# Vaidyanātha Pāyaguṇḍa and Bālambhaṭṭa Pāyaguṇḍa:
The Problem of their Identity

Deviprasad Mishra

► To cite this version:

Deviprasad Mishra. Vaidyanātha Pāyaguṇḍa and Bālambhaṭṭa Pāyaguṇḍa: The Problem of their Identity: Sanskrit literature. Journal of the Oriental Institute, M.S. University Baroda, 2005, Vol. 54, (Nos. 1-4, September 2004-June, 2005 Issue,), pp. 85-91. hal-04078737

HAL Id: hal-04078737

https://hal.science/hal-04078737

Submitted on 28 Jun 2023

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

Public Domain
VAIDYANĀTHA PĀYAGUNDE AND BĀLAMBHAṬTA PĀYAGUNDE :
THE PROBLEM OF THEIR IDENTITY

DEVIPRASAD MISHRA*

मक्तिप्रह्वाय दातुं कमलपुटकुटिकोटरक्रोडलीनां

लक्ष्मीमाक्रष्टकामा इव कमलवनोद्धाटनं कुर्वते ये ।

कालाकारान्धकाराननपतितजगत्साध्वसध्वंसकल्पाः

कल्पाणं वः क्रियासुः किसलयरुचयस्ते कराः भास्करस्य ॥

(Sūryaśataka - 2)

May the rays of Bhāskara (Sūrya) “maker of Light, cause the unfolding of the clusters of lotuses, as if desirous to take away splendour and the wealth. That cling to the hollow interior of the cup-like bud, which constitute their house-desirous to take away this wealth in order to bestow it on the worshipper prostrated in devotion and they also are able to destroy any fear that the universe has fallen into the maw of darkness that has guise of Fate, and they possess the beauty of young sprouts”, bring about your prosperity.

Vaidyanātha Pāyagunde, who was assigned the period around the middle of 18th century A.D., was one of the well-known scholars in Sanskrit literature and grammar. He is one of the commentators on the *Sūryaśataka* of Mayūra. Though Vaidyanātha is father and Bālambhaṭṭa is his son, many scholars have mistaken them as one. However, in many of the lists of the commentaries given by various scholars, Bālambhaṭṭa is mentioned as the author of those commentaries. It is obviously, due to the last line in the colophon, which says इति श्रीमद्धालम्भट्टपायगुण्डेति विरचितं सूर्यशितकं सार्थकं सम्पूर्णम् । But in my present article, I have given all the evidences to distinguish them and I have tried to bring out the truth behind it. P.V. Kane also has mentioned in his *History of Dharmaśāstra* that Vaidyanātha is a pupil of Nāgeśabhaṭṭa. Vaidyanātha's son is Bālambhaṭṭa and his pupil is Gopāla. This is the pedigree of Bhaṭṭojidīkṣita¹. Nothing is known about Vaidyanātha's parents.

Journal of The Oriental Institute, Vol. 54, Nos. 1-4, September 2004-June 2005 Issue, pp. 85-91

* French Institute, P.O. Box. 33, 17, Saint Louis Street, Pondicherry-1

1. Kane P.V., *History of Dharmaśāstra*, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. Vol. I. pp. 970-973.
However, it is known that he has two wives Lakṣmīdevī and Bhavānīdevī. Bālambhaṭṭa is the son of Lakṣmīdevī. Sometimes the scribe records this in the colophon. But the textual evidences say that Vaidyanātha Pāyagunḍe is the author. In support of this contention, of the commentary on the *Sūryaśataka*, I have shown Vaidyanātha as the commentator by giving many evidences. For, at the very outset, it is said that Vaidyanātha who is popularly known as Pāyagunḍe explains the *Sūryaśataka* of Mayūra, after saluting his Guru. It reads as:

नत्वा गुरुं वैद्यनाथः पायगुण्डेति कीर्तितः ।
मांयूरं श्रीसूर्यशतं व्याचष्टे रोगशान्तये ॥

The commentary Kalā on Nāgeśabhaṭṭa's *Vaiyākaraṇasiddhāntalaghumaṇjūṣā*, furnishes the textual evidence in favour of the authorship of Vaidyanātha. In the following verse it says<fnref n="2" />:

अतस्तदारख्यां विवृतिं मञ्जूषायाः प्रयत्नतः ।
पायगुण्डो वैद्यनाथभट्टः कुर्वे स्वबुद्धये ॥

Moreover, in this edition, the editor gives the caption as accompanied by the commentary Kalā written by Bālambhaṭṭa:

श्रीमदुर्बलाचार्यविरचितकुञ्जिका श्रीमद्भालम्भट्टविरचितकला चेति टीकाद्येन सम्बलिता ।

In another edition of the commentary 'Kalā' on *Vaiyākaraṇasiddhāntalaghumaṇjūṣā*, the editor Ācārya Śrī Rāmaprasāda Tripāthī, mentions Vaidyanātha and Bālambhaṭṭa as father and son respectively.<fnref n="3" /> श्रीमन्नागेशस्य प्रमुखशिव्यस्य श्रीवैद्यनाथपायगुण्डेमहोदयस्यत्मजः श्रीबालम्भट्ट इत्यभिधयाऽलङ्को विद्धदर आसीत् । तेन समग्रेऽस्मिन् ग्रन्थे कलाभिधाना व्याख्या विरचिता ।

The caption of the same commentary 'Kalā' is in favour of Bālambhaṭṭa:<fnref n="4" /> श्रीदुर्बलाचार्यकृतया कुञ्जिकाव्याख्यया श्रीबालम्भट्टकृतया कलाव्याख्यया आचार्यश्रीरामप्रसादत्रिपाठिकृतया सरलाहिन्दीव्याख्यया च विभूषिता ।

Contrary to this, in the introduction to the edition of *Kuvalayānandacandrikācakora*

<footnote n="2">2. *Vaiyākaraṇasiddhāntalaghumaṇjūṣā* with the commentaries *Kuñjikā* and *Kalā*, Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series, Banaras, 1985, *aṅka* 44.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">3. *Vaiyākaraṇasiddhāntalaghumaṇjūṣā* with the commentaries *Kuñjikā*, *Kalā* and *Saralā*, Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi, 1990, *Gaṅgānātha Jhā Granthamāla* 12. Intro., p. 5</footnote>

<footnote n="4">4. *Ibid.*, third title page</footnote>
The above verse also proves that Bālambhaṭṭa is the son of Lakṣmī. The previous verse mentions him as the son of Vaidyanātha and devoted to Nāgeśabhaṭṭa.<fnref n="9" />

श्रीशं नत्वा श्रीनिवासी दाक्षिणात्यो निबन्धकृत् ।

नागेशपादनिरतो वैद्यनाथात्मजः सुधीः ॥

Bālambhaṭṭa had many disciples like Bhāskara Śāstrī, Govindācārya, Rāghavendrācārya and Mannudeva. In the following verse Mannudeva refers Bālambhaṭṭa as his teacher and not Vaidyanātha.<fnref n="10" />

धर्मशास्त्रमहादेवमजुदेवसहायकः ।

बालशर्माऽ्डबालबुद्धिः पायगुण्डोपनामकः ॥

Govinda Das is a disciple of Kāśinātha Śāstrī, son of Govindācārya, one of the disciples of Bālambhaṭṭa. According to him, Vaidyanātha and Bālambhaṭṭa are not same. In fact, Vaidyanātha is the father of Bālambhaṭṭa.<fnref n="11" />

No direct evidences are found as regard to place and date of Vaidyanātha in his commentary on the *Sūryaśataka*. Vaidyanātha is assigned to about the middle of 18th century A.D. The period of Bālambhaṭṭa is fixed to be between 1740 A.D. to 1830 A.D.<fnref n="12" />

In the traditional circles in Banaras it is believed that Bālambhaṭṭa, ascribed his works on Grammar to his father Vaidyanātha and dedicated his commentary on *Mitākaśarā* to his mother Lakṣmī. The influence of the traditional belief is observed in the edition of Bālambhaṭṭī, where it is said: इति प्रसिद्धयां लक्ष्मीनामिकया पायगुण्डे इत्युपनामकेन बालम्भट्टेन स्वमातु: लक्ष्मीदेव्याः स्मारकत्वेन तन्बाष्ट्रा रचितया ... ॥ This explains how the work is attributed to Lakṣmī, Bālambhaṭṭa's mother. The ascription of the other works to Vaidyanātha has prompted the scholars to believe that Vaidyanātha Pāyagunḍe and Bālambhaṭṭa are the same.

Bālambhaṭṭa Pāyagunḍe has also written the *Avimuktatattva* in praise of the holy city of Banaras and also as a dedication to his step-mother Bhavānī<fnref n="13" /> : इति श्रीपायगुण्डोपास्त्य-

<footnote n="9">9. *Ibid*, verse - 5, p.50</footnote>

<footnote n="10">10. *Ibid*, Verse - 7, p. 50</footnote>

<footnote n="11">11. *Ibid.*, p. 51; See also his Intro. to *Vyavahārabālambhaṭṭī*, Ed. J.R. Gharpure, The Collection of Hindu Law Taxts, Bombay, 1914, p. 33.</footnote>

<footnote n="12">12. Govinda Das, Intro. to *Vyavahārabālambhaṭṭī*, p. 45</footnote>

<footnote n="13">13. Dr. V. Raghavan, also refers to Bālambhaṭṭa as the son of Vaidyanātha, ‘*The Avimuktatattva* of Bālambhaṭṭa Pāyagunḍe’, *New India Antiquary*, Volume 1, October, 1938-39, p. 404</footnote>
बालकुष्णद्वितीयाम्बाभावानीविरचितमविमुक्ततच्च सम्पूर्णम् । The Vaiyākaraṇasiddhāntamañjusā of Nāgeśabhaṭṭa has been commented upon by Vaidyanātha Pāyaguṇḍe, but, is believed to be Bālambhaṭṭa' commentary. For, the editors have mentioned:<fnref n="14" /> श्रीदुर्बलाचार्यकृतया कुञ्जिकाव्याख्यया श्रीबालम्भट्टकृतया कलाव्याख्यया ... But, contrary to this, the introductory part of the text of the commentary Kalā mentions that Vaidyanātha Pāyaguṇḍe has composed the commentary.<fnref n="15" />

अतस्तदाख्यां विवृत्तिं मञ्जूषायाः प्रयत्ततः ।

पायगुण्डो वैद्यनाथमङ्गः कुर्वे स्वबुद्धये ॥

In the same way, Jaggu Veṅkaṭācārya has identified Vaidyanātha with Bālambhaṭṭa. He says in his statement<fnref n="16" />: तदुर्कं चन्द्रालोकयाख्यात्रा पायगुण्डोपाह्द-वैद्यनाथेन बालम्भट्टापरनाम्ना नागेशाशिष्येण स्वकृतरमाख्यायां व्याख्यायाम् । The commentary 'Ramā' on Candrāloka of Jayadeva clearly shows that the commentary is composed by Vaidyanātha Pāyaguṇḍe.<fnref n="17" />

नत्वा गुरुं वैद्यनाथः पायगुण्डेति कीर्तितः ।

व्याख्यां रमाख्यां तनुते चन्द्रालोके विलासिनीम् ।

Mahadeva Gangadhara Bakre also identifies Vaidyanātha with Bālambhaṭṭa, when he says<fnref n="18" /> अयं च टीकाकृद्वैद्यनाथमङ्गः शब्देन्दुशेखरादिनानानिबन्धप्रणेतुनगेशाभट्टस्य शिष्यः । अनेन शब्देन्दुशेखरे चिदस्थिमाला, परिभाषेन्दुशेखरे गदा, शब्दते भावप्रकाशिका, महाभाष्यप्रदीपोद्योते छाया, व्याकरणसिद्धान्तमञ्जूषायां कला, याज्ञवल्क्यमिताक्षरायां लक्ष्मीनाम्नी चन्द्रालोके रमाभिधा चेति व्याख्याः प्रणीताः लोकेषु प्रसिद्धाः । अयं लोकेषु बालम्भट्ट इति नाम्ना प्रथित इति ताः सर्वा अपि बालम्भट्टीनाम्ना व्यवह्यन्ते ।

If Vaidyanātha Pāyaguṇḍe has written the commentary on Mitākṣarā, there is no specific reason as to why it is named as 'Lakṣmi'. But the name Lakṣmi of the commentary, goes well with the belief that Bālambhaṭṭa dedicated the commentary to his mother Lakṣmi. Hence, it can be said that the commentary on Mitākṣarā is by Bālambhaṭṭa and not Vaidyanātha. If Bālambhaṭṭa and Vaidyanātha are the same, there is no reason as to why there are separate commentaries on the Candrāloka and the Kuvalayānanda. After all

<footnote n="14">14. *Vaiyākaraṇasiddhāntamañjūṣā, Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series*, Banaras, 1985, p. 1.</footnote>

<footnote n="15">15. *Ibid.*, Verse 4, p. 1.</footnote>

<footnote n="16">16. *Alaṅkāracandrikācakora*, Coronation Press, Mysore, 1943, p. 282</footnote>

<footnote n="17">17. Bakre Mahadeva Gangadhara, *Candrāloka with the commentary 'Ramā', The Gujarati Printing Press, Bombay, 1923*, verse 2, p.1.</footnote>

<footnote n="18">18. *Ibid.*, Intro., p. 5</footnote>
Appayadīkṣita<fnref n="19" /> has followed the same definition as given in the *Candrāloka* of Jayadeva.

येषां चन्द्रालोके दश्यन्ते लक्ष्यलक्षणाञ्चोकाः ।

प्रायस्त एव तेषामितरेषां त्वमिनवा विरच्यन्ते ॥

Therefore it can be said with an air of certainty that Vaidyanātha PāyagUNDE wrote
the commentary Candrikā on the Kuvalayānanda.<fnref n="20" />

It can further be corroborated by the fact that if Bālambhaṇṭa had been the real author
of the commentaries of the *Candrāloka* and the *Vaiyākaraṇasiddhāntamañjūṣā*, he would
have preferred to name them after his mother Lakṣmī. But the names of these two
commentaries are ‘Ramā’ and ‘Kalā’ respectively. It is very significant to observe in this
context that at the very outset of the commentary on *Sūryaśataka*, there is a verse, which
almost *verbatim* resembles the verse cited above from Vaidyanātha PāyagUNDE’s
commentary on the *Candrāloka*. The verse<fnref n="21" /> in question is:

नत्वा गुरुं वैद्यनाथः पायगुण्डेति कीर्तितः ।

मायूरं श्रीसूर्यशतं व्याचष्टे रोगशान्तये ॥

It can be safely said that this commentary on the *Sūryaśataka* is written by
Vaidyanātha PāyagUNDE, and not Bālambhaṇṭa. However, towards the end of Vaidyanātha’s
commentary on *Sūryaśataka*, the colophon reads:<fnref n="22" /> इति श्रीमद्भालम्भट्टपायगुण्डेति विरचितं सूर्यशतकं
सार्थकं सम्पूर्णम् । This is perhaps the observation of the scribe who is carried away by the
popular belief that Vaidyanātha and Bālambhaṇṭa are the same. Such instances have been
already noticed that in the beginning the work is ascribed to some one, whereas the colophon
ascribes it to somebody else. The Bālambhaṇṭī is ascribed to Lakṣmī, while the colophon
at the end of the *Vyavahāra* section ascribes the authorship to the mother Lālākṛṣṇa. This
obviously appears to be the scribal mistake.<fnref n="23" />

<footnote n="19">19. *Kuvalayānanda of Appayadīkṣita with Alaṅkārasurabhi*, Hindi Commentary by Bholashankar Vyas, Chowkhamba Vidyabhawan, Varanasi, 1963, verse 5, p. 2.</footnote>

<footnote n="20">20. While Mallinātha the celebrated commentator wrote the commentary *Taralā* on *Ekāvali* of Vidyādhara, his son Kumāraswamy wrote the commentary *Ratnārṇava* on *Pratāparudrīya* of Vidyānātha, see C.S. Radhakrishnan, *Sāthavairivaibhavaprabhākara*, critical edition and study, Amar Prakashan, Delhi, 1988, pp. 26-27.</footnote>

<footnote n="21">21. See Critical Edition on *Sūryaśataka* commentaries, verse 2, p. 19</footnote>

<footnote n="22">22. *Ibid.*, p. 150</footnote>

<footnote n="23">23. For details see P.V. Kane, *Op.cit.*, Vol. 1 pp. 970-973.</footnote>
The textual evidences in the form of verses, make it very clear that, Vaidyanātha Pāyaguṇḍe who is author of the commentary *Ramā* on the *Candrāloka* and the *Kalā* on the *Vaiyākaraṇasiddhāntamañjūṣā*, writes the commentary on the *Sūryaśataka* also. In the case of the *Sūryaśataka*, Vaidyanātha has not given any name to the commentary. He merely says *vyācaṣṭe* and implies that it is a *vyākhyā*. I have presented the facts to show that Vaidyanātha and Bālambhaṭṭa are different.

Vaidyanātha Pāyaguṇḍe is credited with the authorship of many commentaries on works belonging to different subjects such as the *Cidastimālā* on *Śabdenduśekhara*, the commentary *Gadā* on *Paribhāṣenduśekhara*<fnref n="24" /> of Nāgoji, the commentary *Chāyā* on the *Mahābhāṣyapradīpodyota*, the commentary *Kalā* on *Vaiyākaraṇasiddhāntamañjūṣā*, and the commentary *Ramā* on the *Candrāloka* of Jayadeva, commentary on the *Sūryaśataka* of Mayūra.

****

<footnote n="24">24. Ānandāśrama, Poona, 1913.</footnote>