A Reference to Bhatta Candrananda by Abhinavagupta

Summary

Umakant P. Shah’s note discusses Abhinavagupta’s reference to Bhaṭṭa Candrananda in his Īśvarapratyabhijñā‑Vivṛti‑Vimarśinī and explores its implications for dating Candrananda. Jambūvijayaji’s edition of Candrananda’s Vṛtti on the Vaiśeṣika‑sūtras made the text widely available, but the exact date of its author remained uncertain. Ashoka Aklujkar’s 1970 note suggested the tenth century as a lower limit for Candrananda, using passages from Helarāja’s commentary on the Vākyapadīya and pointing out that Helarāja was probably a senior contemporary of Abhinavaguptafile:///home/oai/share/split_pdfs/A_Reference_to_Bhatta_Candrananda_by_Abhinavagupta.pdf#:~:text=The%20date%20of%20Candrananda%20was,by. Shah notes that Abhinavagupta completed his commentary in November 1014 CE at the request of his brother Manorathafile:///home/oai/share/split_pdfs/A_Reference_to_Bhatta_Candrananda_by_Abhinavagupta.pdf#:~:text=famous%20commentary%20was%20completed%20in,self%20in. He therefore examines Abhinavagupta’s references to Candrananda to see whether they confirm a similar date. The article emphasises that Abhinavagupta’s commentary quotes extensively from earlier works. Abhinavagupta cites Bhartr̥hari’s Vākyapadīya along with a long list of texts, including Pauranapañjikā, Śrīmatkṣemapāda‑saṃhitā, Nyāya‑sūtras, Yoga‑sūtras, Śatarudrīyam, Śiva‑sūtra, Advayopakrama, Śrī Kiraṇa and Śrī Spandaśāstrafile:///home/oai/share/split_pdfs/A_Reference_to_Bhatta_Candrananda_by_Abhinavagupta.pdf#:~:text=Umakant%20P%2C%20Shah%20Pmnranapanksa,Amongst%20authors. Among the authors he names are scholars such as Bhatta Divākaravatsa, Bhatta Śrī Nārāyaṇa, the Mīmāṃsaka Bhattanāyaka, Avadhūta, Bhartr̥hari, Vasu, Bhatta Śaṅkara, Bhattakalattapāda, Varāhamihira and Dharmottarafile:///home/oai/share/split_pdfs/A_Reference_to_Bhatta_Candrananda_by_Abhinavagupta.pdf#:~:text=Amongst%20authors%20cited%20by%20name,ttara%20%28these. This enumeration shows the breadth of sources that Abhinavagupta consulted and his deep immersion in the philosophical and grammatical traditions. By noting that Abhinavagupta cites Candrananda alongside other authorities, Shah argues that Candrananda’s work was already well known by Abhinavagupta’s time and thus probably predates him. Because Abhinavagupta completed his commentary around 1014 CE, Candrananda must have flourished no later than the tenth century. Shah’s examination thus supports Aklujkar’s view that Candrananda cannot be placed after the tenth century. The article also sheds light on the network of citations among Indian philosophers: Abhinavagupta synthesises ideas from the Vākyapadīya, Bhāgavata‑Gītā and many Śaiva and Vaiṣṇava worksfile:///home/oai/share/split_pdfs/A_Reference_to_Bhatta_Candrananda_by_Abhinavagupta.pdf#:~:text=his%20earlier%20works%20like%20Abhinava,favourite%20source%20is%20Bhartrhari%20and. The reference to Candrananda demonstrates Abhinavagupta’s respect for the Vaiśeṣika tradition and underscores the intertextual nature of Sanskrit scholarship.