Archiv Fur Indische Philosophie

Author(s): Johannes Bronkhorst
Publisher: Johannes Bronkhorst
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/269723/1

Page #1

ARCHIV FÜR INDISCHE PHILOSOPHIE
VÄRTTIKA
By Johannes Bronkhorst, Lausanne
1.1. In an interesting article (1974) the following theory was launched about the Yuktid pika by A. WEZLER'. This text has a peculiar method of presentation "so striking that the reader cannot fail to observe it" (p. 440f.). It consists in "[t]he juxtaposition of a detailed verbal paraphrase and a preceding, most concise nominal expression or sentence" which can be observed ... throughout it" (p. 438). The result is that the text of the YD on the respective karikās is not a sequence of arguments for and against, each being put forward only once, that, on the contrary, the train of thought is permanently interrupted by restatements of the opponent's objections and defender's rejoinders" (p.440). WEZLER thinks that "this stylistic peculiarity stands in need of ... a convincing explanation" (p. 441), Such an explanation is suggested by Patañjali's Mahabhagya, "which aims at a critical discussion - not of the stras of Panini, in the first place - but of Katyayana's vārttikas on the stras of Panini" (p. 443). The Mahabhasya "presents itself to a reader unaware of its containing the work of Katyayana, as a sequence of very short, epigrammatic nominal expressions, often difficult to understand, and comparatively longer verbal phrases meant to expound them" (p.444). The surmise seems justified "that the kernel sentences regularly met with in the YD belong likewise to an author other than that of the YD, that accordingly one has to distinguish between the laconie Varttika of an author X on the (Sankhyakärika) and the true YD of an author Y, an extensive work written in normal Sanskrit prose that aims first of all at expounding this Värttika" (p. 444).
"Conclusive evidence" (p. 446) in support of the correctness of this surmise is found, according to WEZLER, in the fact that at least in the case of one such württika (artha pattisambhavabhāvacestānām anuma nasiddheh (p. 32, 1.30]) a word (avacanam) must be supplied from an
• Financial maintance we provided by the Netherlands Organization for the Advancement of Pure Research (Z. W.O.).
Prof. Wezler informa me in a letter that he changed his views & number of years ago and came to conclusions regarding the Yuktipiki which are with those presented in the present article. I thank Prof. Wezler for some further critical remarks.
WZKS 34 (1990) 123-146

Page #2

124
J. BRONKHORST
tarttika
125
earlier wirtlika (upamaitihyāvacanam aptopadešasiddheh (p.32, 13]) by way of anurrtti "the still being valid (of a term mentioned previously in one or many subsequent parts of the text]' (p. 445). Moreover, only on the assumption of the Yuktidepika's "containing an older vårttika text that belongs to another author... can one, e.g., account also for the - otherwise illogical fact that in the passage YD p.56.15-16... there is raised an objection by the opponent that is based on the assumption that herumal means 'characterized by a [logical] reason' although in the foregoing it had already been stated that he is here synonymous with karana, 'cause. (p. 56.11: tatra heluh karanam ity anarthantaram)" (p. 446)
The name of the older wärttika text must have been - as appears from a quotation by Văcaspatimiára I - "Rajavärttika" (p. 450). 1.2. No one can deny that WRZLER's theory representa a possibility. I doubt however whether the evidence provided proves the theory as conclusively as WEZLER maintained.
There can be no doubt that the text of the Yuktidipika contains concise nominal expressions or sentences which we may safely call vürttikas. The question is whether these drttikas were composed by an author other than the one of the Yuktidepika. The use of anuurttiamong the varttikas cannot be used as an argument, as little as the use of anuuttiin, say, the outras of Candra's grammar is an argument against Candra's authorship of the Vrtti on that grammar. It is at least conceivable that one single author wrote both the short expressions and their explanation, perhaps for mnemonie purposes and clarity respectively, or simply because he admired the style of the Mahabhagya (more on this below).
WEZLER's second argument, concerning the interpretation of hetumal, must be studied somewhat more closely. The word hetumal
characterized by a hetu' occurs in Sankhyakārikā 10, as a qualification of vyaktam 'the manifest'. The Yuktidipikā first explains the word hetu (p. 56, 1. 11): tatra hetuh kāranam ity anarthantaram. This word is here said to have been used in one of its senses, viz., as synonymous with karana 'cause'. Soon after this & vårttika voices the opinion of the opponent (p. 56, I. 15-16): hetumad ity avisesah sarvatra sadbhavde "characterized by a hetu' is a non-distinction (i.e. is not a distinctive property of the manifest) since it exists everywhere" (WEZLER, P. 440). Onp. 446 WEZLER tells us that it is "illogical" that an objection is raised
that is based on the assumption that hetumat means 'characterized by a (logical reason' although in the foregoing it had already been stated that hetu is here synonymous with karana 'cause'". However, this objection is directed not only against the use of hetumal in the karika
but also against the interpretation proposed in the commentary. This becomes clear where the reply that heu here refers to a causal factor (karaka) is rejected on the ground that the general word hetu does not take a special meaning without an instigating factor to that effect (p. 56, 1. 19-21: aha-tadanu papattih vispārupadanathelur iti sāmānya abdo 'yam såmanyasabdās ca närthaprakaranasabdāntarabhisambandham antarena viene vatistanta ili višepa upadeyah syal sa tu nopädiyale tasmāt le avisesă eveti ).
Since now WEZLER's two arguments appear to be less strong than they seemed, we are back at the situation where his theory represents a possibility, and no more than that. 1.3. What is needed is, of course, some crucial evidence. Crucial evidence in support of WEZLER's theory would be, for example, the discovery that the YuktidTpika misinterpreta a vārtika, or expresses an opinion different from the one expressed in a virttika. I am not aware of any such case.
Strong evidence against WEZLER's theory would be, for example, the discovery that roughly contemporaneously with the YuktidTpika other works were composed in the same style - i.e. drtikas plus discussions, works the single authorship of which is none-the-less not in doubt. Such evidence would gain in strength if such a work - the whole of it, including the comments on the dirttikas - were to call itself a 'Vårttika'. Such a work exists. 1.4. The Tattvarthavārttika of Akalanka comments on the Tattvār. thasútra, an early Jaina work in Sanskrit. Akalanka must have lived in the 7th or 8th century A. D. His Tattvärthavárttika, which is also known by the name R&javārttika, is written precisely in the way also the YuktidTpiki was written, viz. in a style which alternates between short nominal sentences and their detailed verbal paraphrase, as well as occasional further discussions in normal prose. The editor of this text, MAHENDRA KUMAR JAIN, has taken the trouble of having the nominal phrases printed in heavier type and providing (?) them with a serial number the counting starts afresh with each new rulra, as in KIELHORN's edition of the Mahabhisya), so that the style and structure of the text become visible at first sight.
The TattvarthavĀrttika has never been doubted to be the work of a single author, as far as I know. And indeed, at some places it can easily be seen that the nominal sentences do not by themselves constitute an independent work. Some examples are the following,
* For a survey of the evidence see JAIN 1964: 1714..

Page #3

126
J. BRONKHORST
TS 1.15 gives four subdivisions of the kind of knowledge called mati. They are avagraha, tha, avaya and dharaṇā. Sūtra 1.18 (vyanjanasyāvagrahaḥ) states that the variety called avagraha concerns an object (artha, TS 1.17) which is vyanjana. This is explained by Devanandin, the author of the commentary Sarvarthasiddhi, and following him by Akalanka, as avyakta 'indistinct'. I reproduce the beginning of Akalanka's commentary on this sutra, including the first nominal sentence which is contained in it (I p. 66, 1. 27 - p. 67, 1. 2):
vyañjanam avyaktam sabdādijātam tasyavagraho bhavati | kimartham idam | niyamartham - avagraha eva nehädaya iti | sa tarhy evakāraḥ kartavyaḥ na va samarthyad avadharaṇapratiteḥ abbhaksavat |1|na va kartavyaḥ kim karanam | samarthyad avadhāraṇapratiteḥ | katham | abbhakṣavat | yatha na kaścid apo na bhakṣayatiti sămarthyad avadharanam pratiyale apa eva bhakṣayatīti tatha sarveṣām avagrahādīnām prasiddhav avagrahavacanam avadhāraṇārtham vijñāyate | This passage shows, incidentally, the way in which nominal sentences are dealt with in the Tattvärthavarttika. As in the Yuktidipika and in the Mahabhaṣya, the content of this sentence is repeated in a verbal style.
What interests us at this moment is that the nominal sentence contained in this passage cannot stand alone. It offers an alternative to something which must have been said earlier. But no such nominal sentence precedes it. None of the preceding sentences has the required form, nor is any of them commented upon in the manner usual for such sentences. In other words, the nominal sentence beginning with na va is a reaction upon the preceding commentary and must therefore itself be part of the commentary.
Another example occurs on TS 3.4. This sutra tells us that the inhabitants of hell (näraka [3.3]) "suffer mutually inflicted pains" (parasparodiritaduḥkhaḥ). The Tattvärthavarttika comments (I p. 164, 1. 35 p. 165, 1. 5):
katham parasparodiritaduḥkhatvam nirdayatvat parasparadarsane sati kopotpatteḥ svavat | 1 | yatha śvānaḥ śāśvatikākāraṇānādikālapravṛttajatikṛtavairäpäditanirdayatvät parasparabhakṣaṇabhedanachedanadyudiritaduḥkha bhavanti tatha näraka api bhavapratyayenāvadhijñānena mithyadarsanodayad vibhangavyapadeśabhäjä [?] ca düräd eva duḥkhahetun avagamyotpannaduḥkhäḥ pratyasattau parasparǎlokanāc ca prajvalitakopagnayaḥ svavikṛtāsiväsiparašubhinḍivālādibhiḥ parasparadehalaksanabhedanachedanapiḍanadibhir udiritaduḥkha bhavanti
The nominal sentence is, as usual, followed by an extensive explanation. The problem is that this nominal sentence, too, requires another one which precedes it. The preceding question does not qualify since these
värttika
127
nominal sentences never ask questions. Had the nominal sentences constituted a separate work, the present sentence would have read. parasparodiritaduḥkhatvam nirdayatvat parasparadarsane sati kopotpat teh svavat or the like. The fact that it does not, shows that the nominal sentences are an integral part of the commentary.
It is interesting to see that also in the Tattvärthavärttika - as in the Yuktidīpikā (see 1.1. and 1.2.) words are understood from an earlier nominal sentence into a later one. An example is provided by the numbered sentences 9 and 10 on TS 4.12. Together with their explanations they read (I p. 218, 1. 28-31):
suryasyadau grahanam alpactaratvad abhyarhitatvac ca | 9| suryasabda adau prayujyate | kutaḥ | alpactaratwad abhyarhitatrac ca | sarvabhibhavasamarthatvad dhy abhyarhitaḥ suryaḥ | grahadisu ca | 10 kim | alpactaratvad abhyarhitatvac ca purvanipäta iti vakyaseṣaḥ | grahasabdas tavad alpactaro 'bhyarhitaś ca tarakāśabdāt | nakṣatrasabdo 'bhyarhitaḥ |
Here the words alpactaratvad abhyarhitatvac cadau grahanam (paraphrased as... pūrvanipataḥ) must be understood in sentence 10 from 9.
The nominal sentences are sometimes referred to in the Tattvärthavärttika itself. In the last quoted passage the compound vakyaseṣa is used to designate what must be supplied to the nominal sentence under consideration. The same word vakya 'sentence' is seen to refer to nominal sentences elsewhere as well. The purpose of numbered sentence 8 on TS 2.49 is described as: uktänuktärthasamgrahartham idam väkyam (I p. 153, 1. 11f.). And numbered sentence 8 on TS 3.5 proposes itself that a vakya must be made, which proposal is then rejected, in the following passage (I p. 165, 1. 28f.): vakyavacanam iti cen na - udiraṇahetuprakarapradarśanarthatvat | 8| syad etat - vakyam eva vaktavyam parasparenodiritaduḥkhäḥ samklistãsurais ca prak caturthya iti | tan na... etc.
It may further be noted that nominal sentences do not accompany all of the sutras. They are absent, e. g., in the case of TS 2.45, 46; 3.12, 15, 16, 17; etc. In this the Tattvärthavärttika resembles the Mahabhāṣya.
Numerous quotations from the Mahabhaṣya show that Akalanka was well acquainted with that work. He does not however mention its
Cf. the late definition of väritikatva: wütre nuktaduruktacintākaratvanı värttikatvam (Nagojibhatta's Mahabhayapradipoddyota on P.1.1.1, vt. 1). A similar definition is given in Hemacandra's Abhidhanacintämaņi, cited in BÖHTLINGKROTH 1855-75: VI/947 s. v. värttika, and in the Parléaropapurăna, cited in BALI 1976: 103 n. 1.

Page #4

128
J. BRONKHORST
name or the name of its author on any occasion, as far as I have been able to ascertain.
2.1. The preceding considerations give rise to an intriguing question. If at one time authors could use the name 'Varttika' for a unitary work consisting of both short nominal phrases (värttikas) and their discussion, could it be that they looked upon the prototype of this style, the Mahabhaṣya together with Katyayana's varttikas, as a single composition of one author as well?
The question need not be asked in this extreme form. After all, there are passages in the Mahabhaṣya where even a superficial reader can see that värttikas are ascribed to other persons, e. g. where värttikakāras are named, or where two interpretations are given of one värttika. However, the bulk of the Mahabhaṣya is not like this. KIELHORN (1876a: 7) rightly observed: "... the commentators on the Mahabhashya, or other scholars who have written on Pânini,... only occasionally contrast the views of Patanjali with those of the Vârttikakára, and they tell us only incidentally that a particular. statement is a Vârttika or belongs to Kâtyâyana. And Patanjali himself, the author of the Great Commentary, is even more reticent." KIELHORN seems to have been the first to separate värttikas from bhasya in a systematic manner. Over thousand years before KIELHORN far fewer värttikas may have been ascribed to Kätyäyana and other authors different from Patanjali. As a result much of the Mahabhasya may have been looked upon as written in precisely the style which also characterizes the Yuktidipika and the Tattvärthavärttika.
A study of the use of the word värttika in the Yuktidīpikä seems to support this supposition. This word is used only once in YD, in a passage which occurs on p. 10f. The discussion is about Sankhyakarikā lab: duḥkhatrayabhighätäj jijñāsä tadapaghatake hetau / "Since there is affliction by the three [kinds of] suffering (duḥkha), there is inquiry into the cause which removes them (tad-)".
On p. 10 the discussion centres on the relation between duḥkha- and tadin this line. The opponent thinks there can be no connection between these two words, because several words intervene. Two replies are given. The first one is, briefly stated, that connection is made by meaning, not by proximity. The second reply deserves to be quoted in full (p. 10. 1. 29 p. 11, 16):
See KIELHORN 1876a.
Even against this procedure doubts have been voiced. See ROCHER 1971: 315; JOSHI ROODBERGEN 1981: 140f. n. 452.
värtlika
129
-
kin canyat - sastre darsanat | sastre ca vyavahitānām api sarvanämnäm abhisambandho dréyate yasya gunasya hi bhävad dravye sabdanivesas tadabhidhane tvatalav ity atrarthakṛtaś ca sambandhaḥ sabdānām abhyupagataḥ nyapprātipadikad bahuşu bahuvacanam supo dhätupratipadikayor alug uttarapada ity evamädīnām sambandhäbhyupagamaḥ | tathanaḍväham udaharini bhagini vahasi ya tvam sirasi kumbham avācinam abhidhävantam adräkṣir iti värttike dṛṣṭāntah na hy atra saty anantarye sirasanaḍuho vahanam kumbhasya va saranam upapadyate | yatha cātra vyavahitānām abhisambandhas tathehapi draṣṭavyaḥ |
"Moreover: [Connection between words which are not in immediate proximity is possible] because this is seen to be the case in the science [of grammar]. Also in the science [of grammar] there is seen to be connection between pronouns even though they are separated. And in yasya gunasya hi bhavad dravye sabdanivesas tadabhidhane tvatalau (P.5.1.119 vt. 5) the connection between the words lyasya and tad-.. even though] made by meaning, is accepted. Connection is accepted between [the sutras] P. 4.1.1 and 1.4.21, and between 2.4.71 and 6.3.1, etc.. Similarly, an example in the Värttika is anaḍväham udahāriņi bhagini vahasi ya tvam birasi kumbham avacīnam abhidhävantam adrākṣiḥ (Mbh I p. 152-53). Not indeed is in this [sentence], in spite of the proximity [of the words concerned], 'carrying a bull on one's head' (birasanaḍuho vahanam) or 'running of the jar' (kumbhasya saranam) the proper [connection]. And just as in these [grammatical examples] separated [words] are connected, so the connection [between duḥkhaand tad- in Sankhyakärikä 1] must be seen."
This is an instance of a varttika in the text of the Yuktidīpikā. 7 This värttika reads in KIELHORN's edition (II p. 366, 1. 10): siddham tu yasya gunasya bhavad dravye sabdanivetas tadabhidhäne tvatalau.
8 This must be the intended meaning, as follows from two passages in Bhartṛhari's Mahabhaṣуadīpika. Ms 31 c9-10 (AL 96.10-11; Sw 113.21-23; CE III.3.26-27) reads:... vyakarane 'py arthalakṣaṇaḥ sambandho narthakṛto yatha bahusu bahuvacanam nyapprälipadikad iti; Ms 32d7-8 (AL 99.21-22; Sw 117.3-4; CE III.6.20-22) has: iha katham supo... lug alug uttarapada iti | atrāpīdam vakyam uttarapadad anyatra supo lug iti.
KIELHORN's edition has: anadväham udahāri ya tvam harasi sirasă kumbham bhagini sacīnam abhidhävantam adräkşir iti. The Bhagya 'explains' this passage as follows (p. 153, 1. 2f.): udahari bhagini ya tuam kumbham harasi firasanadväham sacīnam abhidhavaniam adräkşir iti. Note that Bhartṛhari's Mahabhasуadīpika (Ms 35 b5-6; AL 96.5-6; Sw 113.16 17; CE III.3.21-22) has this example in a form closer to the Yuktidīpika's: anadvaham udahari ya tvam vahasi sirasa bhagini kumbham sacīnam abhidhävantam adrākṣir it[i]... nästi anaduhaḥ birasa vahanam kumbhasya ca saranam iti.

Page #5

J. BRONKHORST
130
varilika
131
The crucial sentence in this passage concerns the "example in the Värttika". The phrase varttike dysfāntah can, to be sure, mean more than alone 'example in the Varttika'. It can also mean 'example with respect to. i.e., of a vürttika', and the like. The fact is that none of the acceptable interpretations of this phrase fits the example under consideration. This example occurs in a part of the Mahābhāsya where & värttika has been rejected and where it is shown that the aim of that vārttika can be obtained without it.
The sutra under which the example occurs is P. 1.1.58: na padantadvirvacanavareyalopasvarasavarnanusváradirghajascarvidhipu. This sūtra is an exception to the preceding one (P. 1.1.57) and states that the substitute for a vowel is not like that what it replaces in the case of rules which concern 1) the end of a word, 2) the doubling of a sound, 3) the elision of ya before vara, 4) the accent, 5) a homogeneous sound, 6) an anusvāra, 7) a long vowel, 8)), b.9. d. d. 9), f.I, k. p. 8, 8.8.
The first värttika under this sūtra gives a further specification: pralisedhe svaradirghayalopesu lopājādeso na sthanival "In this prohibition (it must be stated that only) the substitute for a vowel which consists in elision (lopa) is not like that what it replaces (na sthanival) in the case of accent, long vowel, elision of ya". In other words, in these cases the substitute for a vowel which is anything else than elision is like that what it replaces (Mbh I p. 152, 1. 18f: yo hy anya ādeśaḥ Sthanivad evāsau bhavali).
The Mahabhāşya rejects this varttika in the following passage (I p. 152, 1.22 - p. 153, 1. 3): na vaktavyam iha hi lopo 'pi prakrta adeso 'pi vidhigrahanam api prakstam anuvartate dirghadayo 'pi praksta adešo 'pi nirdisyante kevalam taträbhisambandhamätram karlavyam | svaradirghayalopavidhiou lopajadešo na sthanivad iti anupūrvyena saminivisanan yathestam abhisambandhah Sakyate kartum na caitäny anuparvyena samnivistani anānupūrvyenapi samniviştanam yathestam abhisambandho bhavati tad yatha anadvāham udahari ya tuam harasi sirasa kumbham bhagini säcinam abhidhavantam adrākşir iti lasya yathestam abhisambandho bhavati "This vårttika) should not be uttered; because in this (värttika) elision (lopa), substitute (adesa) as well as the word vidhi 'rule' are valid (from P.11.58 since they are the subject matter of this stutra), and also long
(vowels) are mentioned in P. 1.1.58). Only the correct connection [between the words of P. 1.1.58) must be made in that (sütra, in order to obtain the meaning expressed by the vārtlika:) saradirghayalopavi dhisu lopājādeso na sthanival. [Objection:) of (words) which are arranged in the (right) order, (such) a connection can be made as desired; these words) however are not arranged in the [right] order. [Reply:) The connection also of (words) which are not arranged in the (right) order is as desired. For example: anadváham udahari ya tvam harasi sirasa kumbham bhagini sdcinam abhidhavantam adräksih. The connection between the words of this sentence] is as desired." This passage is meant to show that vt. 1 is superfluous. The information which the vürttika was intended to convey is already contained in the sūtra. The order of terms in the stutra seems hard to reconcile with the information thus to be conveyed, but an example shows that this can be no objection. This example therefore does not occur in a wirttika, nor does it illustrate a vārttika. We must conclude that the Yuktidepika used the word varttika to denote more than just the nominal sentences which we ascribe to Katyāyana.
The above does not imply that the author of the YuktidTpika was never aware of the difference in authorship between the short nominal sentences and at least parts of the MahābhAsya. In one passage about grammar (YD p. 6, L. 191.) a distinction is made between a padakāra and a curnikara. The padakära is said to have used the compound jativacakatvat. KIELHORN's edition of the Mahabhaya has two vārtikas containing this compound: P. 1.2.10 vt. 1, and P.4.1.14 vt. 7. To the cürnikära is ascribed the sentence kadăcid guno gunivisesako bhavati kadācid gunina guno višinyate, which occurs in almost identical form at Mbh II p. 356, 1. 8f. (on P.5.1.59). The term padakāra is rare as a name for the author of the varttikas, but it occurs at least once more, viz.in Jinendrabuddhi's Nyāsa on the Käsiki on P. 3.2.21 (II p. 558), where the reference is to P. 1.1.72 vt. 9. The word cūrnikāra is used to designate the author of the Mahabhasya in Bharthari's Mahabhāşyadipika (Ms 45c9, AL 139.18[!), Sw 161.21, CE IV.25.10; Ms 50d3, AL 155.16, CE V.1.15; Ms 60a11, AL 180.11, CE V.21.14), in Vrsabhadeva's Paddhati on Vakyapadiya 1.23 (p. 63, 1. 12), in Heldrāja's Prakirnakaprakasa on Vakyapadiya 3.1148 (-3.14.447; II p. 356, 1. 20 and p. 357, 1.18.), 3.1186(-3.14.485:11 p.371, 1.24), by I-ching (see below). and elsewhere (MTMĀMSAKA 1973: T/331.).
This is all the evidence yielded by the Yuktid pik. The impression it creates is that in some cases its author distinguished between the nominal sentences and their immediate discussion on the one hand, and more independent passages of the Mahabhişya on the other. However,
10 The Mahabhasya paraphrases vt. I with the help of the word vidhi (I p. 152, 1. 17) prati edhe siaradirghayalopavidhiyu lopajadelo na sthanivad bhawa lili vaktavyam.

Page #6

132
J. BRONKHORST
drttika
133
the evidence is not sufficient to come to any clear and definite. conclusions on the basis of the Yuktidipika alone, 2.2. The author of the Yuktid pikå appears to have known the Mahābhāşyadipika, Bharthari's commentary on the Mahabhāsya". How did Bharthari look upon the Mahabhâsya? 2.2.1. (1) P. 1.1.38 (taddhitas cisaruavibhaktih) prescribes that a word which is formed with a taddhita suffix and does not take all case-endings, is called avyaya 'indeclinable'. A number of varttikas (in KIELHORN'S edition) express dissatisfaction with the formulation of this sutra and propose specifications. Then vt. 6 together with the following Bhişya offer a better solution which reads (I p. 95, 1. 9-11): siddham tu pathal 6 || pathad va siddham etat katham pathah kartavyah tasilādayah prāk pašapah basprabhatayah pråk samāsantebhyah mäntah kerto'rthah! lasivati nänänav ili 11 "But the desired result is obtained by enumeration" (vt. 6). "Or this desired result) is obtained by enumeration. How must the enumeration be made! From tasll until påón P (i.e. the taddhila suffixes taught in P. 5.3.7-46), from fas until the compound endings (taught in P.5.4.42-67), (a suffix) which ends in m (.e. am and am, P.5.4.11-12), (a suffix) which has the meaning of krivas (P.5.4.17-20). taal and vall (P.4.3.113 and 5.1.115), na and naN (P.5.2.27)."
One short passage in Bharthari's comments on this enumeration uses the word uirttika twice (Ms 76c3-4; AL 226.5-6): wartlike tu taddhilah prakrtā iti asir" na pathitah thal visemäl thality ayam vårttike nopasamgrhitah "Since taddhita (suffixes are under discussion in the Värttika, dsl has not been enumerated" (The suffix) thal (prescribed) in P.5.3.111 is not included in the Varttika".
The first sentence of this passage does not contain unambiguous information regarding what is meant by the word ditika. The second sentence on the other hand does. This sentence points at an oversight in the enumeration in the Bhisya of taddhita suffixes which form indeclinables: the suffix thaL prescribed in P. 5.3.111 has been forgotten". Since the enumeration took place not in a nominal sentence but in the explanatory Bhasya, the word varttika has here been used to indicate the latter. (ii) Another passage on the same sutra uses the word tarttika. P. 1.1.38 vt. 1 and its Bhasya consist of the following remarks (I p. 94, 1. 10f.): asarvavibhaktav avibhaktinimittasyopasamkhyanam ||1|| asarvavibhaktav avibhaktinimitasyopasankhyanam karlavyem | ndna vina "Regarding the term) asarvavibhakti [in P. 1.1.38 addhitas casarvavibhakti). addition of avibhaktinimitta 'not caused by a case-ending" (vt. 1). "Regarding the term anarnavibhakti the addition must be made of avibhaktinimitta 'not caused by a case-ending'. [Only thus can P. 11.38 cover the formal nina vina." The words nana and vina are formed with the help of P. 5.2.27 (vinařbhyam nänänau na saha) in the sense 'not together' (na saha). The taddhita suffixes nd and nan cannot be described as asarvavibhakti: they have no relation whatever to any case-ending and must be described as avibhaktinimitta 'not caused by a case-ending! Yet the words nānd and vind are indeclinables.
Bharthari (Ms 74d4f.; AL 221.19.) gives a long account of the ways in which earlier commentators (urttikara) have explained the word asaruavibhakti and concludes his description of the last point of view as follows (MS 75b1-2; AL 222.19-21): asmims tu yo dogah sa vårttika eva darsitahnänä vinä iti asaruavibhaktāv avibhaktinimittam ili "What is wrong in this point of view) has however been pointed out in the Varttika itself (with the words:) 'For the sake of nana and vina, avibhaktinimitta (must be added) to asarvavibhakti"." Note that Bharthari had not yet made a reference to vt. 1, nor to any tarttika on P. 1.1.38 for that matter. His present remark therefore appears to quote what Bharthari considered to be a or the 'Varttika'. Something like an anibhaktiv arbhaktinimittam does occur in a
" See BRONKHORST 1985: 93f. and notes 8 and 9 above.
12 The Kasik on P. 1.1.37 confirms that this must be the correct reading. In its list of indeclinables it enumerates: lasiladih laddhita ed Meparyantah, salasi, kytuosue, nu, ds-thalau, cuyarthas ca, am, am ... Jinendrabuddhi's Nyasa comments: Bathala ili lina doir ity anddistrena ino dhator dsipratyayah ayd ity wdaharanam . Un di suffixes are kept, not therefore addhita. The sura: ina asih (or inai cash) is present in the surviving versions of the Unadi Sotra, but not all commentaries mention that ayds is an indeclinable. An exception is Mahadeva's Un dikosa 4.221.
" This remark presupposes that Bharthari had before him a list of indeclinables much like the one in the Kasika on P. 1.1.37 (see the preceding note). This supports the view put forth elsewhere (BRONKHORST 1983: esp. section 3.4) that the K Kaikk was strongly influenced by earlier, pre. Bharthari commentaries
# Bharthari tries to make up for this in the following lines, where he proposes that the suffix thaL prescribed in P.5.3.111 is the same as thil. prescribed in P.5.3.23 which is included in the row from taslL until padaP' and has therefore been included (yatnas tu kriyale ya era prakdramacone thal chandasi sa era pralnodibhya inarthe (Whanaliti).

Page #7

134
J. BRONKHORST
vārttika (vt. 1); nānā and vină on the other hand are the illustrations given in the Bhasya.
(iii) A third passage in Bhartṛhari's Mahabhaṣyadīpika deals with P. 1.1.14 (nipata ekaj anan). The interpretation of this sütra offers some. difficulties which are discussed in the Mahabhaṣya. At one stage the following paraphrase is given of the part nipäta ekac of the sutra (I p. 70, 1. 16-17): aj eva yo nipata ity evam vijñāsyate "[This part of the sutra] will be understood as 'the vowel which is a nipăta"".
Bhartṛhari's following remarks apparently pertain to this sentence (Ms 55d1056a1; AL 168.11-12; CE V.12.4-6):
nipata ity anenaci višeşyamane tadantavidhyaprasangad doṣaprasango nopatisthati värtlikaviparite tu viseşyatve uttisthati samudayasyarthe prayogat |
"When [the word] 'vowel' (ac) is qualified by [the designation] nipata no fault results since there is no occasion for P. 1.1.72 to apply. In case the relation of qualified [to qualifier] is opposite to [what is said. in] the Varttika [such a fault] does result since a collection [of sounds] is used to [express a certain] meaning."
In order to understand these remarks we recall that P. 1.1.72 (yena vidhis tadantasya) is thus explained in the Käsika: yena višeṣaṇena vidhir vidhiyate sa tadantasya ätmäntasya samudayasya grahako bhavati svasya ca rupasya "With what as qualifier a rule is given, that denotes the collection [of sounds] which ends therewith, and itself". In other words, if ac were qualifier and nipata qualified, all nipatas which end in vowels would be denoted. Only by taking ac as qualified, nipăta as qualifier, can this contingency be avoided.
Our main interest lies of course with the remark about the or a varttika. This is here particularly interesting since the Bhasya on P. 1.1.14 contains not a single värttika in KIELHORN's edition 15. Bhartṛhari apparently assigns this name to the Bhasya sentence aj eva yo nipata[b]. This sentence is not commented upon in the Mahabhaṣya in the manner usual with 'real' varttikas. The question is however raised in Mbh (1. 17) if this sentence should be uttered', i.e. accepted as a statement regarding the correct interpretation of P. 1.1.14 (kim vaktavyam etad na hil.). It seems therefore that Bartṛhari uses the word värttika not only for Bhasya passages which deal in one way or another with 'real' vārtikas, but also for (accepted or rejected) statements which are an obvious and inseparable part of the Bhāṣya.
15 LIMAYE, PALSULE and BHAGAVAT (CE V Notes p. 104) observe: "In the MS... there is a word värttike before viparite which we have dropped as there is no Vär. on this S0.".
värttika
135
(iv) In another place (Ms 54c1, AL 164.17, CE V.9.3) Bhartṛhari uses the term samarthavärttika while apparently referring to a Bhasya passage on P.2.1.1. samarthaḥ padavidhiḥ. This Bhasya passage is quoted in extenso by Bhartṛhari, so that its identity is beyond doubt..
The Bhasya passage is Mbh I p. 362, 1. 17-21. This occurs in the midst of a discussion on the difference between compounded and uncompounded words. Among the characteristics of non-compounded words some are enumerated in the following statement which KIELHORN does not number as a varttika but which can easily be considered as one (I p. 362, 1. 13): samkhyāvisezo vyaktabhidhanam upasarjanavisesanam cayogaḥ "(indication of) particular number; clear indication of meaning: qualifier to the subordinate word; connection by means of (the particle) ca: 'and'" (tr. JOSHI 1968: 58).
The first item of this list is illustrated as follows (1. 14f.): samkhyāviseso bhavati vakye | rajñaḥ purusaḥ rajñoh purusaḥ rajñām purusa iti | samase na bhavati rajapuruşa iti | "(Indication of) particular number occurs in a an uncompounded word-group, as in rajñaḥ puruṣaḥ 'man of a king', rajñoḥ purusaḥ 'man of two kings', räjñām puruṣaḥ 'man of many kings'. In a compound it does not occur, as in rajapuruṣaḥ 'king-man'." (tr. JOSHI, p. 58).
The Bhasya then gives, by way of objection, an explanation why no particular number is understood in a compound (1. 15-17): asti käraṇam yenaitad evam bhavati | kim karanam | yo sau višesavāci sabdas tadasāmnidhyat anga hi bhavams tam uccarayatu gamsyate sa visesaḥ || "There is a reason why this happens to be so. What is that reason? Because that word (i. e. inflectional suffix) which expresses the specific (number), that (inflectional suffix) is not there (in a compound). You better pronounce it (i.e. the inflectional suffix in the compound), sir, (and then you will see that) this specific (number) will be understood [even from a compound]." (tr. JOSHI, p. 60)
This objection is then answered by the passage which is quoted by Bhartṛhari, and which closes this discussion (I p. 362, 1. 17-21): nanu ca naitenaivam bhavitavyam na hi sabdakṛtena nämärthena bhavitavyam | arthakṛtena näma sabdena bhavitavyam | tad etad evam dréyatām artharupam evaitad evamjatiyakam yenätra viseso na gamyata iti | avaiyam caitad evam vijñeyam | yo hi manyate yo 'sau viseṣavācī sabdas tadasamnidhyad atra viseso na gamyata itiha tasya višeşo gamyeta |apsucaraḥ gosucaraḥ varsasuja iti ||
"But it cannot be like this: for meaning cannot be made by word, word must [rather] be made by meaning. It must be seen like this that the meaning here is such that no specific [number] is understood. And this must necessarily be understood in this way; for he who thinks that no

Page #8

136
J. BRONKHORST
drttila
137
specific (number) is understood here (ie, in a compound) because there is nothing that is expressive of a specific (number), he would understand a specific (number) in (words like) apsucara, gopucara, vargdauja (which are not expressive of a plural number in spite of the plural endings of their first constituents)." Note that this passage is not a varttika, nor is it a direct explanation of a varttika. At best it is the last part of a discussion which arose in connection with a varttika.
Bharthari quotes this passage (with insignificant variations) in order to drive home the point that "the presence or absence of a (particular) number is not the result of a particular expressive unit (salda)the pocitie number is rather the result of the single integrated meaning" (lasman na sabdavidenakle sankhyayah parityag. opädane ekarthibhāvakta evāyam višepah). Immediately following this Bharthari remarks: tad etat samarthavirttika era nimenyate. This apparently means "This will be determined in our commentary) on this same (eva) Vårttika connected with (P. 2.1.1) samarthah padavidhi)" This same Varttika cannot but refer to the Bhagya passage quoted by Bhartphari. There certainly is no reason to think, and very little likelihood, that Bhartrhari refers here to any writika in the present sense of that term, since no such vårttika deals with Bharthari's problem. 2.2.2. One more passage remains which uses the term varttika. This one (Ms 7388-9; AL 217.12-13; CE VI (1).29.13-15) cannot however be looked upon as evidence how Bharthari used this word. The reason is that in this case the Mahabhasyadipika merely echoes the Mahabhagya. The latter work quotes a vārttika (P. 8.3.13 vt. 2) saying (1 p.93, 1. 5f.): udrttikakäras ca pathati jasbhavad ili ced uttaratrābhāvād apavddaprasanga iti Bharthari followe, saying: purvaträsiddham ili linganya tadvigayaliniurityartham vārttike sabdantaravisayam lingantaram upadalle jaśbhavad iti ced uttaratra iti
Nor are the two occurences of the word värttikakära of much use for our present purpose. In the first one (Ms 39a1; AL 117.14, Sw 137.15; CE IV 5.27) passages are under discussion where vårttikas and Bhagya agree, we cannot therefore draw any conclusion here regarding what is ascribed to the värttikakara, In the second occurrence (Ms 50d3 AL 155,6; CE V.1.15) the varttikakira is mentioned soon after the cürnikara, and two varttikas (in KIELHORN 's sense) are ascribed to him. Here again we can say no more than that also vārtikas in our sense are
attributed to the varttikakära by Bharthari. Little can also be inferred from the one occurence of the name 'Katyāyana' in Bharthari's commentary (Ms 60b9; AL 181.9; CE V.22.7); it refers to the author of P.1.1.20 vt. 1.
Bharthari uses the word bhagyasūtra three times in two places of his commentary (Ms 12d2, AL 39.18, Sw 47.10, CE 1.32.27 and Ms 71 b10 - cl, AL 213.15-17, CE VI (1) 26.4-5). On both occasions the context is a sentence of Patanjali na cedanim acāryah surani krtva nivartayanti, in which, according to Bharthari, the word sutra refers to what he would call vākya, i.e. to virttikas of Katyāyana. The first time he uses bhäsyasutra while commenting on a Bhāsya passage which contains this sentence (see OJIHARA 1978: OHP. Pp. 2221.). And imme. diately following his second and preceding his third use of the word bhasyarltra Bharthari actually cites the sentence na cedanim... We must conclude that we cannot infer more from Bharthari's use of the word bhasyaslitra than that he wanted to make clear that dira in Patanjali's sentence did not denote sutras of Pāņini.
Bharthari distinguishes a number of times in his Mahabhayadipi. ki between a vakyakāra and a bhayakära. He does so explicitly at Ms 16b11-12 (AL 53.9-10, Sw 63.10, CE IL 6.25-26). Ms 41 b9 (AL 123.23, Sw 144.18, CE IV.11.11); Ms 65c11 (AL 197.8-9, CE VI [1]. 9.23-24): Ms 104b5-6 (AL 298.6-7). It is clear that vakya is used to designate what we are wont to call drttika. For example, Ms 2949 (AL 92.9-10, Sw 108.6, CE IL.39.19-20) reads: yad evoktam vākyakarena utisama
dyartha upadesa iti. The phrase uttisama dyartha wpadekah here ascribed to the takyakára is vt. 15 of the first Ahnika of the Mahabhişya (I p. 13, 1. 2). Similarly, Ms 35c3-4 (AL 107.13-14, Sw 125.12, CE III. 12.8-9) has väkyakarasya upddhigrahanam uttarartham iti vacanad.... Here P. 1.1.3 vt. 7 (I p. 47, 1. 20) is quoted and ascribed to the vükyakara. Sometimes the word vakya alone refers to a vürttika. So Ms 76a3-4 (AL 225.1-3), which proposes to connect two udkyas which turn out to be vt. 4 and 5 on P. 1.1.38 (udkyasya vakyena sambandhad adopah
idam ena sambandham tupaniyale avibhaktdv itaretardárayatudd aprasiddhih - wt. 41 alingam asarikhyam iti va [- vt. 5)...). Similarly, Ms 68c2 (AL 205.6, CE VI (1).17.25-26) summarizes the contents of P. 1.1.27 vt. 7 (ubhayanya sarunimate 'kaj arthah) in the words: akac prayojanam iti samapto vákyarthah, this is then contrasted with the opinion of the bhasyakara: bhagyakaras tu naivam vakartham warnayati kevalam pathaprayojaniny upanyynti.
On one occasion Bharthari ascribes something to the Bhagya which at least one later author considers written by Katyāyana. Mbh II.44. 17-18 (on P.3.1.35 vt. 1) has: evam tarhi käsyanekaca iti vaktavyamkim
18 On the original extent of Bharthari's commentary, see BRONKHORST 1987: 33f.

Page #9

138
J. BRONKHORST
prayojanam | culumpadyartham | culumpam cakāra daridram cakāra. Neither this nor any part of it is considered a varttika in KIELHORN'S edition. Also Bhartṛhari seems to consider the whole of this part of the Bhasya, for he says (Ms 14c5; AL 46.6; Sw 55.2; CE 1.38.4): culumpadayo 'pi bhāṣya evoccāryante. But Jinendrabuddhi, the author of the commentary Nyasa on the Käsikä on P. 3.1.35 (II.415.25-26) is of a different opinion: culumpater dhätusv aparipathitasyäpi käsyanekājgrahanam culumpadyartham iti kätyāyanavaca napramäṇyat dhātutvam veditavyam
2.2.3. The above observations leave us with the impression that in Bhartṛhari's opinion the Mahabhāṣya as a whole consisted of at least four distinguishable parts: (1) the sutras of Panini; (2) the vakyas (3) certain Bhasya portions, mainly explanatory of vakyas, referred to as varttika (4) the remaining Bhasya portions, composed by a different. author. This enumeration is no doubt not complete Bhartṛhari mentions e. g. once a separate slokavärttikakāra (Ms 29d9, AL 92.10; Sw 108.7; CE II.39.20) but it accounts for most of the Mahābhāṣya.
A confirmation of the correctness of this fourfold division is found in Bhartṛhari's Vakyapadīya 1.23 and the Vṛtti thereon. VP 1.23 reads: niyah Sabdarthasambandhas tatrăm na là maharsibhih |
sūtrāṇām sānutantrāṇām bhāṣṇāņām ca pranetrbhiḥ || This verse distinguishes between sutras, anutantras 16 and bhāṣyas (note the plural). The Vrtti however makes a fourfold division: sutra, anutantra, bhāṣya and anutantrabhasya (pp. 61-63). Examples of these four categories are given, as follows:
(1) sūtra P. 1.2.53
(2) anulantra (a) vt. 1 in Ahnika 1 (b) P. 1.1.1 vt. 9- P. 1.3.1 vt 10 (c) an unknown quotation (sphotaḥ sabdo dhvanis tasya vyāyāma upajayate) (d) part of a verse quoted (?) at Mbh I p. 75, 1. 13
(3) bhāṣyaa (distorted) sentence from the Bhasya preceding the first värttika of Ahnika 1 (samgrahe etat prädhänyena pariksitam nityaḥ sabdaḥ)
(4) anutantrabhasya (a) Mbh I p. 18, 1. 14-15, which is part of the commentary on vt. 12 on Sivasutra 117 (b) Mbh I p. 113, 1. 13-14, which occurs in the Bhasya that precedes the first värttika on P. 1.1.46 (c) Mbh I p. 137, 1. 19-20, which illustrates P. 1.1.56 vt. 14.
10 It is not impossible that Bharthari's Mahabhaṇyadipika makes a reference to anulantras at Ms 13b7 (AL 41.17, Sw 49.18, CE 1.34.19). The Ma reading elannarthatamirāṇām bhāṣyasyā brūyal is obviously corrupt and may have to be amended into elan nanutaniranam bhagyasya 'vä bräyä.
"The same phrase occurs Mbh I p. 75, 1. 8-9 (on P. 1.1.20 vt. 5); p. 112, 1. 24-25 (on P. 1.1.46); III p. 420, 1. 21 p. 421, l. 1 (on P. 8.2.106 vt. 1).
värttika
139
The only puzzling quotation is 4b. Since however 4b and 4c clearly belong together - both consist of two parts which are connected in the Bhasya with the words tataḥ paścäd äha - and 4c belongs to a varttika, we may not be troubled overmuch by 4b 18
It should be clear by now that the division of the Mahabhaṣya which came to be generally accepted was not taken for granted by Bharthari. Where we see in the short sentences which are commented upon in the Bhasya (the 'Värttikas') the work of one author (or perhaps several of them), in the Bhasya the work of another, Bhartṛhari's idea on this matter was different. He too distinguished between at least two authors, but he drew the boundaries differently. We may not be able to say regarding each portion of the Mahabhaṣya to which author Bhartrhari ascribed it. It seems however clear that in his opinion many Bhasya portions and many, or most, värttikas belonged together and had one single author. These parts of the Mahabhaṣya were apparently called 'Värttika' by Bhartṛhari.
2.3. Little is known about the history of Päninian grammar from Patanjali until Bhartṛhari (about 150 B.C.-450 A.D.). Yet there is one surviving work which probably belongs to this period and which refers to the Mahabhaṣya and the varttikas therein: Vyadi's Paribhāṣāvṛtti (see BRONKHORST 1983: section 6). This work leaves no doubt that its author was well acquainted with the Mahabhaṣya (ABHYANKAR 1967: Intr. p. 11, 13-14). But it does not mention the Mahabhasya or its author Patanjali by name. It does however refer by name to the author of the värttikas. Vyadi mentions the (or a) 'Värttikakära' twice, viz. on Paribhāṣās 6 (p.6, 1. 7) and 32 (p. 16, 1. 16). The varttikas referred to are P.5.4.69 vt. 1 and P. 3.1.13 vt. 1 and 2 respectively. The non-mention of Patanjali and his Mahabhasya may indicate that these were not. yet conceived of as different from 'Värttikakära' and 'Värttika".
A separate position is occupied by Sabara's MImamsAbhäṣya. On sutra 10.8.4 this work quotes a varttika (P. 2.1.1 vt. 2), ascribes it to the
18 The Vrtti has a puzzling reference to a 'Värttika' on VP 2.207, a passage which Prof. A.N: Aklujkar was kind enough to send to me after the completion of this article, and which can now also be found in K. A. SUBRAMANIA IYER'S recent edition (p. 241): syä väritike 'bhihitäny udaharanany jugupeate gopayitā brāhmaṇādhinam yavaka ili. The context shows that the topic of discussion is meaningless (svarthika) suffixes, and indeed all the words enumerated are formed with such an affix: jugupsate by P.3.1.5, gopäyitä by P.3.1.28, brahmanadhinam by P. 5.4.7 and yavakaḥ by P.5.4.29. But these words are not given as illustrations in either Bhasya or värttikas. Perhaps we must conclude that the Vrtti referred to another work called 'Värttika', the precise name of which (sya... värttika) has become unrecognizable.
Bharthari may not have been certain about this himself in all cases.

Page #10

140
J. BRONKHORST
vārtika
141
(or a) 'Varttikakāra' who is then named 'Katyāyana' (nityo hy asya nasabdasya subantasambandhena samasa iti varttikakāro bhagaran katyayano manyate smadvacananarthakyan canabhāvasiddhatvad iti (P. 2.1.1 vt. 2]). The information that the Vårttikakira was called 'Katyāyana' can be derived from the Bhasya on P.3.2.118 (cf. KIELHORN 1876a: 26), with the implication that the author of the Bhåşya was someone else. The MahabhĂşya is repeatedly quoted in the Mimamsabhagya (GAROR 1952: 23-25), but never mentioned by name; its author is usually not mentioned either, but the words dodrya and abhiyukta are used once each in this connection. The impression is here created that neither the work nor its author had a generally accepted name.
This brings us to the remarkable fact that the names "Patanjali 20 and Mahabhasys do not seem to have been used in connection with grammar in any work older than the Vrtti on Bharthari's Vakyapadiya They occur for the first time in VP 2.482 and 485, verses which are really part of the Vrtti (BRONKHORST 1988: 123f.). Were these names invented in order to fill the lacuna which came about when it was discovered that more than one author had composed the Mahabhagya as it was known, viz., with varttikas! 3.1. The striking agreement between the use of the word varttika in the Yuktidipika and in Bharthari's Mahabhâsyadipikā, and the agreement which must consequently have existed between their views on the Mahabhâsyal explain how 'Värttika' could for some time come to denote & category of literary compositions in which short nominal sentences alternate with their explanations in a more verbal style, as exemplified in the YuktidTpika and the Tattvarthavarttika (both of which are also called Rajavarttika). It may also explain something else which has long puzzled modern students.
I-ching, the Chinese pilgrim who visited India at the end of the 7th century, mentions in his chapter on the Sanskrit grammarians a work which he calls 'Vrttistra' and ascribes to Jayaditya (BROUGH 1973:
255f.,cf. TAXAKUSU 1896: 175f.). This work consists of 18,000 ilokas and "supplements its sūtra-text, and discusses in detail numerous (possible) interpretations. ... It discusses fully the grammatical) usages current in the world, and investigates the rules of the language addressed to the gods"??, The Vittisätra is commented upon in the Corni. The Corni, which contains 24,000 slokas, "is a work of the learned Patañjala”. This, again, cites the former Stras". The Corni is again commented upon in the 'Bhartrharisastra!
At an earlier occasion (1983: App. I) I tentatively proposed that JayAditya collected the vdrtikas and virttika-like statements found in the Kašikā, and perhaps composed some of them. In this way, I suggested, l.ching's obvious confusion of Katy yana and Jayaditya would become understandable. 'Vrttisatra' would then be a name both for Katyāyana's vārtikas and for the värttika-like statements in the Kasika.
The present investigation has made another interpretation far more probable. Since we have now come to think that at this early date Katyāyana's vårttikas were not looked upon as a separate work by themselves, I-ching cannot have heard about this as a separate work and then made a mistake about its authorship. Rather, he may have heard of the twofold division of the Mahabhāsya which we now think was current at that time, viz. the division into a 'Varttika' which contained far more than just nominal sentences, and the remainder of the Bhasya.
It appears that I ching knew just this division, and used the names vttisülra and crni for them. The first of these two names is peculiar in this context, but I-ching's account leaves us no choice. The name clini for the Mahabhraya, or much of it, is already familiar to us.
We see that according to I-ching's testimony the Vrttisutra is smaller, but not much smaller, than the Corni. Together they count 42,000 slokas, & number which may be less than half the real total number of the Mahabhigya, but which is at any rate far closer to the truth than the number of 24,000 slokas said to be contained in the Carni
* Note that VP 2.482 and 485 have plaljali, not 'Pataljali'; see BONKHORST 1983: section 73. Another early mention of the name, possibly designating the author of the Mahabhigya there as well, occurs in the Pali Calavamsa 37.217; here the spelling is plaijal. The Yuktidepika refers to a Sankhya philosopher of this name on a few occasions. Normally it has "Patanjali', once (p. 121, 19 (with fn. 2)) palanja!", it seems. The Yoga Bhasya (3.44) has 'Patanjali'. See further WEBER 1862: 147n.
* The modern view is already present in Jinendrabuddhi's Nyas where it explains I p. 4): bhasyam kalydyanaprastlanam odkiam virom palat jalipranitom. Similarly Haradatta's Padama jari.
The translation is BROUGH's (1973: 257), who points at the similarity of the second sentence with the opening lines of the MahabhAaya, see below.
3 BROUCH (1973: 257) suggests that the Chinese transcription "has apparently arisen from a confusion between the name of the author, Patanjali, and a designation of his work: 1-ching must have heard some such form as Paianjala-bhagya". If I-ching heard 'Patanjali' rather than Patanjali' (see note 20 above), the confusion becomes even more intelligible.
* I-ching does not seem to have had much idea of what a soka was see BROUGH 1973: 249 n. 8.

Page #11

142
J. BRONKHORST
vārtika
143
It is clear from this enumeration that 'Varttikal came to designate primarily a commentary in verse-form. Prose Värttikas like the YuktidTpika and the Tattvärthavārttika are few in number. Besides these two works there is Uddyotakara's NyĀyavarttika which however contains only some passages in 'Varttika' style (see WEZLER 1974: 441f.). Other prose Värttikas like Kumarila's Tantravarttika, Vijanabiksu's Yogabhagyavārttika and Krsnahlasuka's Daivavärttika do not seem to preserve a trace of it. Moreover, the 'Vārttika'style is used once in Jayantabhatta's NyKyamafjart (WEZLER 1974: 4421.), a work which does not seem to have been considered a 'Värttika' at any time. The same is true of the Nyāya Bhāsya, in which this style was already noticed by WINDISCH (1888: 15f.). Something closely resembling this style is found in other works as well, e.g., in Sankara's Bhadiranyakopanişad Bhasya 26 This means that the style of the Yuktidipika and of the Tattvarthavārttika stopped being looked upon as typical for prose Värttikas rather soon. We may suspect that this was not unconnected with the changing ideas regarding the Mahabhäşya.
Bibliography
I-ching's description of the Vșttisätra ("It discusses fully the (grammatical) usages current in the world, and investigates the rules of (the language adressed to) the gods"; see above) may reflect the opening lines of the Mahabhasya (keşām sabdanám | laukikandm vaidikandmca), as BROUCH (1973: 257) has pointed out. In this case the conclusion seems justified that these lines were considered part of the 'Varttika'at that time.
The objection that the name 'Jayaditya points toward the Kasikā as being meant by 'Vrttistra' is not strong. The opinion that the Kašika had two authors, Jayāditya and Vamana, is almost certainly wrong and probably due to Jinendrabuddhi's Nysa (BRONKHORST 1983: App. I). This means that we know little about who wrote the Kašikā, and few conclusions can be drawn from the name Jayaditya
It must here be conceded that BROUGH was able to draw what appear to be correct conclusions merely from 1-ching's statements, without the information which we now think we possess on the ideas which existed regarding the MahābhAsya in 1-ching's time. He observed (1973: 257): "It seems likely, however, that I ching was unable to discriminate between the Varttikas and the Mahabhasya: witness his statement that the 'uptti-slutra' consists of 18,000 ilokas, and the second part of the Chinese passage quoted makes sense if I ching is basing it on the opening lines of the Mahābhasya...". This lack of discrimination, we now think, was not confined to I-ching 3.2. The name 'Varttika' did not only come to denote works like the YuktidTpika and the Tattvarthavarttika. In fact, among the early works called 'Värttika *there are far more which are of a different type altogether. Most seem to follow the example of the verses quoted in the MahabhRaya, often called slokavdrtlika by the commentators (see KIELHORN 1886: 229 [215]). Indeed, several works are called
Slokavårttika'. The most famous among them was composed by the Mimāmsaka Kumarila Bhatta. Another Slokavárttika was written by Vidyānanda and comments on the Tattvartha Stra. There is also a Niruktaslokavārttika.
Besides the self-styled Slokavärttikas' there are many 'Varttikas which consist of verse. From among the many instances may be mentioned Dharmakirti's Praminavirttika, Suresvara's Brahmastra, Brhadaranyakopanişad- and Taittiriyopanişad-yirttika, two Sivasutra vårttikas (one by BhIskara, one by Varadaraja), and others.
* The original Varttika of Katy yana wae, in accordance with ita derivation, 'dealing with the procedure of the grammar (of Panini' (THEME 1955: 429 (697) n. 1). The later authors of Varttikas may or may not have had a similar purpose in view.
ABHYANKAR, K.V. (ed.) 1967: Paribhsamgraha. Poona: Bhandarkar
Oriental Research Institute (Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute
Post-graduate and Research Department Series, no. 7). Akalanka: TattvArthavirttika. Edited by MAHENDRA KUMAR JAIN. Banaras:
BhAratiya Jhanapitha Kishi, 1953 (JAAna-Pitha Mortidevi Jaina Granthamili, Samskrit Grantha no. 10). [Only one volume, covering four
Adhyâyas, was accessible to me). BALI, SURYAKANT 1976: Bhattoji Dikrita: His Contribution to Sanskrit
Grammar, New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal. Bharthari: Mahabh&şyadTpika. 1) Edited by K.V. ABHYANKAR and V.P.
LIMAYE. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1970 (PostGraduate and Research Department Series, no. 8). 2) Partly edited by V. SWAMINATHAN under the title MahabhAgya Tka, Varanasi: Banarsa Hindu University, 1965 (Hindu Vishvavidyalaya Nepal Rajya Sanskrit Series, vol. 11). 3) Manuscript reproduced. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1980. 4) Critical edition. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. At this moment six volumes have been published, Ahnika 1 by J. BRONKHORST (1987). Ahnika 2 and 3 by G.B. PALSULE (1988 and 1983). Ahnika 4 by G.V. DEVASTHALI and G.B. PALSULE (1989). • Ahnika 5 by V.P. LIMAYE, G.B. PALSULE and V. B. BHAGAVAT (1984), and
Ahnika 6 part 1 by V. B. BHAGAVAT and SAROJA BHATE (1986).
* This was pointed out to me by Prof. T. E. Vetter.

Page #12

144
J. BRONKHORST
Bhartṛhari: Vakyapadīya. Edited by WILHELM RAU. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1977 (Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes XLII, 4). Bhartṛhari: Vakyapadīya Kanda I with the Vrtti and the Paddhati of Vrsabhadeva. Edited by K. A. SUBRAMANIA IYER. Poona: Deccan College 1966 (Deccan College Monograph Series 32).
Bharthari: Vakyapadiya Kanda II. Containing the Tika of Punyaraja and the Ancient Vrtti. Edited by K. A. SUBRAMANIA IYER. Delhi-Varanasi-Patna: Motilal Banarsidass, 1983.
Bhartṛhari: Vakyapadiya Kanda III with the Prakirṇakaprakasa of Helārāja. 2 volumes. Edited by K. A. SUBRAMANIA IYER. Poona: Deccan College,
1963-73.
BÖHTLINGK, OTTO - ROTH, RUDOLPH 1855-75: Sanskrit-Wörterbuch. 7 volumes. St. Petersburg: Buchdruckerei der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
BRONKHORST, JOHANNES 1983: On the History of Paninian Grammar in the Early Centuries following Patanjali. JIP 11, pp. 357-412. BRONKHORST, JOHANNES 1985: A possible quotation from the Niruktavärttika known to Durga in the Yuktidīpika. In: Proceedings of the Fifth World Sanskrit Conference. Edited by R. N. DANDERKAR P. D. NAVATHE. New Delhi: Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, pp. 90-100.
BRONKHORST, JOHANNES 1987: Three Problems Pertaining to the Mahabhāṣya. Poona Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.
BRONKHORST, JOHANNES 1988: Etudes sur Bhartṛhari, 1. L'auteur et la date de la Vṛtti. BEI 6, pp. 105-143.
BROUGH, JOHN 1973: I-ching on the Sanskrit Grammarians. BSOAS 36, pp. 248-60.
Culavamsa. Edited by WILHELM GEIGER. Vol. I. London: Pali Text Society.
1925.
GARGE, DAMODAR VISHNU 1952: Citations in Sabara-Bhāṣya. Poona: Deccan College (Deccan College Dissertation Series 8).
Helārāja: Prakīrṇakapraksa. See under Bhartrhari.
IYER, K. A. SUBRAMANIA (tr.) 1977: The Vakyapadīya of Bhartṛhari. Kanda II. Delhi-Varanasi-Patna: Motilal Banarsidass.
JAIN, JYOTI PRASAD 1964: The Jain Sources of the History of Ancient India (100 B. C. A. D. 900). Delhi: Munshi Ram Manoharlal. Jinendrabuddhi: Nyasa. See Käsikā 2.
JOSHI, S. D. (1968): Patanjali's Vyakaraṇa-Mahābhāṣya. Samarthähnika (P. 2.1.1). Poona: University of Poona (Publications of the Centre of Advanced Study in Sanskrit, Class C, no. 3).
Jost, S. D. RooDBERGEN, J. A. F. (1981): Patanjali's Vyakarana-Mahabha
sya. Pratipadikärthasesähnika (P. 2.3.46 2.3.71). Pune: University of Poona (Publications of the Centre of Advanced Study in Sanskrit, Class C,
no. 14).
värtlika
145
Käsika. 1) Edited by ARYENDRA SHARMA, KHANDERAO DESHPANDE and D. G. PADHYE. Hyderabad: Sanskrit Academy, Osmania University, 1969-70. 2) Edited, with the Nyasa of Jinendrabuddhi and the Padamañjarī of Haradatta, by Swami DWARIKA DAS SHASTRI and Pt. KALIKA PRASAD SHUKLA. 6 volumes. Varanasi: Prachya Bharati Prakashan, 1965-67 (Prachya Bharati Series 2-7).
KIELHORN, FRANZ 1876a: Katyayana and Patanjali: Their Relation to Each Other and to Panini. Bombay (Kleine Schriften, hrsg. v. W. RAU.. Wiesbaden 1969, I/1-64).
KIELHORN, FRANZ 1876b: On the Mahâbhashya. Indian Antiquary 5, pp. 241-251( Kleine Schriften 1/169-79).
KIELHORN, FRANZ (ed.) 1880-85: The Vyakarana-Mahabhasya of Patanjali. 3 volumes. Third edition revised by K. V. ABHYANKAR. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1962-72.
KIELHORN, FRANZ 1886: Notes on the Mahabhasya. 4. Some suggestions regarding the verses (Karikas) in the Mahabhashya. Indian Antiquary 15, pp. 228-33 (= Kleine Schriften 1/214-19).
Mahadeva: Unadikosa. Edited by K. KUNJUNNI RAJA. University of Madras, 1956 (Madras University Sanskrit Series 21).
MTMAMSAKA, YUDHISTHIRA 1973: Samskṛta Vyakarana-Sastra ka Itihāsu. 3 volumes. Sonipat: Rama Lal Kapur Trust. Samvat 2030.
Nyasa. In: Nyasa or Pañcika Commentary of Acarya Jinendrabuddhipada and Padamañjarī of Haradatta Misra on the Käsikävṛtti of Vamana-Jayaditya. Edited by DWARIKADAS SHASTRI and KALIKAPRASAD SHUKLA. Parts I-VI. Varanasi: Tara Publications, 1965-67 (Prachya Bharati Series 2-7).
OJIHARA, YUTAKA 1978: Sur une formule patanjalienne: na cedānīm ācāryāḥ sütrāṇi kṛtvā nivartayantis. In: Proceedings of the Third World Sanskrit Conference (Paris, 20-25 June 1977). Torino (IndT 6), pp. 219-234. Padamañjarī. See under Nyasa
Patanjali: Vyakaraṇa-Mahabhaṣya. Edited by F. KIELHORN. Third Edition by K. V. ABHYANKAR. Volumes I-III. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1962-72.
ROCHER, ROSANE (1971): Review of A. WEZLER'S Paribhasa IV; V und XV. JAOS 91, pp. 314f.
Sabara: Mimama Bhasya. In: Mimamsadarsana. Edited by KASTNATHA VASUDEVASASTRI ABHYAMKARA and Pt. GANESASASTRI JOST. Poona: Anandaárama, 1973-84 (Anandaárama Samskṛtagranthavali 97).
TAKAKUSU, J. (tr.) 1896: A Record of the Buddhist Religion as practised in India and the Malay Archipelago (A. D. 671 695), by I-taing. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
THIEME, PAUL 1955: Review of The Sanskrit Language by T. BURROW. Language 31, pp. 428-48 ( Kleine Schriften, hrsg. v. G. BUDDRUSS. Wiesbaden 1971, II/696-716).
Vṛṣabhadeva: Paddhati. See under Bhartṛhari.

Page #13
146 J. BRONKHORST Vyadi: Paribhasa vrtti = ABHYANKAR 1967: 1-38. WEBER, ALBRECHT 1862: Zur Frage uber das Zeitalter Panini's. Mit specieller Beziehung auf Th. Goldstucker's preface" zum ,,Manavakalpasutra". Indische Studien 5, pp. 1-176. WEZLER, ALBRECHT 1974: Some Observations on the Yuktidipika. In: XVIII. Deutscher Orientalistentag. Vortrage hrsg. von W. Voigt. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner (ZDMG Suppl. II), pp. 434-455. WINDISCH, Ernst 1888: Veber das Nyayabhashya. Leipzig. Yuktidipika. Edited by Ram CHANDRA PANDEYA. Delhi-Varanasi-Patna: Motilal Banarsidass, 1967. Abbreviations AL Bh CE Mbh Ms ABHYANKAR and LIMAYE's edition of Bhartrhari's Mahabhasya Dipika Bhartrhari Critical edition' of Bhartshari's Mahabhasya Dipika Mahabhasya Manuscript of Bhartshari's Mahabhasya Dipika Paninian Sutra Swaminathan's edition of Bhartshari's Mahabhasya Dipika Tattvarthasutra Vakyapadiya Yuktidipika YD