Commentaries on Ramayana

[Kenneth Zysk]

I thank Prof. Brockington for his useful comments, and hope that Bob Goldman could also give me some advice on these matters, with some useful references.

With best wishes,

Ken
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: John Brockington 
  To: INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk 
  Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 2:35 PM
  Subject: Re: Commentaries on Ramayana


  on 15/10/03 7:27 am, Kenneth Zysk wrote:

  > Perhaps someone can help with information about several commentaries on the
  > Ramayana. I should appreciate any information, dates, etc., with possible
  > references for the following commentaries:

  The best person to ask about this is Robert Goldman, who has studied them
  intensively as part of his work on the Princeton translation of the Critical
  Edition of the R-am-aya,na.  However, here are some initial reactions.

  > 1. "Tilaka:" According to CC vol. 1 (pp. 515, 523) the author is Ramavarman or
  > Ramasarman, son of Himmativarman, pupil of Nagesa.  However, accordinging to
  > the Critical Edition, vol. 5 (p. xi), the author is Nagesa. Which is correct?

  The general consensus is that the Tilaka commentary was written by N-age'sa
  Bha.t.ta; why the CC suggests otherwise is unclear to me.

  > 2. "Ramayanatattvadipika" of Mahesvaratirtha or Mahesa. According to CC vol. 1
  > (p. 446), the author is a pupil of Narayanatirtha, who could be the son of
  > Nilakanthasuri of Varanasi, thus putting his date in the 18th cent. However,
  > the Critical Edition, vol. 1 (p. xxx) dates him at around A.D. 1550.
  > Clarification ?

  Since this is one of the older commentaries, the earlier date seems more
  likely than the later.

  > 3. "Ramayanasiromani." An edition of the Ramayana with three commentaries
  > printed by The News Printing Press of Gujarati in about 1918-19 (no date is
  > given), contains a commentary called Ramayanasiromani, which, according to the
  > opening mangala verses, seems to have been authored by a disciple of
  > Vamsidhara. I do cannot find any other reference to this commentary. What is
  > the problem here?

  The R-am-aya.na'siroma.ni is generally ascribed to Va.m's-idhara
  'Sivasah-aya and this seems consistent with its opening verses.

  Yours

  John Brockington


  Professor J. L. Brockington
  Secretary General, International Association of Sanskrit Studies

  Sanskrit, School of Asian Studies
  7 Buccleuch Place
  Edinburgh   EH8 9LW        U.K.

  tel:  +131 650 4174
  fax: +131 651 1258