We hope that, this book will be useful to those who are interested in Indian philosophy and Navya-nyaya system of logic.
The manuscript, which we utilized, of Gunaratna's Sukhabodhikd Tippanika on Tatrvacintaniani belongs to the L.D. Institute of Indology, Ahmedabad, well-known for its collection of manuscripts and antiquities. It is a paper manuscript which is in good condition. It bears No Its size is : 27.5 x 12 cms. It has 304 folios. Folios Nos 1, 45-47 are missing. And No. 104 is given to two folios. Similarly, No. 227 is also given to two folios. Each side of a folio has 17 or 18 lines, and each line has 50 to 52 letters.
No other manuscript of the work is available.
Title and Structure
It is unfortunate that the first folio of the manuscript is missing. But the last folio, at the end, contains :
Gunaratna calls his commentary Tippanika. This suggests that his commentary is of the nature of annotations. But this seems to be misleading. It is more than mere annotations. This will be clear from our evaluation of the commentary. It is only out of modesty that Gunaratna calls it Tippanika. He gives an adjective `sukhabodhik to his Tippanikei; the adjective is apt because the commentary (Tippanikei) lucidly explains the knotty points of the texts it deals with. Thus Sukhabodhikd Tippanikei is the title of the work. Here we should note that at the end of the section on parantaria there occurs :Ufa truira Dlebi I And again at the end of the section on kevaleinvayigrantha we have it that Prakaikd was the tentative title while Sukhabodhikd Tippanika was the title finalized on the completion of the commentary ?
It is noteworthy that Gunaratna explains the famous Tatrvacintonian of Gangega (c. 1300 - 1350 A.D.) from the beginning of Upaddhi to the end of &Mho, as also a commentary thereon. Thus it is both a commentary on Tattvacintdmani and a sub commentary on a commentary of Tattvacintaniani (of course covering the concerned portion). We can definitely say that the commentary Gunaratna comments on is not the one either by Mathuranatha or by Raghunatha Siromani. It is because many pratikas are not from them. But we are not able to identify positively that commentary which Gunaratna comments on.
Pratikas from Tattvacintaniani are clearly indicated by `it nu-datit' and those from the commentary by 'it Oka'. Sometimes we find pratfkas without such indications. Moreover, in the first half of the Sukhabodhikd it is not clearly stated that 'now the Sukhabodhika on the nu-la (i.e. Tatt-vacintanzaqi) starts (atha tika)' , whenever the Sukhabodhika on the mida begins, or that 'now the Sukhabodhikd on the tika starts (atha tika)' whenever the Sukhabodhika on the tikd begins. But in the second half of the Sukhabodhikd we do find such clear statements and hence there is no possibility of confusion there in the second half of the Sukhabodhikd. And it is note-worthy that Gunaratna stops commenting on the commentary from in Tattvacinteinian (p. 561).
Book's Contents and Sample Pages
Your email address will not be published *
Send as free online greeting card
Email a Friend