensive. He himself says that his commentary encompasses all the fields like Garza, Alamkéra. Sabda, Arrha, Dhvani. Bhawz. Rasa?]. etc. The Bayikivya is one of the works which afford opportunities to Mallinatha for a display of his capacities. For this reason probably he chose to comment upon this. Here also as usual he quotes his favourite verse vayamukhena. There are no introductory verses in Mallin€ttha`s commentary on the Narisadha. though in some editions there are only two verses foundu. Why he was silent in the case of this ltavya is not clearly known.

The name liv.-itu given to his commentary simply means that it is a medicine for restoring lifeu. He must have given this title to his commentary keeping in mind the oft·quoted saying narsad/iam vidvadausadham, which means that even though it does good it is hard even for pundits to swallow. Obviously students as well as pandits were afraid of going through the kavya as it is interwoven p with saismc terminology and obsolete phraseology. Mallinatha observing this kind of negligence on the part of the scholars with regard to the Miiigsudha in those days must have thought of commenting on this work so as to make it easily accessible. The livatu also is in keeping with this intention. He docs not refer any where in the course of his commentary on other texts to this work

73. Vyakhya Sarvapatltlnakhya sarvén vyapnoti satpathah Gunalankara sabdartha l dhvanibhivarasadikan - Bhatti Kavya lntro. St.6. Sarvapathina is derived { thus- sarvan patho margan vyapnoti iti sarvatodikprasara ityarthah

74. Ref. palghat Edn. by K.L.V. Sastry.

75. Recently l found u verse quoted by Dr. D.V./tvadhani which runs as - Ksudra vyakhya visartanam sriharsakaviridgtrim Uljivanbya llvatur jlya desa maytikrtah But tt seems to be an interpolation made alter Bharati Kiltdasasya durvyaltyavisa murchita etc.

20 Malllittatha- A Study in general terms as he does in the case of other works like the Bbattrkaiya and Szléupdlavadha. While commenting on the Srsupé/avadha and B/1a[{1K*5vya, Mallinatha refers to the hero of the poem. the main and subordinate rasas of these works, the description lastidasavarpanasl and the result achieved by the heroetc"`. This feature is not found in his commentaries on other kavyas.

Mallinatha in his commentary on the Tdrkilraraksa does not say anything about the purpose in writing this commentary. He simply says that he is writing a commentary entitled Nrslranralra which means that it is capable of removing the thorns, i.e., the path to understand the Tzirkikaraksé is made clear by cleaning off the thoms. But Varadaraja. the author of the Tdrkrkarakm who is said to have flourished in the later half of the twelfth century, after speaking of the work says that his composition is not overelaboratew. Again in his Vrtti on the kzirrlka he says that even though there are works written by the ancients on this subject, he is writing a new for the easy grasp of students with the idea that it may not be possible to enlighten them with those lofty and unfathomable works of old". From this we note that there was no authoritative

76.alNeld smin yaidunandanas sa bhagavan viral: prsdhjna rasalt Srltglrldibhir angavan vykiyarc puma pumar mrnana Indraprasrhagamidyupiyavi,va_•·ah Caidyalmsédalr phulam Dhanyn Maghalraiir myam tu Krrinas misakzisamsetanaz - SV. lntm. St.7. bl Pradhanam tha srngarakarunadiblur angavan Vtro raso Mahaviro nayako
Rnghunayakaltt Nagarinavasailadi varnanafi catra sambhavi phalam Dasananavadhas sabdasi sistapuraskrtah - Bharti Kévya. Intro. SL7.

77. Niééreyasaphalam prihur yesam tattvavadharanam pramanadipadarthas tclaltsyante niltivistaram Tarkikaruksa. P.}, V.P. Dvivedi s End.

78. Nanu cirantananibandhanani tatra tatra vidyante, ténycva sisyebhyo vyakriyamam. kim anenapurvanirmancna kleseneti ata uktam uativistaram

Life and Works of Mallinatha Zl

primer on Pracinanyiya in those days like the Tarkasamgraha of Annambhatta, which could successfully initiate the student into the subject. Varadaraja felt the need for such a work and wrote the Tirlrikaraksé. As the primary intention of Mallinatha in writing commentaries is to give student a good and correct grounding in the work concerned, must have taken up this work for commentary so that he could make the work as clear as possible by removing hardships generally met with in a sastrrb work of that kind. But unfortunately the commentary for the entire text is not available in print.

The Taralé is the commentary on the E/ravaliof Vidyadhara,a work on rhetoric. Here he writes the alarplrnya - an alarpkara text or an omament named Ekavali- the present text entitled Elravalior single stringed pearl-necklace, though blessed with good qualities, though well stringed, has become dull dim due to the pangs of separation with the good gloss the Taralri-a central gem and has been kept in darkness of library. treasury. Now that it lEkivaI1) is united with the splendid commentary Tarali, the lustrous central gem, may the blessed ones wear it in their hearts as well as on necksn.

This verse shows that Mallinatha was very much impressed by the treatment of the subject by Vidyzidhara. He could easily ` understand and appreciate the painstaking efforts of the author in writing on admirable work as Ekavalrl Therefore he regretted that it was lying obscure on the stacks of libraries and did not gain currency among pandits. Therefore he wanted to radiate its luster with a luminous commentary to enable the scholars to notice its itu. Ativitatagahangambhirais tnir alasapréyah slsya na vyutpadayitt sakyanta ityarthavan evayam arambhal; - Ibid p.5.

79. Mallinithakavis so yam ekivalyim alankrtau Tlkaratnam nibadhnati Taral: uama namatah · E.ka.Tara1a. Intro. St. 5. gz Mattlinatha- A Study excellences. lt is with this idea he wrote his commentary Taralaw on it.

Mallinatha’s commentaries on the other works like the Prasastapédabhasya, Svaramaryarftnarrhiala and Tantravtfnika are not yet available for a study. As observed before the Vaiéyavamsasudhikara is not a commentary, but only ajudgement given on the dispute between the two sects of vaisya community, when he was commissioned for this work by Devaraya ll. The foregone account has given us an idea of Mal1inatha’s intention in writing these commentaries. lt was only to interpret the different authors in their correct perspective as against the inefficient and inadequate treatment accorded to them by the earlier commentators. lf the lapses and errors of these commentaries were left unemended the students would be apt to form an unfavourable picture of even the great poets like Kalidasa, Bharavi, Magha and others. To become an honoured scholar it is not sufhcient, if one understands only the poets, but one should also be proficient in other éaslras like Vedanta, Nyaya, Uakarapa, Mimémszi and Alamksira. To get an insight into these difficult fields one requires suitable help, by means of which one should overcome many hurdles. Therefore to enable us to acquire a good knowledge of those sastras Mallinitha wrote his commentaries on the sastric l works like the afastapadabbasya, Tanrravartiht. Tarkkaraksé, Ekdva/L etc. The word commentary in English is commonly used for the exposition of a text. But in Sanskrit there are several types of commentaries, like Vrml paddhari bhzisva. {Ura. v_,t-akhyénag/,

80. tbid

81. al Virrrilraun - Ukténuktadurukra cinranam. i bl Iilustmm Sutrsrrhu wmyare yalra vilgva is sdtrinusiribhilz Siapadéni cal mrpyante bhisram bI1a?;)m·idn virdub. cl Yruih - Stirramztrasyajui nyu/rhya iwdr iqabhidhfvate. —

za Malllinithtr A Study commentaries enumerated already do not give as much scope for detailed analogy as this. But. though Mallinatha chose that type of commentary which allowed elaborate comment, he would not misuse the freedom allowed. instead he voluntarily imposed on himself some restrictions; He desired not to trespass the limits of the chosen text. while explaining it, as he very sucdnctly states his aim: némulam Iikhyare kimcit ninapeksham ucyare. He seems to have had another purpose in view while writing his commentaries. He found that the original texts were full of interpolations", and alterations". He seems to have the idea to restore the original texts trceing them from the charges and distortions. Though he does not specifically mention any where that he had this end also in view; his treatment of the different texts shows that he had this idea in mind.

In commentary on the Bhagtihivya he goes to the extent of correcting the grammatical operations explained by his predecessor — the author of the Jayamangalagj. Mallinatha in his works does not simply say anything out of his imagination or fancy. Whatever he says in his commentary is supported by the authority of the sisrras. ln fact there is no branch of knowledge that is not at his command, be it Veda, Dharrna§slra. Vyékarana, Anhasastra, PhI70$0}7h}Q Kimasistra. Music so on and so forth. Alamkiraéasrra. of course, is always at his finger tips.

tl). By saying in the com. of the 55th vcrsc_ in ll Megh that Kiwénlc niya/rccclninurtipo yam asmtédab prayuktah iryanusaridheyun, we are sure that he knows that latter verse is an interpolation, though he commented upon t`or one reason or other.

84. a) kc cid dsddhasya prailtamadivase ityatra praiamadivase iri pirham kalpayanti- Megh. l·2. bl Fsah slokaljt praksiptah - Bhatti Kavya. VII]-65.

85. Y.mu!ayama1tgaLikdrepa vyavaelliinabhaydt. . ilyalam Bhatniléivya. III-5.

Q; Life and Works of Mallinatha Z5 The commentaries on the Parlcakavyas by diverse hands are not small in number. Each kivya on an average commands about twentyfive commentaries. Of these a few like those of Vallabhadeva ll l20· l l 2l AD.), Daksinavartanatha (I3 th c.) and Hemadri (1271-1309) are pre·Mallinatha. The post-Mallinathas are definitely influenced by Mallinatha, but the pre-Mallinathas could not impress the later scholars with their method of commentary as Mallinatha's commentaries could. as there is something wanting in their method of commentary. A glance at Vallabha’s commentary reveals that he was too much elementary. The commentary of Hemidri was definitely an improvement on that of Vallabhadeva. The commentary of Daksinivartanatha as we notice, is criticized by Mallinatha for its lapses. But the fact is that these three commentaries paved the way for Mallinatha.

Personality of Mallinathaz

Mallinatha was a versatile and profound scholar. He was through with each and every branch of Sanskrit literature. The authors and works he quoted from in his commentaries are many in number and some of them are not available now-a·days. Form his works we can gather the gradual and progressive recognition Mallinatha won inthe world of scholars. In his earlier commentary Saryivani we find him referring to himself as Mallinatha only ' without any epithets. But by the time he came to the commentary on the Srlfupilavadha he became Mahopidhyaya and sud/rib". In his commentary on the Bharrikivya also he uses the word sddhrbv, V instead of Kavi with reference to himself, found in his earlie i commentaries. He does not spare his predecessors whenever they I are found incorrect. While he is humble like his beloved

86. Mallintithasudhis so yam mahopadhyayasabdabhak - S.V.. lntro. $1.5.

87. Mallinathasudhis so ham · Bhattiliavya. Intro. St. 5 .. l ze Malllinatha- A Study Kalidasan, he is not unmindful of his own eapacitiesn. Mallinatha is said to have written poetical work entitled Rag/zuvlracarita, which is not extant. Apart from the verses he wrote in his introductions to the works he commented upon. including the verses at the beginning of every canto in the Ragbuvamsa, we come across a verse describing the moon-rise in the commentary on the Ekavaii said to have been composed by him°°. Perhaps the great scholarcommentator over-shadowed the poet in him.

Mallinatha was neither avaricious nor ambitious. He was pious in his habits and outlook on life. There is no hint in his writings anywhere either of his affluence or poverty. He was a devotee of the Lord. He was not given to flattering human beings and play the sycophant. He was not partial to one God and adored both Hari and Hara. From his strotra verses written at the beginning of each canto of the Raghuvarnsa and other works, we gather that he was drawn towards the concept of Han'-baribhedaw and also the ArdI1an5ri.¢vararUpa°:.

88. Kalidasa giram saram, com.on Raghuvamsa intr.6 Thatapi daksinavartanathadyaih ibid 7.

89. al Vanim Kinabhujun ajlganat etc. lbid 4. . b) Esa Salijlvanl tiki etc. · Ibid 8. cl Explaining his own verse · Nisakarakarasparsilt nisayi etc. helsays atra niéidipadastltane ksapadipadantarnpraksepe padinim patasparamaitribhangah. Tad cvam sakti vyutpatti abhyasa militah kavyotlattau karanam natvekaikam iti pratibhedyadiélokirthah · Eka. Com.,

p.23. The above observation shows that he knows the weight of the word and can select the choicest word. It also implies that he possesses all the three qualities, i.e. pratiblm, vyutpatti and abhyasa, necessary for a poet.

90. Yatha asmadiyaslake undrodaya varnane Eki. Com., p.22.

91. Jshnavfmtirdhnicm comm..on.RV 6.1

92. allbid, 1.1 b) Ardhineiknaddmpalyam etc. - com.on Kirltarjyniya l.1.





Archive Articles