Authorship Of Vakyapadiya Vrtti

Author(s): Ashok Aklujkar
Publisher: Ashok Aklujkar
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/269221/1

Page #1

THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE VĀKYAPADIYA-VRTTI*
By Ashok Aklujkar, Vancouver
1.1 It has been a long tradition in India to ascribe the Vștti (V in abbreviation) of the first two kāņdas of the Trikāņdi to Bharthari and to accept it as an integral part of the Vākyapadiya?. This tradition is
* I am grateful to Dr. MADELEINE BIARDEAU for promptly making available to me a copy of her edition of the Brahma-kānda, and to Dr. GEORGE L. HART, the authorities of the Adyar Library, Prof. K. V. ABHYANKAR, ACĀRYA LIMAYE, PANDITA V. B. BHAGWAT, Dr. S. D. JOSHI, and Prof. WILHELM RAU for making the Vakya-kānda-vștti available to me in microfilms and transcripts. The kernel of the present article constituted a paper read at the one hundred and seventy-ninth annual meeting of the American Oriental Society in New York (March 1969).
1 (a) Vākyapadiya was originally the title of only the first two kāņdas of Bharthari's magnum opus; the entire work consisting of three kāņdas was called Trikāņdi in the older tradition (AKLUJKAR 1969: 547–555).
(b) The V of the first two kāņdas only is available to us and it alone seems to have been accepted in the tradition as a genuine, inseparable constituent of the Vākyapadiya. See "The Extent of Bhartshari's Vștti" (AKLUJKAR, forthcoming).
(c) It has been convincingly shown by C. SHASTRI (1930: 636-644, 1934: Skt. Intro,: -1826; cf. R. KAVI 1930: 235—241; KUNHAN RAJA 1936: 285—298) that the commentary on the first kāņda published under the name of Punyarāja in the Benares Sanskrit Series by MĀNAVALLI (1887) is in fact an abridgement of Bhartphari's V of the same kāņda. The unabridged V was edited for the first time by C. SHASTRI (1934), and it is his text that has essentially been followed in the editions by R. SARMĀ (1963), BIARDEAU (1964a), BHAGWAT (1965), and S. IYER (1966a). BIARDEAU and S. IYER (1964a, 1965) have translated the V into French and English respectively. But, as fns. 16, 19, 22—24, and 29 below indicate and as my forthcoming studies of the V and of BIARDEAU's interpretation will substantiate, much improvement is desirable both in the Sanskrit text and the translations.
(d) Two Sanskrit commentaries on the Brahma-kāņda-vịtti are available, an old one by Vșşabha and a modern one by R. SARMĀ (1963). The first has been edited by C. SHASTRI (1934) in excerpts and by S. IYER

Page #2

182
ASHOK AKLUJKAR
preserved in the manuscripts2 as well as in all the ancient commentaries of the Trikāṇḍi. It is also supported by the writings of Abhinava-gupta, Indu, Utpala(-deva), Kamala-sila, Jayanta-bhaṭṭa, Jñanaśrī-bhadra,
(1966 a) in full. In its former version it finds its way into most of R. SARMA's commentary Ambakartri, the other-original-parts of the Ambakartri being mostly unhelpful for an exact understanding of Bhartṛhari's position and for the solution of textual difficulties.
(e) For the state of the Vakya-kāṇḍa-vṛtti studies, see AKLUJKAR 1969: 555-561.
(f) That the Vs of both the kandas are written by one and the same author has found unanimous acceptance, although, as far, as I know, no demonstration of the identity of the authors is available in print. I have noticed more than fifty instances of similarity of diction, style, views, and sources between the two Vs, which put their common authorship beyond doubt as far as I am concerned.
2 (a) In the manuscripts containing both the karikas and the V, the following colophon is found at the end of the Brahma-kanda with insignificant scribal variations: iti śri-hari-vṛṣabha-mahāvaiyākaraṇa-viracite vākyapadiye agama-samuccayo nama brahma-kāṇḍdam samaptam (C. SHASTRI 1930: 635; S. IYER 1965: xviii; and the concluding pages of the Sanskrit text in the editions referred to in fn. 1c above). In at least three manuscripts consisting only of the karikas of the three kaṇḍas, the colophon is: iti śrībhagavad-bhartṛhari-vṛṣabha-mahavaiyakarana-pada-viracite vakyapadiye prakirnaka-namani pada-kände vṛtti-samuddeśaś caturdaśaḥ (C. SHASTRI 1930: 635; S. IYER 1965: xviii; RAU 1962: 387-388, 390, 392, 1964: 194). Now, there is no justification for supposing that the person designated by harivṛṣabha-mahavaiyakarana of the first colophon is different from the person designated by bhagavad-bhartṛhari-vṛsabha-mahāvaiyakaraṇa-pada of the second colophon, for (i) hari as a shorter form of bhartṛhari occurs quite frequently in later literature, and (ii) the terms bhagavat and mahavaiyākaraṇa-pāda are merely more expressive of respect than the term mahavaiyakarana. Thus, the karikas as well as the composition including both the kārikās and the V have been ascribed to one person Hari-vṛşabha in the manuscripts. That this Hari-vṛşabha is none other than Bhartṛhari or Hari is evident from the alternative form Bhartṛhari-vṛsabha and also from (b) below.
(b) Two explanations have so far been put forward as to why Hari or Bhartṛhari is called Hari-vṛṣabha or Bhartṛhari-vṛsabha in certain colophons. According to C. SHASTRI (1930: 635) and S. IYER (1965: xviii), the member -vṛsabha has been placed in the compound designation merely as expressive of respect (puja-vacana), which is justified in the light of fairly common Sanskrit expressions like purusa-vrsabha. But R. KAVI (1930: 235 fn. 2) thinks that -vṛṣabha was appended to Bhartṛhari's name because he staunchly maintained the doctrine of sabda-brahman denoted by the word sabdavṛsabha in his work (1.123 and its V). Going against the first explanation is the fact that vṛsabha as expressive of respect is redundant in the light of mahāvaiyakarana or bhagavad-mahavaiyakarana-pada. Detrimental to the second explanation is the fact that the soul of human beings, which in its

Page #3

The Authorship of the Vākyapadiya-Vrtti
183
Nāgesa, Prabhā-candra, Bhatta-nārāyaṇa-kantha, Bhoja, Mandanamišra, Malla-vādin (senior), Rāma-kantha, Vādi-deva-sūri, Simha-sūrigamin, Somānanda and Skandasvāmin-Maheśvara, and perhaps of Abhaya-deva, I-ching, Karņakagomin, Dinnāga, Dharma-kirti, Mammața, and Sureśvara. Furthermore, overwhelming similarities of thought, diction, and sources can be shown to exist between the V and the Tripādis on the one hand, and the V and the verses of the Trikāņdi on the other
purest essential aspect is sabda-brahman of Bhartshari (see AKLUJKAR 1970), was described as vrşabha from at least as early a time as that of the Mahābhāşya (KIELHORN's edition, Vol. I p. 3.20—22), and hence the idea of applying the term vrsabha to the supreme reality in the philosophy of the grammarians could not have been considered to be original with Bhartshari. Besides, no reference to Bhartphari as Hari-vrşabha has so far been found in the grammatical and philosophical works of the later period. There is room, therefore, for a third explanation: (i) Among the manuscripts which contain only the kārikās of the Trikāņdi, the term -vrsabha is found in the manuscripts of the southern recension only (RAU 1962: 387-388, 390, 392, 396, 1964: 194195). (ii) A study of the known kārikā-vștti manuscripts, which invariably contain the term -vrşabha in their colophons, reveals that all those manuscripts must have had a common (most probably, south Indian) origin (see my forthcoming textual study of the V). Thus, the use of Hari-vrşabha for Bhartphari can be said to be a peculiarity of the southern recension only. Now, all the available manuscripts of Vrşabha's commentary on the kārikās and V of the first kāņda are also found to belong to a common south Indian source (S. I küü 1966 a: ix, xv—xvi), which indicates that Vrşabha's Țikā was once widely used in south India. Moreover, there are some readings in the Brahma-kānda-vrtti which could not have been a result of any factor other than the use of Vrşabha's commentary to understand the V (e. g. ātma-tattvam in V 1.5; see my forthcoming textual study of the V for more on this point). We can, therefore, assume that, in the past, there were some manuscripts of the V with Vrşabha's commentary in south India. A common colophon of such manuscripts must have contained the words hari (or bharthari) and vrşabha which may be said to have found their way together through some inadvertance on the part of the scribes, first, in those manuscripts which consist of the kārikās and the V, and next, in those manuscripts of the southern recension which contain only the kārikās.
3 Bhartshari's commentary on the Mahābhāşya, published under the inaccurate title Mahābhāşya-dipikā. See AKLUJKAR, "Mahābhāşya-dipikā or Tripādi ?" to be published in the Adyar Library Bulletin, Madras.
4 The evidence in favor of Bhartshari's authorship of the V that I have collected from Bhartshari's ancient commentators and the authors mentioned in this section is too extensive to be included here without obscuring the main lines of my argument. Also, the parallels that I have noticed between (a) the V and the Tripādi, and (b) the V and the Trikāņdi are so numerous as to deserve separate treatments. I shall, therefore, reserve these

Page #4

184
ASHOK AKLUJKAR
1.2 Under these circumstances, any doubt about Bhartphari's authorship of the V may seem highly improbable; but, today, all scholars who are interested in the Trikāņdi, as far as I know, entertain such a doubt. Their uncertainty of opinion usually begins when they realize that the V occasionally gives two or more interpretations of one verse (kārikā). Then this uncertainty is deepened either by the occurrence in the V of the word tatra-bhavat, which, in the usage of some ancient authors, serves as Bhartshari's epithet, in a manner indicating reference to a person other than the author (S. IYER 1965: xxxi—xxxii), or by a feeling that some divergence of views exists between the V and the kārikā-text (BIARDEAU 1964a: 5—21 (summarized by S. IYER 1965: xxxiii-xxxiv), 1964 b: 260). But doubtful as they may be, no scholar except MADELEINE BIARDEAU is known to me who has declared the traditional authorship of the V to be illfounded and incorrect. BIARDEAU has gone beyond the range of uncertainty about the validity of the tradition and reached the conclusion that the V cannot be a work of Bhartphari, that it must have been written by Hari-vrşabha sometime after Kumārila, and that the tradition accepted it as Bhartphari's work through a confusion of names.
1.3 The purpose of the present article is to refute this conclusion. Not only do I uphold the validity of the traditional ascription, but I also maintain that the V is an inseparable part of the Vākyapadiya and that it is wrong to think of the Vākyapadiya as a work consisting of kārikās only. Now, there are two ways of establishing this thesis, one negative
matters for exhaustive presentations in the near future and, in the meantime, merely draw the attention of scholars to some of my published sources where the relevant pieces of evidence are already pointed out to some extent: C. SHASTRI 1930: 634638, 644-645, 1934: fns. to various V passages (especially, pp. 3, 5, 87, 103, 115, 126, 128), 1941 (?): fns. to various V passages (especially, V 2.28-29); FRAUWALLNER 1933: 237 (Although the parallel noticed in this article remains valid, FRAUWALLNER, for good reasons, changes his view on the relative chronology of Bhartphari and Dinnāga in his 1959 and 1961 publications); K. M. SARMA 1940: 2-4, 1942: 405409; NAKAMURA 1955: 130; SWAMINATHAN 1963: 66—70; Y. MĪMĀŅSAKA samvat 2020: 347; BIARDEAU 1964b: 260 fn. 4 conclusion; S. IYER 1965: xvii-xxix, 1966b: 28-30; ABHYANKAR-LIMAYE 1965: 210—216, 240, 297-301 (cp. NAKAMURA 1955: 125, V 1.1), 312 (cp. NAKAMURA 1955: 126, V 1.1 verse tha), 328—329 (cp. V 2.315—316), 333 (cp. V 2.64), 352—357; LIMAYE 1966: 228—229; JAMBŪVIJAYA 1966: 40 (V 1.52), 128, tippanāni p. 57 (cp. V 1.140) 192, tippaņāni p. 68 (V 1.8), 197 (V 1.2), 239, tippanäni p. 77 (V 1.9), 241, tippanäni pp. 76-77 fns. 3–5 (V 1.1); AKLUJKAR 1969: 557-561.

Page #5

The Authorship of the Vākyapadiya-Vrtti
185
and another positive. The negative way consists in challenging BIARDEAU's method of solving the problem of authorship, in pointing out the difficulties to which her conclusion leads, and in demonstrating that the divergences which she notices between the views and use of terms in the V on the one hand, and in the kārikās on the other, are superfluous and that some of her interpretations are inaccurate. I have followed this way in a forthcoming sequel article, and hence it would be proper to devote the present article to a positive demonstration of Bhartphari's authorship of the V.
2.1 It would not be out of place, however, to preface this presentation of new positive evidence by a consideration of two really relevant facts noticed by S. IYER (1965: xxx-xxxii) as going against the thesis of identical authorship for the kārikās and the V. The first is that of the alternative explanations in the V of the expressions in the kārikās. The instances falling in this category, as far as I could find out, are the following: V 1.10, 12, 13, 44; 2.20—21, 39. In the case of all these instances, a careful reading of the Trikāņdi and its ancient commentaries will reveal that what seem to be different explanations are also statements of different theses and thoughts acceptable to Bhartshari on different levels and in different contexts 5; there is no question of prefer
5 (a) With jñānātmakatvād vă puruşasyaiva samskāra-hetavah (vidyābhedāh) of V 1.10, compare atha vā ātma-samskārārtham cădhyeyam vyākaranam of Tripādi p. 5.17; cf. AKLUJKAR 1970: $ $ 1.37–38.
(b) V 1.12 clarifies the ways in which vāk can become differentiated. For Bhartshari's acceptance of those ways from different points of view, see AKLUJKAR 1970: $$ 4.1–10, 21, 5.21-28.
(c) For Bhartphari's acceptance of the theses expressed in V 1.13, see (i) AKLUJKAR 1970: $ $ 5.15-17, 22; V 1.129 p. 209.1–2; Trikāņdi 2.429 and V, 2.434 and V, 3.14.197, 570; (ii) AKLUJKAR 1970: $ 1.4, n 1.5, $ 6.4, n 6.21-25; (iii) AKLUJKAR 1970: $$ 4.22, 5.3; (iv) AKLUJKAR 1970: $ 6.4; (v) AKLUJKAR 1970: $ 5.19; (vi) AKLUJKAR 1970: $ 5.15.
(d) That there is no incompatibility in the different meanings of the word upādāna is clear from--V 1.44 itself, where the conditions of the acceptance of each meaning are specified with such words as vyutpatti-paksa and sva-rūpa-padārthakesu. See also V 1.47 p. 105.3—5, V 1.50 p. 109.3–4, Trikāņdi 2.128, BSS p. 136, Trikāndi 2.175, BSS p. 151, V 2.262.
(e) V 2.20—21 interprets the two kārikās in the light of both the sabda-vyakti-pakşa and the sabdākrti-pakşa. For Bhartshari's acceptance of these paksas, see AKLUJKAR 1970: $ 4.18.
(f) V 2.39 first explains the kārikā as stating that the primacy of the sentence is noticed even in the explanatory remarks (vigraha-väkya) of grammarians and then as stating that, whether there is one word or more, it is only the sentence which is used for communication. That both these interpretations of the kārikā express points acceptable to BhartȚhari is evident from AKLUJKAR 1970: 88 4.22, 5.3.
1970.ceptance ofrys in which : $$ 1.37

Page #6

186
ASHOK AKLUJKAR
ring one explanation or statement to the exclusion of the other, for there is no contradiction between them, the differences between them being more apparent than real. Thus, the verses under consideration can be said to have been deliberately and ingeniously composed in a sufficiently vague or general manner, and the V can be said to have been given the task of clarifying how the statement in a verse holds good on more than one level and in more than one context. In other words, the instances of alternative explanations are also the instances of skilful and careful composition in verse, of welding into one a number of statements. Another fact to be noticed in this connection is that quite frequently the alternative explanations are introduced by the word apara. One can show with unmistakable evidence that apara does not always mean simply "someone else" or "different”; it is often connotative of approvale, as if it is intended to be dissolved as na vidyate paro yasmāt. Moreover, Bhartshari's zest for, and skill in, varied interpretation are apparent to anyone who reads his commentary on the Mahābhāşya. Those two aspects of his genius are perfectly understandable in the light of what we learn from Trikāņdi 2.478–487. Bhartphari's works, it seems, marked the culmination of a movement that was devoted to the revival of Mahābhāsya studies, in particular, to the unraveling of the various nyāya-bijas, sākhās, nyāya-prasthāna-mārgas, vartmans, and āgamas that were hidden in the apparently simple statements of the Mahābhāşya. Therefore, the alternative explanations in the V and the multifaceted composition of certain kārikās should not come as a surprise to us. The alternative explanations do not indicate that the author of the V is uncertain about the meaning of a verse; he is, in fact, pre-equipped to deal with a verse in more than one way, for he himself has invested certain verses with convenient ambiguity and has thus made them amenable to different interpretations?
2.2 The objection to Bhartshari's authorship of the V based on the epithet tatra-bhavat can also be easily answered. It is true that Abhinavagupta (see S. IYER 1965: xxii; ABHYANKAR-LIMAYE 1965: 211–213,
& THIEME 1956: 15; AKLUJKAR 1970: $ 0.7; Sankara's bhāsya on the Brahma-sūtras 1.1.25, 27, 1.2.12, 1.3.1, 13.
? It should be noted that my treatment of the objection based on the alternative interpretations is different from that of S. IYER (1965: xxxv), who, in fact, does not offer any satisfactory reply in the comment: "What looks like two different ways of explaining the same text may be nothing more than the recording of the opinion of another on the the [sic; same?] subject, unconnected with the text." The alternative explanations are, on S. IYER'S (1965: xxx) own admission, connected with the kārikā-text.

Page #7

The Authorship of the Vākyapadiya-Vrtti
187
271—272, 274), Indu (see ABHYANKAR-LIMAYE 1965: 329), Bhattanārāyaṇa-kantha (see NAKAMURA 1955: 130), and Helārāja (3.1.1 p. 7.3, 3.9.62 p. 72.7) seem to associate the epithet rather closely with Bhartphari. But, as S. IYER (1965: xxxvi), who first noticed the possible objection to Bhartrhari's authorship of the V arising out of the occurrence of the epithet in the V, himself observes, tatra-bhavat can very well be a reference to a person other than Bhartphari. Afterall, tatra-bhavat is a very general honorific in Sanskrit at least from the time of the Mahābhāsya (KIELHORN's edition, Vol. 1 p. 3.5, 11.12, 22.23, 117.23; Vol. 2 p. 233.13, 254.17—19, 265.23—24, 275.21, 314.13, 405.16–18; Vol. 3 p. 174.10). Candrānanda (see JAMBŪVIJAYA 1961: 68) uses it in what is obviously not a reference to Bhartshari. Even Abhinava-gupta does not restrict its usage to Bhartshari; he uses it also to refer to the authors of the Sāmkhya-kārikās and the Yoga-sūtras (see MASSON-PATWARDHAN 1969: 114, 125 fns. 1—2). The Vākya-kāņda commentary & (p. 284.19 20, possibly p. 286.3) applies it also to Bhartshari's teacher Vasurāta. Moreover, tatra-bhavat does not occur only once in the V (2.42) as S. IYER (1965: xxxi, xxxvi) seems to think; it occurs twice (V 2.444), and possibly thrice (V 2.450)'. A close study of those occurrences reveals that it refers to an author (or a group of authors; see fn. 9b above) later than Patañjali 10 whose views lend support to, or agree with,
I amy reis restricte che taomlication of the
8 This commentary, published in the Benares Sanskrit Series (MĀNA. VALLI 1887), is usually ascribed to Punyarāja. In a forthcoming article, I wish to point out that a good case can be made for Helārāja's authorship of it. If my guess is correct, then it follows that Heläräja, like Abhinavagupta, does not restrict the application of the honorific tatra-bhavat to Bhartphari, that he uses it also in referring to Vasurāta.
. (a) There is a gap in the manuscript before nto manyante of V 2.450. A comparison with V 2.444, where the expression tatra-bhavanto manyante occurs, shows that the gap can be best filled by supplying the letters tatrabhava. One does not have any justification to supply the letters iha-bhava in this instance for two reasons: (i) The expression iha-bhavantah does not oceur anywhere in the extant portions of the V. (ii) All occurrences of the expression iha-bhavantah in the Tripādi are immediately followed by tv āhuḥ, and not by manyante.
(b) The honorific tatra-bhavat is used in the singular number in V 2.42, whereas it is used in the plural in V 2.444 and V 2.450. The available evidence is not sufficient to determine if the singular number had a specific connotation in the use of this honorific.
10 (a) Note atah "therefore" in V 2.42: sa cāyam väkya-padayor ādhikyayor bhedo bhäşya (Patañjali on Pāṇini 2.3.46, 50) evopavyākhyātaḥ. atas ca tatra-bhavän äha ... Also note that in V 2.444 tatra-bhavat is used only after a reference is made to Patañjali's Bhāşya on Pāņini 8.1.28 and 3.1.67.
(b) From the evidence recorded in (a) above it is clear that the guesses of Y. MIMĀMSAKA (samvat 2020: 334) and ABHYANKAR-LIMAYE (1965: 440)

Page #8

188
ASHOK AKLUJKAR
Bhartphari's viewg11. In the latter aspect it can be said to contrast with the expression iha-bhavat, which occurs five times in the Tripādi (ABHYANKAR-LIMAYE edition 1967–70: 51.22, 58.4, 86.2, 204.24, 207.3) in the statements of those views about which Bhartshari does not seem to be enthusiastic12. Its presence in the V, therefore, cannot be thought of as a definite indication of the V not having been written by Bhartshari, and our solution of the problem of authorship must not depend on it alone, especially in the light of the facts pointed out above (1.1, 2.1) and below (3.1-8).
3.1 As was indicated in 1.3, it is not my objective in the present article to point out only the weaknesses of the arguments advanced either by BIARDEAU or by any other scholar. Instead of offering a negative defence of the traditional evidence, I propose to bring to light a new kind of evidence that will clinch the issue in favor of the tradition. So far those scholars who are inclined to accept Bhartphari's authorship of the V have concentrated only on the external evidence such as the testimony of authors later than Bhartphari. Strangely enough, no serious effort 13 has been made to examine the internal evidence. My principal objective in this paper, therefore, is to present this latter kind of evidence. However, I shall not here make a case out of the overwhelming similarities of diction, thought, and sources that are noticed in the V, kārikās, and Tripādī, for, although it may seem strange to a man of my view to overlook such an impressive body of parallels, BIARDEAU and those who share her view will always be logically free to accept the possible alternative that the parallels are a result either of borrowings from, or of an
that tatra-bhavat of V 2.42 is a reference either to Patañjali or to Vyāļi cannot be correct. Moreover, Bhartshari's explicit references to Patañjali and Vyādi are characterized respectively by the words bhāsya (or cūrni) and samgraha, not by tatra-bhavat.
11 (a) With the view of tatra-bhavat in V 2.42, compare V 1.24-26 p. 77, Vrşabha pp. 78.2579.22, Trikāņdi 3.14.6 and Helārāja thereon pp. 45.
(b) From BSS pp. 70—71 and Trikāņdi 2.112 (which answers the objection raised in 2.76), it is evident that the view ascribed to tatra-bhavat in V 2.444 meets Bharthari's approval.
(c) Confirmation of the view expressed in V 2.450 is found in 2.68 and its V, and in Helārāja 3.1.5 p. 15.12—13. See also AKLUJKAR 1970: $ 6.4,
n 6.24.
12 For the occurrences of iha-bhavat in other works, see Y. MIMĀMSAKA samvat 2020: 304 and OBERHAMMER 1960: 80 fn. 22.
13 C. SHASTRI (1930: 636) and K. M. SARMA (1942: 408) offer some inconclusive internal evidence, while the internal evidence recorded by R. KAVI (1930: 238) is inaccurate.

Page #9

The Authorship of the Väkyapadiya-Vrtti
189
intensive study of Bhartphari on the part of the author of the V. I shall, therefore, mainly focus on what may be described as syntactical and compositional kind of internal evidence. It alone will serve to disprove BIARDEAU's (1964b: 260.10—12) contention that neither the first nor the second kāņa evinces any need for the V in between the kārikās, that the kārikā-text is complete in itself14.
3.2 First of all, let me point out that the author of the V, at one place, clearly indicated that he wrote the kārikās too. The passage I have in mind is as follows15:
ajasra-vrttir yah sabdaḥ sūksmatvān nopalabhyate / vyajanād vāyur iva sa sva-nimittāt praciyate // 1.108 // athāpara āgamo 'nugamyate. sūksmo vāyu-samnicaya iväntar bahis ca sarva-mūrtinām dhvanir avasthitaḥ. sa caiņām ākāsa iti pratipadyate. sa, yathaiva tu sarvatra paramāņu-sambhave samhatatvād vyajanābhighātena vāyur āśraya-sthānāt pravibhajyamānaḥ kriyābhir āvisyate tathaiva, dhvanih sva-nimittair abhivyakta-pracita-vikriyā-rūpah śrotra-pradeśam prāpta upalabhyate samskaroti ca. tasya prāne ca yā saktir yā ca buddhau vyavasthitā / vivartamānā sthāneşu saişā bhedam prapadyate || 1.109 // darśana-bhedā 16 evaite. nāyam anantaraḥ pracaya-dharmā dhvanir iha
14 It is important to remember in this connection that the Trikāņdi kārikās do not belong to the sūtra-form of literature. Syntactical incompleteness cannot, therefore, be a regular feature of them. Hence, if it is shown, as has been attempted in the following pages, that the V brings about a syntactical completion of certain kårikās, then it follows that the kārikās anticipate the V, that Bhartshari expects his reader to read the kārikās in conjunction with the V.
16. To understand the difficult Sanskrit passages quoted in this and the following sections the existing translations of the Brahma-kānda, however unsatisfactory they may be at places, should be utilized, those of BIARDEAU (1964 a) and S. IYER (1965) for the kārikās and the V, and that of Santibhikṣu Sāstri (1963) for the kārikās only. It is regrettable that a good edition and translation of the Vākya-kānda are even now the great desiderata of BhartȚhari studies. To keep my presentation uncomplicated, I have refrained from introducing any translations in the present article, although all ideas and expressions that are of vital importance for the topic under discussion have been invariably clarified.
16 All the editions of the Brahma-kāņda-vștti read pakşa-bhedā; but commentator Vrşabha (p. 179.6—7) preserves the reading accepted here. His is a more appropriate reading, for while paksa usually means "alternative" darśana means "point of view, theory, view of reality," and verses 1.107–109 are definitely not a statement of alternatives. Also, see V 1.45 p. 103.6, Tripādi p. 19.1.

Page #10

190
ASHOK AKLUJKAR
sloke nirdiśyate. sabdas tu pūrva-prakrtaḥ pravāda-bhedair anvākhyāyate. ...
The last two sentences of this passage mean: "It is not this immediately preceding dhvani, having the property of growth (= becoming gross), which is mentioned in this verse; but the sabda which was formerly taken up for discussion with reference to various views is being explained (or subsequently mentioned)." Now, the immediately preceding verse, 1.108, does not contain the word dhvani. Only the V on that verse mentions dhvani. But the author of the V evidently suspected that some reader may misunderstand tasya in verse 1.109 as a pronoun standing for dhvanih in V 1.10817. Obviously, he looked upon both the V and the kārikā to be his own words intended to be read consécutively. .
3.3 My first piece of the syntactical kind of evidence reveals that, at least once 18 in the first kānda, a kārikā is incomplete without the y and vice versa. Thus, we read in the case of verse 1.92:
sphoteșu 19 bhāgavatsv api teşv eva rūpa-bhedo dhvaneh kramät / nirbhāgesv abhyupāyo vā bhāga-bheda-prakalpanam //
17 tasyeti sarva-nāmnānantarasya dhvaneh pracaya-dharminah pratyavamarśāśanka na karaniya [ity āha] ... kasya tarhi tasya ity anena sambandha ity āha sabdas tu iti. (Vrşabha pp. 178.26-179.6)
18 It is possible that the V supplied padäni to verse 2.55. Unfortunately, however, the guess cannot be confirmed, for the V of that verse is missing in the only available, incomplete, and highly corrupt manuscript of the Väkya-kāņda-vịtti (AKLUJKAR 1969: 555-556).
19 In all the editions of the Brahma-kāņda-vștti, sphoteșu is printed as the last word in the V of verse 1.91: ... tathaiņām arvāg-darśanānām pratipattīņām vākya-8va-rūpa-grahana-pūrvakena väkyārtha-grahanena pradhānena prayuktānām niyatopāye sādhye tasminn arthe niyata-kramapariņāma-bhāgākāra-pratyavabhāsa-mātrā-yuktā buddhayaḥ pravartante sphoteşu // 91 //. This is an error on the part of the editors not only for the reasons mentioned in 3.3 but also for some additional ones. If the cited sentence or clause is read in this manner, its interpreter must understand that there are two loci or objects for the cognitions (buddhi) of which it speaks; one locus is expressed by niyatopāye sādhye tasminn arthe and the other is expressed by sphoţeşu. The interpreter then fails to understand why the first expression should be in the singular and the second in the plural or why there should be a long intervening phrase between the two. In fact, he fails to understand why there should be two loci at all. Furthermore, a sentence ending with pravartante sphoţeşu goes against the stylistic peculiarity of the V that a verb form usually occurs at the end of a sentence. Failure to realize this editorial mistake of C. SHASTRI (1934: 91) has led BIARDEAU (1964a: 133) and S. IYER (1965: 90) to offer confusing translations, and R. SARMĀ (1963: 167) to paraphrase the words of the original in an irritatingly superfluous manner.

Page #11

The Authorship of the Vākyapadiya-Vịtti
191
Here sphoteşu in the V will clearly remain dangling if it is not understood to be a part of what follows. The kārikā will also be incomplete and out of step with the preceding kārikā (see fn. 19 above) if sphoțeșu is not read into it. Thus, here we have one phrase with a locative absolute construction teşv eva sphoţeşu bhāgavatsv api which spreads over both the V and the verse, the subject of which appears only in the V, and the pronoun in which will have no antecedent if the V is missing.
3.4 The third piece of internal evidence is found in verse 1.65 and its V:
evam ca krtvoccāryamāṇasya tasyābhidheya-bhāvena yah sabdaḥ samavasthitaḥ/ tasyāpy uccārane rūpam anyat tasmād vivicyate II,
Here the syntactical relation between uccāryamāṇasya and tasya if too obvious to need any comment. What is more important is that, is the phrase evam ca krtvoccāryamāṇasya were missing, we would not have either understood the relation of the present kārikā with the preceding kārikā or we would have done so only by overlooking a grave syntactic anomaly nowhere to be noticed in the well-preserved portions of Bhartshari's writings. In the preceding kārikā, which is
gunah prakarsa-hetur yaḥ svātantrenopadiśyate /
tasyāśritād guņād eva praktstatvam pratīyate // 1.64 II, the pronoun tasya stands for gunah. In the absence of the V phrase connecting the two kārikās, tasya in the present kārikā would also have referred back to guṇaḥ and the kārikā would not have conveyed any consistent meaning whatsoever.
3.5 This leads us to the next finding that, in about ten 20 instances, the V is joined to the following kārikā in a manner which is different from the manner in 'which Sanskrit commentators, while commenting on somebody else's work, introduce the words of that work. The instances I have in mind are as follows:
(a)... tatra vyddhyādayah sabdāḥ sva-rūpādhişthānāḥ svenārthenarthavantaḥ sva-rūpena sabdāntara-sva-rūpāny upajighşkşantaḥ svarānunāsikya-bhinnair ākārādibhir, ādaicchabdādibhiḥ pratyāyitaiḥ, sam
20 I am not sure whether one should include V 2.28–29 in this group.

Page #12

192
ASHOK AKLUJKAR
bandham yena prakāreņa pratipadyante, tenaiva prakāreņa 21 duravadhāratve 'pi bhedasya 22 agni-sabdas tathaivāyam agni-sabda-nibandhanaḥ/ agni-drutyaiti sambandham agni-sabdābhidheyaya // 1.60 // (b) 1.65 and its V. See 3.4. (c) yathā viņayendriya-dharma evāyam prākrta-cakşuşām, dūrād ārūpa-mātropalabdhau 23 vrkṣādin hastyādivat prati padyante, taddeśāvasthitā eva pranidhānābhyāsāt krameņa punar yathāvayavam [yathāvad ?] upalabhante, vyaktālokāc ca dèśāt sahasā mandasamnivista-prakāśān apavarakādin praviấya rajjvādin sarpādivat pratipadya tathaiva praņidhānābhyāsāc cakşuşi prakrtisthe yathāvad upalabhante 24 vyajyamāne tathā25 vākye vakyābhivyakti-hetubhih / bhāgāvagraha-rūpeņa pūrvam buddhiḥ pravartate // 1.90 // (d) 1.92 and its V. See 3.3. (e) devadattādinām ca [vi]bhāgābhimatānām artha-yogābhyupagame,
21 There is no indication of the phrase tenaiva prakāreņa in Vrşabha's commentary. In view of tathaiva in the kārikā that follows, it does introduce redundancy in the construction proposed by me. But this fact does not indicate that the author of the V is not the same as that of the kārikā-text. In all well-known works of the kārikā-vștti type, an effort is made to give as much syntactical independence as is possible to each type of text. This is most probably so because the ancient writers were aware of the tendency of (and convenience in) singling out the metrical kārikātext for the purposes of study and memorisation. Connecting the drstänta with the dārstāntika separately in verse and prose portions is a result of such considerations. Compare the V on kārikās 1.89–90; 2.20—21, 185-186, 216217, 275-278, 298–299, 300—301, 420-421, 462–463. Unfortunately the V on the kārikās 2.8—9, 90—92, 93—94, in which also the dpstānta and the dārstāntika spread over more than one verse, is lost in the manuscript.
22 All editions indicate the end of V 1.59 after bhedasya. Overlooking the fact that the preceding words do not form a complete sentence. As a consequence, BIARDEAU (1964a: 101) and S. IYER (1965: 64) are forced to supply some words in their translations. R. SARMĀ (1963: 121) seems to have sensed the syntactical difficulty; but he does not point it out explicitly.
23 The editions read akyti-mätropalabdhau; but Vrşabha's (p. 155 fn. 3) reading, which is adopted here, is more appropriate both contextually and stylistically. See V 1.81 p. 148.1; V 1.102 p. 168.2 (Vrsabha p. 168.14); V 1.116 p. 191.1.
24 According to the editors of the available editions, upalabhante marks the end of a syntactically complete sentence. That is why they put a full stop after it. As a result, both BIARDEAU (1964 a : 131) and S. IYER (1965: 89) overlook the initial word yatha in their translations.
. 25 The word tathā is primarily connected with yathaiva in verse 1.89 and only secondarily with yatha in V 1.89. See fn. 21 above.

Page #13

The Authorship of the Vākyapadiya-Vrtti
193
sāmānye 'vasthitānām padānām viseşe 'vasthānam ity etasmin satyatāmsena 26 parigrhyamāņe sāmānyārthas tirobhūto na višeşe 'vatişthate / upättasya kutas tyāgo, nivrttaḥ kvāvatişthatām // 2.15 // (f) nitya-vādinām tv 27 anāgantukam anatikrāntam anupacayāpaсауат prakāšaka-prakāśyatvam kārya-kārana-rūpatā / antarmātrātmanas tasya sabda-tattvasya sarvadā || 2.32 // (g) tatraivam śāstremāparyudaste višeşāntara-sahacāriņi dravyatve asamnidhau pratinidhir mā bhūn nityasya karmaṇaḥ / kāmyasya vā pravsttasya lopa ity upapadyate // 2.70 // (h) nirjñāte ca bhede prasiddhārtha-viparyāsa-nimittam yac ca dȚśyate | yas tasmāl laksyate bhedas tam asatyam pracakşate || 2.289 || (i) ye tütsargāpavādayor eka-vākyatvam icchanti teşām niyamah pratişedhaś ca vidhi-seşas tathā sati / dvitiye yo lug ākhyātas taccheşam alukam viduh // 2.350 //
It should be noted that in these instances the introductory words of the V are not simply of the form tasmāt, api ca, apara āha, etc. as they are in some other portions of the V. Nor do they simply explain the background of a verse, although they are found to play that role in other introductions of the V (see 3.8). What we have here are words which are syntactically connected with the verses, which are absolutely essential to understand the connections between verses, and which, in most cases, supplement the statements in the verses significantly. The author of the V clearly does not follow the path which Sanskrit commentators commenting on somebody else's work follow.
3.6 Now we come to the compositional kind of evidence. In verses 1.24—26, eight topics which form the subject matter of the Vākyapadiya are enumerated. They are: (a) meanings determined through analysis; (b) meanings of stable character; (c) linguistic forms or units that are to be analyzed; (d) linguistic forms or units that figure in grammatical derivations; (e) cause-and-effect relation; (f) fitness or capability relation; (g) relation that leads to merit; and (h) relation that causes cognition:
26 My transcript of the Vakya-kāņda-vịtti manuscript reads satyatomsena. C. SHASTRI (1941 [?]) reads satyekāntena.
27 I do not understand the significance of nitya-vādinām tu in this specific context. The preceding verse or portion of the V does not seem to be a statement of the view of the anitya-vādin.
13 WZKSA XVI

Page #14

194
ASHOK AKLUJKAR
apoddhāra-padārthā ye, ye cârthāḥ sthita-lakşaņāḥ / anvākhyeyāś ca ye sabdā, ye cāpi pratipädakāḥ || 24 || kārya-kārana-bhāvena yogya-bhāvena ca sthitāḥ ! dharme ye pratyaye cāngam sambandhāḥ sādhvasādhuşu || 25 || te lingais ca sva-sabdais ca śāstre 'sminn upavarnitāḥ / smrtyartham anugamyante kecid eva yathāgamam // 26 //
After this enumeration, one would naturally expect verse 27 to begin a discussion of the first topic, namely the apoddhāra-padārtha. Instead, one finds it initiating the discussion of the seventh topic which is the dharma-sambandha and adharma-sambandha respectively of the sādhu and asādhu linguistic forms. The only satisfactory reason for skipping over the first six topics in the kārikās is that those, and only those, are mainly covered in the V of verses 1.24—26. The seventh topic alone remains to be explained 28 and the twenty-seventh verse takes it up for discussion.
3.7 The next piece of evidence indicates even more strongly that the kārikās anticipate the V. It is as follows:
vitarkitaḥ purā buddhyā kvacid arthe nivesitaḥ / karamebhyo vivrttena dhvaninā so 'nugrhyate || 1:47 || ... avikriya-dharmakam hi sabda-tattvam dhvanim vikriya-dharmaņam anu vikriyate. tac ca sūksme vyāpini dhvanau karana-vyāpāreņa praciyamāne, sthülenābhra-samghātavad upalabhyena nādātmanā prāpta-vivarte 29 tad-vivartānukāreņātyantam avivartamānam vivartamānam iva gļhyate.
28 That there is cognition of meaning because sabda and artha are related is such a basic, common sense fact (Vrsabha, p. 81.18-19) that Bhartshari has not been forced to devote much space to discuss it. Also, the discussions of the three remaining relations are indirectly a discussion of the pratyayānga relation.
29 The editions read präpta-vivartena. But then the sentence seems to be syntactically anomalous; the relation of the locative absolute construction sūkşme ... praciyamāne to the succeeding portion of the sentence is not clear; further, there is ambiguity as to what the component tad. in the compound tad-vivartānukārena refers to-to dhvani or to nādātman. Most probably it refers to dhvani, for the segment nādātmanā prāpta-vivartena tad-vivartānukārena with tad- referring to nādātman would be a very awkward way of saying what could be said simply with nādātma-vivartānukāreņa. Moreover, in the very preceding sentence, BhartȚhari says ... dhvanim vikriyā-dharmāņam anu vikriyate. It is almost certain then that tad- refers to dhvani. This point aids us further in guessing what the original text of the V could have been. The vivarta mentioned in the compound prāptavivarta must then be the vivarta of dhvani and the compound as a whole must qualify dhvani; that is, its form must have been prāpta-vivarte which

Page #15

The Authorship of the Vākyapadiya-Vrtti
195
nādasya krama-janmatvān na pūrvo na paraś ca sah / akramah krama-rūpena bhedavān iva jāyate // 1.48 // kramavatā hi vyāpāreņopasamhriyamāna-pracaya-rūpo nādaḥ sapratibandhābhyanujñayā vrttyā sphotam avadyotayati. ... pratibimbam yathānyatra sthitam toya-kriyā-vaśāt / tat-pravrttim ivänveti sa dharmaḥ sphoța-nādayoh || 1.49 //
In this passage, we observe a transfer from dhvani in verse 1.47 to nāda in verse 1.48. These two words are not synonymous for the sabda-vyakti-vādin, whose view is put forward in this passage and in verses 1.94—101. According to him, dhvani is subtle and pervading, whereas nāda is the gross and perceptible form of dhvani. He maintains that dhvani manifests the sphota through the intermediacy or instrumentality of nāda. In switching over to nāda, verse 1.48 must be said to assume an indication of this theoretical subtlety in the V of verse 1.47. Otherwise, Bharthari's choice of terms becomes pointless; the juxtaposition of sphota and nāda in verses 1.48–49, 97 and, rather indirectly, in 1.101 does not contrast significantly with the juxtaposition of sphoța and dhvani in verses 1.75, 77, 81, and 93 30 which seem to put forward the view of the sabdākyti-vādin. The second transfer that we notice in the passage cited above is from saḥ in verses 1.47 and 48 (= buddhisthaḥ sabdaḥ in verse 1.46) to sphoța- in verse 1.49. It also cannot be accounted for unless V 1.48 introduces the term sphota which is not found in any of the preceding kārikās.
3.8 Furthermore, the first two kāņdas contain many instances in which a plausible and straight-forward interpretation of a kārikā is made possible only by the V. In about thirty-six cases, the fact that the kārikā considers and answers an objection or a query, and the nature of that objection or query are known only from the V: 1.76, 95—100, 132, 142; 2.14, 23, 25, 36–37, 46, 48, 51, 62, 68, 159, 193—196, 200—201, 221–226, 333, 340, 363, 365. That the kārikā switches over to the consideration of an alternative or a different view is made known only by
agrees with dhvanau. This emendation extends the locative absolute construction up to prāpta-vivarte and the syntactic anomaly is removed. It seems that the copyists were led to add -na after -vivarte by the frequent occurrence of n and na in this sentence.
30 In verse 1.84, which forms a part of the group of verses (1.7593) mainly stating the process of sphoța-manifestation according to the sabdākrti-vādins, nāda and dhvani occur side by side. This is probably due to the exigency of the meter. Vșşabha (p. 150.7, 9), who usually does not explain the meanings of common expressions, comments specifically in this case: nādaih iti dhvanibhih.

Page #16

196
ASHOK AKLUJKAR
the V in about forty-two cases: 1.73, 94, 104, 108-109, 137; 2.19-22, 41-42, 49, 60–61, 66, 183—184, 256, 261262, 269, 285-286, 315— 316, 328–329, 331, 350—352, 360, 395, 409, 415, 438, 440-441, 445446, 455, 459, 461-463, 473. Moreover, the relevance, background, role in a particular context (say, as analogy or example), and serving as the starting point of a new topic would never be known exactly, if the V were not available to guide us, in the case of at least 25 kārikās: 1.28, 63–64, 76, 78–80, 84; 2.15–16, 41, 59, 64, 70, 76–87, 164—165, 197—198, 205, 239, 272, 298—299, 304–313, 353, 372, 417. It is the responsibility of those who hold that the available V is not an integral part of the Vākyapadiya, to demonstrate that each and every verse mentioned above can be interpreted satisfactorily without the aid of the V or of any commentary following the V. In my opinion, the kārikās obviously need supplementation to be understood properly and hence clearly evince the author's plan to write a gloss on them 31. As the present V accomplishes the desired supplementation and as it is unanimously held to be an integral part of the Vākyapadiya in a continuous, old, and impressively documented tradition, it must be the gloss written by Bhartphari. To say that the original gloss of Bharthari was lost and a new one written by some later author took its place is unwarranted, is not borne out by any reliable piece of evidence, and amounts to nothing but a desparate attempt to seek refuge in the subterfuge of a remote possibility.
BIBLIOGRAPHIE ABHYANKAR, K. V. and LIMAYE, V. P. 1965. (Eds.) Vākyapadiya of
Bhartphari. University of Poona Sanskrit and Prakrit Series Vol. II. Poona. 1967. (Eds.) Mahābhāşya-dipikā of Bhartshari. Part I. Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. Post-graduate and Research Department Series No. 8. Poona. 1969/70. Part II of the same. My references are to the printed forms
kindly supplied by the editors. AKLUJKAR, ASHOK. 1969. "Two Textual Studies of Bhartrhari." JAOS 89.
547–563. New Haven. - 1970. The Philosophy of BhartȚhari's Trikāņdi. Ph. D. dissertation.
Harvard University. Cambridge, Mass. [Unpublished). BHAGWAT, V. B. 1965. (Ed. and transl.) Srimad Bhartphari-viracitam
Svopajña-tikā-samanvitam Vākyapadiyam (Brahma-Kāndam). Grantha Samsodhana Prakāśana Mandala, publication no. 2. Tilak Maharashtra Vidyapeeth. Poona. (Marathi).
31 In a future article, I shall consider the verses of the third kända from this point of view.

Page #17

The Authorship of the Vākyapadiya-Vrtti
197
BIARDEAU, MADELEINE. 1964 a. (Ed. and transl.) Vākyapadiya Brahma.
kāņda avec la Vștti de Harivrşabha. Publications de l'Institut de Civilisa
tion Indienne. Série IN-80. Fascicule 24. Paris. - 1964 b. Théorie de la Connaissance et Philosophie de la Parole dans le
Brahmanisme classique. Mouton and Co. The Hague. BSS. See MĀNAVALLI. CHARUDEVA SHASTRI. 1930. "Bhartshari: a Critical Study with Special
Reference to the Vākyapadiya and its Commentaries." Proceedings and Transactions of the Fifth Indian Oriental Conference. Vol. I. Pp. 630— 665. Lahore 1934. (Ed.) Văkyapadiyam Prathamam Kāndam. Ramlal Kapoor Trust. Lahore. 1941 (?). (Ed.) Vākyapadiyam Dvitiyam Kāņdam. Ramlal Kapoor
Trust. Lahore. [Incomplete; see AKLUJKAR 1969: 555). FRAUWALLNER, ERICH. 1933. "Dignāga und anderes." Festschrift Moriz
Winternitz. Leipzig. - 1959. "Dignāga, sein Werk und seine Entwicklung." WZKSO 3.83-164.
Vienna. – 1961. "Landmarks in the History of Indian Logic." WZKSO 5.125
148. Vienna. Helārāja. Prakirņaka-prakāśa: (a) Samuddeśas 1–7: (Ed.) SUBRAMANIA
IYER, K. A. Deccan College Monograph Series No. 21. 1963. Poona. (b) Samuddesas 8-13: (Ed.) SAMBA-SIVA SĀSTRĪ, K. Trivandrum Sanskrit Series No. CXVI. 1935. Trivandrum. (c) Samuddeśa 14: (Ed.) RAVI VARMĀ, L. A. University of Travancore Sanskrit Series No.
CXLVIII. 1942. Trivandrum. JAMBŪVIJAYA, MUNI. 1961. (Ed.) Vaišeşika-sūtra of Kaņāda with the
Commentary of Candrānanda. Gaekwad's Oriental Series No. 136.
Baroda. - 1966. (Ed.) Dvadasāra-naya-cakra of Malla-vādin with the Commentary
of Simha-sūri-ganin. Jain Atmānanda Sabhā. Bhavnagar. K. M. SARMA. 1940. "Bhartphari Not a Buddhist: Evidence from Nearer
Home." PO 5.1–5. Poona. - 1942. "Gleanings from the Commentaries on the Vākyapadiya." ABORI
23.405–412. Poona. KIELHORN, F. 1880. (Ed.) The Vyākaraņa-mahābhāşya of Patañjali. 3 Vols.
Department of Public Instruction, Government of Bombay. Second edition 1892. Third edition 1962—1970: Bhandarkar Oriental Research
Institute, Poona. KUNHAN RAJA, C. 1936. "I-tsing and Bhartphari's Vākyapadiya.” S. Kri
shnaswami Aiyangar Commemoration Volume. Pp. 285—298. Madras. LIMAYE, V. P. 1966. "Dhyānagraha-kāra or Dhyāna-kāra: a Pre-Bhartphari
Grammarian." VIJ 4.228–229. Hoshiarpur. MĀNAVALLI, GANGĀDHARA SĀSTRĪ. 1887. (Ed.) Vākyapadiyam... Sri
Bhartphari. ... viracitam Sri-Punyarāja-krta-prakāśākhya-ţikā-yutam.
Benares Sanskrit Series Nos. 11, 19, and 24. Benares. MASSON, J. L. and PATWARDHAN, M. V. 1969. Sāntarasa and Abhinava
gupta's Philosophy of Aesthetics. Bhandarkar Oriental Series No. 9.
Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona. NAKAMURA, HAJIME. 1955. "Tibetan Citations of Bhartphari's Verses and

Page #18
198 ASHOK AKLUJKAR the Problem of His Date." Studies in Indology and Buddhology Presented in Honour of Professor Susumu Yamaguchi on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday. Pp. 122-136. Kyoto. OBERHAMMER, G. 1960. "The Authorship of the Sastitantram." WZKSO 4.71-89. Vienna. RAGHUNATHA SARMA. 1963. (Ed. and comment.) Vakyapadiya [Brahma kandawith the Commentary Ambakartri. Sarasvati Bhavana Grantha mala No. 91. Varanasi. RAMAKRISHNA KAVI, M. 1930. "The Discovery of the Author's Vstti on the Vakyapadiya." JAHRS 4.235--241. Rajahmundry. RAU, WILHELM. 1962. "Uber sechs Handschriften des Vakyapadiya." Oriens, 15.374398. Wiesbaden. - 1964. "Handschriften des Vakyapadiya." Oriens, 17.182-198. Wiesbaden. SADHU RAM. 1952. "Bharthari's Date." JGJARI 9.135_151. Allahabad. SANTI-BHIKSU SASTRI. 1963. (Ed. and transl.) "Agamasamuccaya * Alias Vakyapadiya-Brahmakanda of Bhartshari." Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Karl-Marx-Universitat Leipzig 12.1914-228. Gesellschafts und Sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe. Heft 1. Leipzig. SUBRAMANIA IYER, K. A. 1965. (Transl.) The Vakyapadiya of Bhartshari with the Vrtti. Chapter I. Deccan College Building Centenary and Silver Jubilee Series No. 26. Poona. 1966a. (Ed.) Vakyapadiya of Bhartshari with the Vrtti, and the Paddhati of Vrsabhadeva. Deccan College Monograph Series No. 32. Poona. - 1966 b. (Ed. and transl.) The Sphota-siddhi of Mandana Misra. Deccan College Building Centenary Series No. 25. Poona. SWAMINATHAN, V. 1963. "Bhartshari's Authorship of the Commentary on the Mahabhasya." ALB 27.59-70. Madras. THIEME, PAUL. 1956. "Panini and the Paniniyas." JAOS 76.1--23. New Haven. Trikandi. (a) Kanda 1: see $. IYER 1966 a. (b) Kanda 2: see MANAVALLI 1887. The numbering of the Vakyapadiya verses in this edition is quite often inaccurate. My references to the second kanda assume a correction of those inaccuracies. Unfortunately the V of the second kanda is yet to be published in its entirety. I have, therefore, been forced to refer to my hand-written copy of that V. See AKLUJKAR 1969: 555-556. (c) Kanda 3: see Helaraja. Tripadi. See ABHYANKAR-LIMAYE 1967-1970. Vrsabha. See S. IYER 1966 a. Vstti. See S. IYER 1966 a, C. SHASTRI 1941 (?), and Trikandi. YUDHISTHIRA MIMAMSAKA. samvat 2020. Samskrta Vyakarana-sastra ka Itihasa. Vol. I. Revised edition. Bharatiya Pracya-vidya Pratisthana. Ajmer.