Concluding Verses Of Bhartrharis Vakya Kanda

Author(s): Ashok Aklujkar
Publisher: Ashok Aklujkar
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/269290/1

Page #1
THE CONCLUDING VERSES OF BHARTRHARI'S VAKYA-KANDA* By ASHOK AKLUJKAR 1.1 In this paper I wish to offer some observations on verses 4814901 appearing at the end of the second book of Bhartrhari's Trikandi or Vakyapadiya. The verses have been studied, primarily or incidentally, directly or indirectly, in a number of publications: Goldstucker (1861), Weber (1862), Kielhorn (1874, 1875, 1876, 1885), Peterson (1885), Thieme (1956), Yudhisthira Mimamsaka (samvat 2020), Sharma (1968), Upadhyaya (1968), S. Iyer (1969), Scharfe (1976), Joshi (1976), and Cardona (1977; in this volume). My objective here is neither to review what has been said about them, nor to pronounce judgements on all the controversies they have given rise to. I wish rather to put forward a few considerations that have not so far appeared in print and to refute a few interpretations that have so far gone unrefuted. 1.2 In order to reach the goal I have set for myself, I shall naturally need a critically established text of verses 481-490. Hence I shall proceed * This is an enlarged and significantly revised version of a paper I read at the 1972 annual meeting of the American Oriental Society. I am very grateful to Professor Wilhelm Rau for the access I had to the typescript and proofs of his critical edition of the Vakyapadiya | Trikandi-karikas and for the copies of Tika manuscripts that he so promptly provided. Professors K. A. Subramania Iyer and M. A. Mehendale exerted themselves considerably to make available to me a copy of the Vakya-kanda-vrtti manuscript at Patan. I am greatly indebted to them. To Professor D. H. H. Ingalls goes the credit of making me think more about verse 487. The financial support necessary for the acquisition of manuscript copies etc., so vital to research of the present type, was given by the University of British Columbia, the Canada Council, and the American Council of Learned Societies at various stages during 1969-1975. 1. (a) In the present and following publications I shall follow Rau's (1977) enumeration of the Trikandi karikas. It is the only flawless enumeration we have at present that enables us to refer to a tradition of the Trikandi text (the karika manuscript tradition) in a form determined by objective textual criticism. It will be highly convenient if the Trikandi text as preserved in the other (Vrtti and Tika) traditions is critically established by following Rau's enumeration. This I advocate simply as a procedure that will facilitate future text-critical research concerning Bhartrhari. I do not hold that the karika manuscripts give us the oldest accessible form of the Trikandi text. See Aklujkar 1971, 1978. (b) The text of verses 481-490 given below is based on a consideration of all known manuscript traditions. In the case of karika manuscripts I have simply followed Rau's lead. It is only the collection and evalution of the evidence of the Vrtti and Tika manuscripts that I have freshly attempted. 2 Annals [D. J.]

Page #2
ABORI: Diamond Jubilee Volume by presenting those verses as they will appear in my proposed edition of the Trikandi text. For the sake of simplicity of presentation, however, I shall not refer to all the variant readings and their sources. Another clarification in order is that my choice of readings is based on a consultation of all available manuscript traditions: karika, Vrtti, and Tika. Although such a consultation does not yield any startlingly new readings in the present case, it serves to establish the original as objectively as possible : prayena samksepa-rucin alpa-vidya-parigrahan | samprapya vaiyakaranan samgrahe 'stam upagate ||481// krte 'tha patanjalina guruna tirthadarsina sarvesam nyaya-bijanam mahabhasye nibandhane ||482// alabdha-gadhe gambhiryad uttana iva sausthavat | tasminn akrta-buddhinamn naivavasthita niscayah ||483// vaiji-saubhava-haryaksaih suska-tarkanusaribhih/ arse viplavite granthe samgraha-pratikancuke1 //484 // yah patanjali-sisyebhyo bhrasto vyakaranagamah| kale sa daksinatyesu granthamatre" vyavasthitah //485// parvatad agamam labdhva bhasya-bijanusaribhih | sa nito bahu-sakhatvam candracaaryadibhih punah //486// 2. Although pata is attested in all manuscripts of the karika tradition and in some important manuscripts of the Vrtti and Tika traditions, I have decided to accept the reading pata. This is in view of the following facts: (a) There is no other reliable occurrence of patanjali as the name of the author of the Mahabhisya. (b) The relatively more reliable manuscripts of the Vrtti and the Tika read pata, These are also the manuscripts far removed from each other in terms of location of writing. (c) Even those. Tika manucsripts which read pata' in the karika portion almost always read pata in the Tika pertaining to the karika, indicating thereby that the author of the Tika knew the reading to be pata. 3. vaiki is found in the place of vaiji in one Vrtti manuscript, and baidri in one Tika manuscript. The reading baiji, although attested in only two usually reliable sources. can be accepted instead of vaiji, as manuscript writers do not always distinguish v and b, It should also be noted that whereas baiji can be easily derived from bija and thus given some etymological significance, no straightforward etymology seems possible for vaiji. See 5. 1 and footnotes 27 and 31 below. 4. 5. Since the best manuscripts of the karika tradition read pata, at one point I was uncertain about the reading adopted here. Hence the reference in Scharfe 1976: 276 footnote 20 to a letter from me. An examination of the Vrtti and Tika manuscripts has now convinced me that the reading pata is clearly preferable on objective criteria. Contextually too, there is no reason why a taddhita formation like pitanjali should be employed. 6. This reading of Vitti and Tika manuscripts has an objectively stronger claim to being genuine than kalena of karika manuscripts. If the latter reading is accepted, one must either understand sah in 485cd or assume that 485 and 486 together constitute one sentence. The second alternative is rather difficult to justify in view of the intervening 486ab. 7. The reading matro of the generally better karika manuscripts is not corroborated by the Vrtti and Tika manuscripts.

Page #3
AKLUJKAR : The Concluding Verses of Bhartrhari's Vakya-Kanda ii nyaya-prasthana-margams tan abhyasya svam ca darsanam [ pranito gurunasmakam ayam agama-samgrahah //487// vartmanam atra kesamcid vastu-matram udahrtam | kande trtiye nyaksena bhavisyati vicarana ||488// prajna vivekam labhate bhinnair agama-darsanaih kiyad va sakyam unnetum sva-tarkam anudhavata ||489|| tat tad utprek samananam puranair agamair vina anupasita-vrddhanam vidya natiprasidati //490// 2.1 It has so far been assumed that these verses are a composition of Bhartrhari. I wish to question this assumption. The natural meaning of verse 487 is: "Having frequently reflected upon those nyaya-prasthanamargas and his own view, our teacher composed this compendium of traditional knowledge". If we suppose that it was Bhartrhari who made this statement, it follows that his teacher, and not he, composed the karikas and Vrtti up to 480. However, such a conclusion would go against all the evidence we have in the manuscripts and the impressively long and consistent tradition of Bhartrhari's authorship. On the other hand, if we suppose that it was some student of Bhartrhari who wrote 487 and the group of verses to which 487 belongs, we shall have shown due regard for the available evidence regarding the authorship of the portion up to 480. To be taken into account in this connection is also the thesis I wish to put forward in a forthcoming article with what I hope to be adequate justification. It is that Bhartrhari planned to write a vrtti for the third kanda, but could not write it for some reason that he either died or was incapacitated before he could turn to writing it. Now, if that is what actually happened, we should not at all be surprised to find a student of Bhartrhari writing a few appropriate verses at the end of the Vrtti of the second kanda to mark the point where Bhartrhari 8. In the writings of Bhartrhari and those close to him, the word nyaya commonly stands for principle helpful in arriving at a logical or contextually justifiable view' (cf. Cardona's paper in this volume). I take prasthana to mean foundation, basis, source ' (compare the usage prasthana-trayi). A literal translation of the compound expression nyaya-prasthana-marga will, therefore, be the ways of the source of principles helpful in arriving at justifiable views'. In the light of sarvesam nyaya-bijanam mahabhasye nibandhane in 482 and bhasya-bijanusaribhih sa nito bahu-sakhatvam in 486, this amounts to saying the ways of the Mahahhisya'. Thus, I am essentially in agreement with Raghunatha Sharma's (1968: 575) explanation tan mula-bhuta-vyakaranagamato jnatan bhasye 'vasthitan nyaya prasthana-margan. I do not object also to the interpretation ways of the nyaya-prasthanas such as Mimamsa and Vyakaranagama'. While Weber's (1862 161) translation der Schluss, Vorgang, und Weg' seems incorrect to me, I find the translations the ways of logical discussion' (Goldstucker 1861:238) and the various other systems' (Raghavan Pillai 1971 146) less than exact.

Page #4
12 ABORI : Diamond Jubilee Volume stopped. In fact, the relevance of the mention of the third kanda in verse 488 and of the description of that kanda (devoted to a detailed examination of various relevant vartmans or agamas ) in verses 489-490 can be explained most straightforwardly if we ascribe the verses 481-490 to a student of Bhartphari. The student, writing epilogue-type verses as he was, must have been anxious to avoid giving the impression that Bhartshari's work came to an end with the karikas and Vrtti of the second kanda, and must have felt the need to connect the first two kandas with the third kanda. Perhaps the plural form asmakam in verse 487 is also significant from this point of view. It is a form that would naturally occur to anyone writing as a representative of a number of students.10 Furthermore, there is nothing in verse 487 that applies only to Bhartphari's teacher Vasurata and not to Bhartphari. The latter also had obviously studied the nyaya-prasthana-margas" and had a view, a philosophy, of his own." Therefore, I tend to believe that verses 481-490 are not a composition of Bhartshari.13 9. What I say here entails : (a) Bharthari composed first the karikas and then most of the available Vrtti, i. e., those portions of the Vitti which are not syntactically related to the karika's (Aklujkar 1972 : 190-193); or, Bharthari first finalized the karika text and then proceeded to give final form to the Vrtti, which latter activity he could carry out only to the end of the second kanda. (b) The karikas were separated from a karika +vytti composition and a tradition of karika manuscripts was begun after Bhartr-hari's time. Otherwise, one would not have found in the karika manuscripts verses 481-490 written by a different hand. 10. The Tika explains the use of the plural in two ways : asmakam iti bahu-vacanad anyesam api sahadhydyinam grahanam. atha va maya tu tad-anucchedayayam upanibandhah krta ity atmano bahu-manah prakafitah. The second of these explanations is misunderstood by Raghunatha Sharma (1968 : 575 ) when he ,comments : atha vdsmakam ayam agama-sangrahah = matkartykatvena prasiddho 'yam agama-samgrahovakyapadiyakhyo gurund pranito na tu maya maya tu tad-cauccheda yayan grantha-rupenopanibandhah kTta ity atmano gurau bahu-manah prakatita iti. The intention of the Tika is clearly to say that Bhartphari attaches bahu-mana to himself, for he, among all students of Vasurata, gave a lasting, written form to the collection of traditions that Vasurata had imparted; the Tika does not speak of attaching bahu-mana to Bharthari's guru, at least in the particular remark under consideration. Secondly, it is precisely a statement to the effect that Bharthari's teacher composed the Vakyapadi ya that the Tika avoids making. I also fail to understand what the written composition (grantha-rupa upanibandha) authored by Bhartshari would be, once the composition commonly ascribed to him, the Vakyapadi ya, is attributed to his teacher. 11. The statement holds true under any sensible interpretation of nyaya-prasthanamarga. Bhartphari's knowledge of such systems as the Mimamsa and Vaisecika is evident from his commentary on the Mahabhas ya as well as from scores of passages in the Trikandi. 12. The most eloquent testimony to Bharthari's intellectual independence is provided by as early an author as Malla-vadin (pp. 581, 594-595 ):.. iti bhartyharyadi. matam. vasuratasya bhartyharyupadhyayasya matam tu.. evar lavad bhartyharyadi-darsanam ayuktam. yat tu vasurato bhartyharer upadhyayah..ity aha.. 13. (a) The importance of 481-490 for the history of Sanskrit grammar is in no way diminished if they are not ascribed to Bhartphari. As the work of a junior contemporary of Bhartghari they remain almost as ancient and as reliable as they have so far been held to be. (Continued on the next page )

Page #5
AKLUJKAR : The Concluding Verses of Bhartrhari's Vakya-Kanda 13 2.2 Is it the case that the difficulty I perceive with regard to 487 has not occurred to others who studied it? I find it hard to suppose so. The very fact that attempts have been made to assign secondary, non-literal meanings to the verse indicates that some uneasiness has been felt regarding what it literally says. Let us now examine whether these attempts are justified. If they are justified, the assumption behind them that Bhartphari is the author of 481-490 must be deemed acceptable ; on the other hand, if they lack justification, the assumption must be set aside. 2.3 The Tika offers the following comment on 487 : atha kadacid yogato vicaryal4 tatra[ bhavata 715 bhagavata vasurata-guruna mamayam agamah samjnaya vatsalyat pranita iti sva-racitasyasya granthasya gurupurva-kramam abhidhatum aha. (At this point, the text of 487 as given above is found.)... anena guruna sarjnayal na tatha mamayam agama-samgrahah pranito yena samdeho bhaved api tu savadhanenety uktam bhavati. Here the intention is clearly to make the verse say, not "my teacher composed this ", but "I composed this because of the affectionate personal attention (note vatsalyat, savadhanena) that my teacher gave to me".17 However, there is Continued from the last page) (b) In the light of what I have argued here, point 2.1 (a) on p. 548 of my 1969 article on the title Vakyapadiya should be dropped. If the verses at the end of the second kanda are not written by the author of the Vakyapadiya, I cannot use their existence as a proof of his intention to divide the Trikandi into two parts. However, my view regarding the title stands as it is on the basis of the other considerations recorded in the same article. 14. I do not know what precisely is meant by yogato vicarya. 15. The constituent bhavata seems to have been dropped through haplography in the Tika manuscripts. That one must supply it is clear from the lack of connection bet. ween tatra and bhagavata and from the fact that the honorific tatra-bhavat was rather closely associated with the line of scholars to which Bharthari and Vasurata belonged (Aklujkar 1972 : 186-188). 16. One gets the impression that the author of the Tika glosses samhjaya with vatsalyat and sdvadhanena. However, if that is the case, two difficulties arise : (a) How does one derive the meanings vatsalyat and savadhanena from samjaya 'having known together/completely, having ascertained'? (b) Where can the expression sarhjaya be accommodated in the verse? Obviously the author of the Tika would not gloss his own words in this manner, and he leaves no doubt that he reads the verse precisely as we do. In view of these considerations, I conclude that samjiiaya has not in fact been glossed. It is simply a short expression for tan nya ya-prasthana-margan suami darsanam ca abhyasya. The expressions that follow it, vatsalyat and na tatha.. api tu savadhanena, are meant to bring out the spirit of the verse as the Tika understands it to be. They provide more details concerning how Vasurata imparted the agama or agama-samgraha to Bhartphari. For this as well as other reasons I find Raghunatha Sharma's change of the second sathjia ya to asanjaya quite unnecessary. 17. The summary verses of Punya-raja appearing at the end of the Tika add one detail ( guru-nirdistad bhas yan nyayaviluptaye, which is probably to be read as guru-nirdesad bhas yamnayaviluptaye ) to this interpretation : acarya-vasuratena nyaya.margan vicintya ca pran to (Continued on the next page)

Page #6
14 ABORI : Diamond Jubilee Volume not a single word in the verse that would justify the addition of the element " because of the affectionate personal attention " so crucial to this interpretation. Furthermore, it is apparent from the clauses guruna mama ayam agamah pranitah and guruna mama ayam agama-samgrahah pranitah that the author of the Tika construes asmakam in the verse with praaitah, understands -pranitah in the sense of some such word as pratipaditah ('stated, explained, delivered, given'), and interprets asmakam as a genitive substitute for asmabhyam (=mahyam, in this instance ). However, the natural connection of asmakam is with guruna. If the guru is not related to the author of the verse, i. e. to the person referred to by asmat, there is no justification at all for bringing him in; the expectancy whose teacher ?" must be satisfied. Secondly, the word pranita, at least in the writings of Bhartphari and his near contemporaries, does not ever seem to have been used in the sense the author of the Tika seems to assign to it.18 And even if we assign that sense to pranita, we do not get past difficulties. If we say asmakam guruna ayam agamah pratipaditah, we are guilty of overlooking the constituent sangraha and the obvious reference of ayam to the work Vakyapadiya. On the other hand, if we say asmakam guruna ayam agama-samgrahah pratipaditah, we make a statement that goes against the massive evidence favouring Bhartshari's, and not his teacher's, authorship of the agama-samgraha called Vakyapadiya. Thus, the Tika explanation is far from satisfactory. 2.4 Raghunatha Sharma (1968 : 575) mostly follows the Tika. If he is aware of any of the difficulties pointed out above, he does not say so. The only significant addition made by him , ayam agama-samgraho gurunasmakan krte pranita iti va yojana, suffers from lack of evidence ; neither the manuscripts of the Vak yapadiya nor any of the known medieval works "attribute the authorship of the agama-sangraha called Vak yapadiya to Bhartphari's teacher. Besides, there is no justification for supplying krte.19 (Continued from the last page) vidhivac cayan mama vyakaranagamah // mayapi guru-nirdistad bhasyan nyayaviluptaye kanda-traya-kramenayan nibandhah parikirtitah //. In my view, S. Iyer (1969: 3) offers an unjustifiably specific meaning (see 2.5 below ) to these verses in his remark : "..Vasurata gathered together the traditions in a composition for the sake of his disciple Bhartphari and instructed him to write his own work on the basis of that." 18. Cf... yaih pratyaksa-dharmabhis tatra tatra pravacane sutranutantra-bhas yani pranitani tair eva sistaih .. (Vriti 1.23d. p. 63. 9). Note also the use of pranety in 1.23d, Vytti 1. 148150 pp. 203-205, and Tripadi p. 214. 4, and of pranayana in Tripadi p. 37. 17-18. 19. I shall leave out of consideration the translations by Goldstucker 1861: 238 (".. my Guru .. taught me the compendium of this grammatical work") and Weber 1862: 161 ("Von meinem Lehrer .. ward mir gelehrt hier dieser samgraha des Texts"). They are more arbitrary than some of the interpretations rejected here.

Page #7
AKLUJKAR : The Concluding Verses of Bhartrhari's Vak ya-Kanda 15 2.5 While the Tika explains 487cd by saying, in effect, that Bhartphari was very much indebted to his teacher for the contents of the Vakyapadiya and for inspiration and guidance in writing the Vak yapadiya, Baladeva Upadhyaya ( 1968 : kha) and S. Iyer (1969: 3, 69 ) go a step further. Instead of tracing Bharthari's indebtedness to Vasurata's oral instruction, they trace it to a book by Vasurata, and offer that rather specific indebtedness as the basis for the apparent attribution of the Vakyapadiya to Bhartshari's teacher (Since this compendium draws upon the book of my teacher so heavily, you may say that it is actually my teacher who has composed it'). Their interpretation thus abandons the clever and, I am sure, deliberate ambiguity of the Tika interpretational and does more violence to the text of 487. It is quite evident that that verse does not contain a statement on the authorship of two works by two individuals (Bhartphari and his teacher Vasurata ). Contextually it can refer to the genesis only of the work that precedes it and is before us, namely, the Vak yapadiya of Bhartphari. The word ayam in it cannot refer to any other work. This is clear also from the immediately following verse. There we find atra, related to ayam, and that characterization of the agama-samgraha which entirely fits the Vakyapadiya. 21 2.6 At this point it may be said that there exists another way of understanding 487cd which is free from problematic construing, retention of ambiguity in the case of pranitah etc., and unjustifiable bifurcation of the reference of ayam. Take pranito gurunasmakam ayam agama-samgrahah to be an expression of Bharthari's reverence and humility; conclude that, out of gratitude, Bhartphari offered the authorship of his work to his teacher; the remark my teacher composed this is simply an hyperbolic expression for I could not have composed this without the help of my teacher and hence this really belongs to him.' True, this alternative has the merit of not doing any violence to the syntax and literal meaning of 487cd ; but it nevertheless forces one to accept something of which there is no corroboration in the tradition, namely that Bhartshari ascribed his own work to his 20. The Tika see the passage cited in 2. 3 above) does not explain pranita. It also seems to pretend that the constituent samgraha in agama-samgraha does not exist. 21. (a) I do not wish to deny the possibility of Bhartphari's teacher having com. posed an agama-samgraha or of Bhartphari's being indebted to that agama-samgraha. What I object to is the inference of either possibility on the basis of verse 487. (b) It is not surprising that the author of the pika and Vrsabha (p. 1. 1922 ), not being aware of all the ways in which autographs change, could not see the possibility of there being another hand behind 481-490, and that they consequently read them as a continuation of what precedes. That modern scholars equipped with the science of textual criticism did not realise or explore the possibility is puzzling.

Page #8
16 ABORI : Diamond Jubilee Volume teacher. Moreover, a figurative or secondary meaning should be resorted to, especially in historical research, only when the literal meaning cannot be accommodated. As shown in 2.1 above, this is not the case with the passage under consideration. 2.7 Another possible way of circumventing the conclusion that it was Bhartphari's student who authored verses 481-490 would be as follows: There is no reason why 481-490 must be taken as marking the conclusion of both the karika text and the Vrtti text; it is possible that they indicate the end of only the Vrtti text and constitute a statement of the author of the Vitti alone. If that is so, then verse 487 can easily be understood as a remark by the author of the Vrtti, Bhartphari, to the effect that it was his teacher who composed the agama-sangraha in the form of the Vakyapadiya karikas." However, as I have argued elsewhere (Aklujkar 1972 ), the karikas and the Vrtti must be thought of as coming from the pen of one and the same person. Besides, we have no evidence to credit Bhartphari's teacher, whether he is Vasurata or anyone else, with the authorship of (at least most of the karikas. 3.1 As for verses 481-482, two possibilities need to be considered. Are we to read 481 as giving the context of 482, or are we to read 481 and 482 together as jointly providing the context of 483 228 In the former alternative, atha 'then, subsequently' will retain its most common meaning and need not be understood in the sense and, moreover ',24 but the implication will be that the Sangraha was unavailable or was mostly unavailable (the latter if one construes prayena, not with samk sepa-rucin, but with astam upagate ) to the author of the Mahabhasya. This implication is contradicted by the description samgraha-pratikancuke (see 5.4-6 below) of the Maha 22. (a) This alternative leads to, but does not require an answer to, the question: Who composed the karikas of the third kanda ? (b) It is possible to phrase the alternative by assuming Hari-vrsabha to be the author of the Vetti and Bhartrhari to be the author of the karikas. However, as I have suggested elsewhere (Aklujkar 1972: 182-183 footnote 2), Hari-Vrsabha does not really exist in the context of the Vakyapadiya. Besides, saying Hari-vrsabha wrote 481-490 implies acceptance of the view that someone other than Bharthari wrote 481-490. 23. The Tika and Raghunatha Sharma's Ambakartri accept the first possibility (note .. samgrahabhidhanam nibandhanam .. astam upagatam... astath yatah samgrahah. ). Thieme (1956: 18-19), while entertaining the first possibility ("the Samgraha had perished"), is quick to realise that 481d can also be taken to mean:"..the Sam graha had .. ceased to be studied ". Yudhisthira Mimamsaka ( samvat 2020:278 ) clearly distinguishes between the loss of the text of the Sangraha and a break in the tradition of studying the Sangraha. He takes 481-482 as indicating the latter. So does S. Iyer (1969: 3 ). 24. Use of atha in the sense of ca cannot be said to be uncommon, especially in metrical compositions.

Page #9
AKLUJKAR : The Concluding Verses of Bhartrhari's Vakya-Kanda 17 bhasya and also by Patanjali's statements concerning the Sangraha ;25 it does not seem to be the case that the Sangraha was lost or was substantially lost at the time of Patanjali. Thus, the only interpretation justifiable in view of the available evidence will be the one in which 481-482 are understood as jointly stating the context of 483. In other words, what the verses precisely state is the following: (a) Men of immature intellect could not determine the nature of the views expressed in the Mahabhasya or could not determine the views acceptable to the author of the Mahabhasya once the Samgraha went into oblivion. (b) This was due, in part, to the fact that the Mahabhasya took so much of the Sangraha for granted. Its apparently simple statements were based on discussions of great depth and length that were carried out in the Samgraha. (c) The imprecise understanding of the Mahabhasya on the part of students with unseasoned intellects 26 was also due to the fact that Patanjali, as a person well-versed in different branches of learning (tirtha-darsin), used all principles of interpretation and thus placed the grammarians to follow in the not too comfortable position of being required to comprehend the principles of interpretation that existed in seed-form in his work. (d) The passing of the Samgraha into oblivion, in turn, was due to the fact that it encountered grammarians who failed to appreciate its worth. There was no proper appreciation of the discussions from the points of view of many systems which the Samgraha contained ; 25. (a) sath graha etat pradhanyena pariks tam nityo va syat karyo veti. tatrokta dosah prayojandny apy uklani. tatra tv esa nirnayo yady eva nityo 'thapi karya ubhayathapi laksanath pravartyam iti. (Mahabhasya 1.1.1 p. I. 6) (b) sangrahe tavat karya-pratidvandvi-bhavan manyamahe nitya-paryaya-vacino grahanam iti. ( Mahabhasya 1. 1. I p. I. 6) (c) sobhana khalu daksa yanasya samgrahasya krtih. Sobhana khalu daksayanena sathgrahasya kytir iti. (Mahabhasya 2. 3. 66 p. I. 468 ) (d) Possibly: kiratimh carkaritintam pacatity atrayo nayet I praptijnam tam ahath manye prarabdhas tena sathgrahah II ( Mahabhas ya 7. 4. 92 p. III. 359) 26. Thieme. translates akyla-luddh nam as "not exercising their intellect". I think a translation like those whose intellect is not sharpened or made mature by the study of fastras" will be closer to the original. It is repeatedly indicated by the author of 481-490 that only a person having a background in several vidyds / agamas / agama-darsanas can understand the apparently simple statements of the Mahabhas ya in a satisfactory way. Besides this contextual indication of the thrust of the adjective, we have its use in Gita 18. 16 ( .. akrta-buddhitvan na sa pasyati durmatih ), which is explained by Sankara with the expression asanskrta-buddhitvat. The compound krta-buddhi is evidently analogous to kyta - -hasta ( Trikandi 3. 14.558) one of trained hand' and kytatman (Gita 15.11, which, in fact, has the negative akrtatman) one of cultivated self'. The root kr in it signifies modification or perfection (compare the use of "do" in English sentences such as " Have you done your hair?"). The Tika glosses it accurately as krta vyutpattya prakarsam prapta mahati buddhir yesar te. Of course, one cannot be a kyta-buddhi unless one exercises one's intellect first. To that extent, Thieme's translation, although not contextually exact, is indeed justified. 3 Annals (D. J.)

Page #10
18 ABORI : Diamond Jubilee Volume there was also a demand for works that would provide an overview or gist of the system of grammar. 4.1 The above analysis was prompted mainly by the consideration that the interpretation of 481-482 given in footnote 23 should not be accepted uncritically--that it should be recognised that there are two possibilities of interpretation leading to two significantly different depictions of the history of the Paninian tradition. The analysis is motivated also by a desire to determine the sense of verse 484. Thieme ( 1956 : 19 footnotes 45-46) has expressed the view that 484c, arse viplavite granthe, refers to the Astadhyayi of Panini. My analysis of 481-483 should serve to indicate that this cannot be the case. The relationship mentioned in them is that between the Mahabhasya and the Sangraha. There is no reason why their author should suddenly switch from a consideration of the Mahabhasya to that of the Astadhyayi. Thieme's interpretation creates a problem also for what follows 484. If we go along with it, the logical link between 483 and 485 is lost. The former tells us that the grammarians who flourished after Patanjali did not exhibit either the patience or the intellectual ability needed for determining the acceptable views in a work like the Mahabhasya. From the latter we learn that the traditional (interpretive ) lore of grammar slipped from the hands of the disciples of Patanjali. In between we need a statement saying in effect that the understanding of the Mahabhasya became distorted as a result of the variety of interpretations and that the confusing variety of interpretations discouraged prospective students. Only verse 484 can provide that link, and that too only if it is interpreted as "speaking of the Mahabhasya. 4.2 Every expression that occurs with arse viplavite granthe in 484 indicates, directly or indirectly, that the reference of the verse cannot be to the Astadhyayi : (a) From the place at which the names of Vaiji, etc. occur it is clear that those grammarians, pseudo-grammarians, or anti-grammarians lived after Patanjali. The target of their activity, or at least the primary target of their activity, therefore, is more likely to be Patanjali's work than Panini's work. (b) suska tarka is characterized in the Vrtti of 1. 153 as sabdaSakti-rupaparigshitah..sadharmya-vaidharmya-matranusari sarvagamopaghata-hetutvad anibandhanah and in the Tika on 2.484 as anya-sastra-parimalarahitah. Thus, the expression suska-tarkanusaribhih specifically points out the failure of Vaiji and others to take into consideration the related branches of knowledge and to realise that the words employed in the tradition of grammar are to be understood in a contextually sensible way. Now, I think it is evident that the Astadhyayi does not so directly demand of its readers a knowledge of the principles employed in other systems as does the Maha

Page #11
AKLUJKAR : The Concluding Verses of Bhartshari's Vakya-Kanda 19 bhasya. Contextually too, it is in the case of the Mahabhasya that proper understanding is indicated to be dependent on a knowledge of other branches of learning; cf. tirtha-darsina, sarvesam nyaya-bijanam, alabdha-gadhe gambhiryat, and akrta-buddhinam. (c) Even if we go along with Thieme and understand samgraha-pratikancuke as meaning " of which the defensive armour was the Sangraha", the word does not seem to be so appropriate as a description of the Astadhyayi as of the Mahabhasya. From the indications provided in 481 (samk sepa-rucin, alpa-vidya-parigrahan) and from the known references to the Samgraha (Yudhisthira Mimamsaka sarvat 2020 : 270-277) one can easily conclude that the Sagraha was very ambitiously planned, that it involved study of many vidyas, and that it was predominantly a work on grammatical theory and linguistic philosophy. It does not seem to have been a commentary to the Astadhyayi in the usual sense or a defense of the Astadhyayi per se. On the other hand, as shown in 3. 1 above, the Mahabhasya drew heavily upon the Samgraha and could be misinterpreted in its absence. 5.1 So far four (see footnote 29 below) different explanations of the expression samgraha-pratikancuka have been proposed. The Tika seems to be unsure about it, as it neither cites the expression as a pratika, nor provides any explicit gloss. However, there is room to believe that its author decided to read 484d as samgraha-pratikancukaih and to understand it as meaning samgraha-pratipaksa-bhutaih. 27 Goldstucker (1861 : 257-258) adopted the same reading, but assigned it the exactly opposite meaning " who were partisans of the Sangraha". Among those who are aware of the reading samgraha-pratikancuke as an adjective of granthe, we have Kielhorn (1876 : 244), who provisionally takes it to be a tat-purusa ( samgrahasya pratikancuke) meaning "preserving the (contents of the ) Sangraha ", and Thieme, who takes it to be a bahu-vrihi (samgrahah pratikancukam yasya tasmin ) meaning "of which the defensive armour was the Samgraha" or "whose counter-armour is (was ) the Samgraha ". 5.2 Goldstucker's rendering is clearly inappropriate. We have no reason to suppose that there was a group of Samgraha partisans in existence after the Mahabhasya had gained currency or to suppose that that group was interested in making a case against the Mahabhasya. The high regard for the Sangraha shown by Patanjali and by the followers of Patanjali such as Bhartphari indicates that the followers of the Mahabhasya were also followers of the Samgraha, not a rival group. Secondly, there does not seem to be any sangraha-pratipaksa-bhutair acaryais tarka 27. Note the introduction to 484: tatha ca -vidyamatra-Dedibhih..

Page #12
ABORI : Diamond Jubilee Volume satisfactory way of arriving at the meaning partisan' from the basic meanings of prati and kancuka. The same difficulty exists in the case of the Tika explanation. Thieme ( 1956: 19 footnote 46) suggests that the author of the Tika "understands pratikancuka as a bahu-vrihi, to be analyzed : pratinaddham kancukam yena", he who has fastened his armour, he who is ready for battle'. However, such a compound would be unique in two ways. The root nah is not known to have been used with the prefix prati, not at least in a sense useful for the Tika author's derivation. Secondly, the bahu-vrihi compounds with a suppressed participle, praparna etc. (Trikandi 3. 14. 52), are always explained with gata, kranta or a synonym thereof; naddha is unparalleled as an implicit or latent member of a bahu-vrihi. Another difficulty with the Tika interpretation is that it does not explain how the Sangraha could produce hostile reaction even after Patanjali's time or why the opponents of the Sangraha were interested in expressing opposition to the Mahabhasya. It is, of course, possible that the Mahabhasya was viewed unkindly because it was based on the Samgraha. 28 But even then it is puzzling that the Sangraha should have given rise to a long line of opponents so dead set against it that even a work based on it was a target for vehement attacks. Finally, one must note as a problem common to the explanations given by both Goldstucker and the author of the Tika that the instrumental reading samgraha-pratikancukaih is not attested in any of the manuscripts known so far. 5.3 The sense counter-armour, defensive armour' attributed by Thieme to the word pratikancuka is etymologically plausible and, when accepted as a part of a reference to the Mahabhasya, contextually suitable (see 4.1-2 above). However, one wonders whether prati is really called for if that is what the compound word means. As kancuka or armour is meant to be a protective, defensive covering, prati adds nothing of significance when taken in the sense 'counter-, defensive '. Secondly, the meaning given by Thieme proves to be partially or entirely unsuitable in the other contexts known so far. As Thieme notes, pratikancuka occurs in Aryabhasiya, Gola-pada verse 50 as sukstayusoh pranasam kurute pratikancukam yo 'sya.29 In this concluding verse of his work, Aryabhata clearly wishes to warn the reader that a certain type of activity should not be undertaken with ever, one the Mahabhically plau 28. Cf. Tika on 483: etena sangrahanusarena bhagavata patanjalina sathgraha-samksepa-bhutam eva prayaso bhasyam upanibaddham ity uktar voditavyam. 29. The commentary on the Aryabhatiya explains this as asya sastrasya yah pratikancukam kurute, dosotpadanena tiraskaranam ity arthah, tasya sukyta yusoh pranasah syat. Thus, , making something obscure by finding faults in it' is the fifth meaning proposed for pratikancuka. Since it fails to be applicable in 484 and in the passage from Kumarila eited in 5. 4, it must be rejected.

Page #13
AKLUJKAR : The Concluding Verses of Bhartrhari's Vakya-Kanda 21 respect to his work; if undertaken, it would lead to the destruction or waste (pranasa ) of the reader's good karman (sukrta) and life (ayus). Now, this activity cannot certainly be the making of a defensive armour' or protective covering; there is no reason why the possibility of anyone's attempting to provide more protection (in a literal sense or in the figurative sense of justification, bolstering with arguments, etc.) to Aryabhata's work should disturb Aryabhata to the extent of uttering an imprecation. Realising this, Thieme proposes that we should read apratikancukam, i. e. supply an avagraha after kurute, in the Aryabhatiya verse, take apratikancukam as an adverb, and translate the line as follows: "He causes perdition of his good deeds and his life so that there can be no defense (counter-armour), who ( causes perdition ) of this ( work, the Aryabhatiya )." However, such a translation is possible only if we repeat the phrase pranasam kurute as yah asya ( aryabhatiyasya ) pranasam kurute [ sah) sukrtayusoh apratikancukam pranasam kurute. It does not seem likely from the placing of pranasam and pratikancukam / apratikancukam in the verse line that Aryabhata had in mind the connection of pranasam with yah asya and of pratikancukam / apratikancukam with pranasam kurute. Secondly, although a statement like 'He causes perdition of his good deeds, so that there can be no defense' is sensible, a statement like 'He causes perdition of his life, so that there can be no defense' is hardly sensible; when life is gone, there is no need for defense. 5.4 Recently I have come across an occurrence of pratikancuka that seems to have eluded all those who previousiy discussed the problem of 484d. It is in the Tantra-varttika (on 1. 3. 7, p. 122 of the Anandasrama edition of 1970) of Kumarila : pratikancuka-rupena purva-sastrartha-gocaram/ yad anyat kriyate tasya dharmam praty apramanata || tatha ca prayascittadidana-kale yo vak yam atmiyam anya-kavikrtam va slokam voccarya manavadiprayascittam dadyan na kascid [? kancid] api dharmartham pratipadyeta. This passage, especially in the gloss it contains, serves to establish that pratikancuka cannot mean what Thieme thinks it means. What is more important is that, of all the relevant passages known so far, it provides the clearest indication as to what pratikancuka must mean. Kumarila's point is as follows: If one were to replace the scriptural sentences employed in religious activities with newly composed sentences of similar import, one would not acquire dharma by performing those activities; it is the scriptural sentences that are a valid means of dharma, not their recasts. Thus, the Tantra-varttika passage leaves no doubt that pratikancuka stands, in the context of literature, for incorporating contents, expressing the same matter in another composition'. It can be easily seen that this meaning fits the other two contexts in which the word occurs. What Aryabhata is really con

Page #14
22 ABORI: Diamond Jubilee Volume cerned about is the possibility of plagiarism. He does not wish that anyone (probably, from among his contemporaries) should expropriate his thought - his findings. Therefore, he seeks to deter prospective plagiarists by writing the stern words: "He who prepares a pratikancuka (work having the same contents) in the case of this (Aryabhatiya) causes perdition of [his] good deeds and life ".30 As for the Vakya-kanda passage with which we are immediately concerned here, the suitability of the sense of pratikancuka gathered from the Tantra-varttika is even easier to see. The Mahabhasya, as a recast or adaptation of the Samgraha, made use of the contents of the Samgraha (see footnote 28 above). Hence it has been described as samgraha-pratikancuka. Thus, Kielhorn showed a remarkable sensitivity to the drift of 481-490 when he suggested that 484d be translated as "preserving the (contents of the) Samgraha " 31 5.5 How did pratikancuka acquire this figurative sense of old wine in a new bottle'? I think pratikancuka is a compound of the type of pratikrti replica', praticchaya reflection, mirror-image', pratinidhi 'substitute, representative', pratibimba reflection, mirror-image', and pratirupa 'counterpart'. The prati in it carries the sense another similar, the one on that side which agrees with what we have on this side'. In other words, there is an implication in it of bodily difference (physical distinctness) as well as of inner or substantial correspondence. Its remaining constituent, kancuka, is most probably intended in the commonly noticed meaning cloak, robe'. Thus, the etymological meaning of pratikancuka seems to me to have been another dress, another garb, disguise', the implication being that the substance is the same in spite of the change in appearance. I think that the figurative sense given above emerges naturally when this etymological sense is restricted to the context of literature-to the context of composing works or passages. 30. This interpretation requires a repetition of kurute. However, the repetition is not as strained as in the case of Thieme's interpretation, for kurute is placed in the verse between pranasam and pratikancukam with which it is connected. There is also the possibility that the original wording of the Aryabhatiya line was sukrtayusoh pranasam kurute kurute pratikancukam yo 'sya, and that one kurute has been lost through haplography. The arya metre is not disturbed in either reading. 31. Since it involved a major change in the reading furnished by all accessible manuscripts, I did not give the benefit of the following possibility to the author of the Tika in writing 5. 2. It is possible that his remark introducing 484 (see footnote 27 above) is a result of corruption through haplography-that it was intended to be read as: tatha ca samgraha[-samksepa-bhutamh] pratipaksa-bhatair acaryais tarka-vidyamatra-vedibhih See the Tika passage quoted in footnote 28 above. If my guess is correct, the meaning pratipaksa or pratipaksa-bhuta assigned to the word pratikancuka by the compilers of dictionaries on the authority of the Tika must be said to be the result of an unfortunate error.

Page #15
AKLUJKAR : The Concluding Verses of Bhartrhari's Vakya-Kanda 23 5.6 That the word kancuka had transcended the meaning cloak, dress' and was capable of extended use can be seen from a number of texts. In the fifth act of the Abhijnana-sakuntala, we come across the expression dharma-kancuka. One of the lines (1. 843cd ) in Abhinava-gupta's Malini(-vijaya- ) varttika runs thus : ittham ke 'py abhimanyante samkhya-kancukasamsrayat. According to Vidyabhusana ( 1921 : 519 footnote 4), panditakancuka is found in the Brhat-svayambhu-purana (Hara Prasad Sastri's edition, vi. 321). Several texts of the Kashmir Saiva tradition (Siva-sutra 3. 42; Ksema-raja's Siva-sutra-vimarsini on 3.3, 3.42; Abhinava-gupta's Malinis -vijaya- )varttika 1.652, 1. 836, 2.215, for example ) regularly employ kancuka in the sense of the covering of the true self or soul that the senses etc. form. 6.1 As we saw above in 2.1-7, the problem that verse 487 gives rise to has not been squarely faced in the literature on the Vakyapadiya. The treatment accorded to 486 has been even more superficial in one sense. Although attempts have been made to identify the parvata mentioned in it and although the precise nature of what Candracarya and others did has been frequently discussed (see George Cardona's paper in this volume ), no modern scholar seems to have realised that the verse contains a textuaj problem. The construction agamam labdhva sah bahu-sakhatvam nitah is as strange as manim labdhva sah bahudha bhinnah. Normally one would say in such cases either agamah labdhva bahu-sakhatvam nitah (compare visa-vrksah sarvardhya chinnah )32 or agama labdhva tar bahu-sakhatva nitavantah. That is, either the accusative agamam or the nominative sah must be given up if 486 is to contain a construction worthy of a grammarian author. Now, it is obvious that changing sah and thereby opting for a reading like tam bahusakhatvam nitavantah would amount to a complete rewriting of the verse; any attempt to introduce a standard construction in the present text of the verse must be made without disturbing the passive phrasing candracaryadibhih..nitah. Thus the only course open to a text critic is the one of altering agamam to agamah (that is, to agamo in the given phonetic situation ). But such an emendation, although metrically possible, is incapable of removing a further problem. The agama of 486 can be either the vyakaranagama mentioned in 485 or the mula-bhuta vyakaranagama ascribed to Ravana as the Tika says. If it is the former, there is no need to use the word agama; it can be easily and simply referred to by a demonstrative 32. I am aware that the sentence the Sanskrit grammarians actually discuss is visa-vikso 'pi samvardhya svayath chettum asampratam (Kalidasa, Kumara-sambhava 2. 55). I have simplified that sentence in order to bring into sharp focus the considerations involved in discussing 486.

Page #16
ABORI : Diamond Jubilee Volume pronoun. Re-employment of the word agama hardly fits the elegantly tight style of 481-490. Besides, if a Sanskrit author repeats a substantive at all in such a context, he introduces the corresponding form of the demonstrative pronoun before it; that is, if the author had intended to use the word agama again by overlooking the possibility that it could be easily understood from 485, he would have fitted in 486a the phrase sah agamah (or the phrase tam agamam, to assume, for a moment, that the accusative is permissible). It is perhaps an awareness of these considerations that prompted the author of the Tika to distinguish, rather obliquely, the agama referred to by agamam from the agama referred to by sah, i. e. to speak of a mula-bhuta vyakaranagama distinct from the vyakaranagama that the successors of Patanjali lost. He seems to have reasoned that if such a distinction is made the construction will not be ungrammatical (vajran labdhya manih bahudha bhinnah and visa-vrk sam samvardhya amra-vrk sah chinnah are acceptable constructions), and the recurrence of the word agama can also be explained. However, there is no justification in the given context to make the verse say parvatat ravana-viracitam mula-bhuta-vyakaranagamam labdhva candracaryadibhih sah patanjali-sisyebhyah bhrastah. . vyakaranagamah bahu-sakhatvam nitah. Any author who can write as perspicuously as the rest of the verses bear out is not likely to use the general word agama for a contextually absent and unexpectedly specific thing, especially when that word can be easily (mis )understood as referring to vyakaranagama. If the author of 481-490 had the mysterious ravana-viracita mula-bhuta vyakaranagama in mind, he would have either written an additional verse or used a distinct expression indicating the distinction of two agamas. Thus, agamain does not appear to be the original reading in 486a. It is also possible that not only agamam but the entire phrase parvatad agama.n is a result of textual corruption. Of what it could be a corruption I am unable to determine at present. BIBLIOGRAPHY Abhinava-gupta. Sri-Malini-vijaya-varttika. (Ed.) Madhusudan Kaul Shastri. Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies, no. XXXI. Srinagar. 1921. Aklujkar, Ashok. 1969. "Two textual studies of Bhartshari". Journal of the American Oriental Society, 89: 547-563. ...................... 1971. "The number of karikas in Trikandi, book I". Journal of the American Oriental Society, 91 : 510-513. .................... 1972. "The authorship of the Vakyapadiya-vrtti". Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde Sudasiens, 16: 181-198.

Page #17
AKLUJKAR: The Concluding Verses of Bhartrhari's Vakya-Kanda 25 "The authorship of the Vakya-kanda-tika ". Charu 1974. Deva Shastri Felicitation Volume, pp. 165-188. New Delhi. ......... 1978. "The number of karikas in Trikandi, book II " To be published in the Adyar Library Bulletin. Aryabhata. The Aryabhatiya with the commentary Bhata-dipika of Parama disvara. (Ed.) Kern, H. Leiden: E. J. Brill. 1874. Bhartrhari. Trikandi: (a) kanda 1. (Ed.) Subramania Iyer, K. A. Vakyapadiya of Bhartrhari with the Vrtti, and the Paddhati of Vrsabha-deva. Deccan College Monograph Series, no. 32. Poona: Deccan College. 1966. (b) kanda 2. (Ed.) Manavalli, Gangadhara Sastri. Vakyapadiyam... Sri-Bhartrhari -viracitam Sri-Punyaraja-krta-prakasakhya-tika-yutam. Benares Sanskrit Series, nos. 11, 19, 24. Benares Braj B. Das & Co. 1887. (c) kanda 3: (Ed.) Subramania Iyer, K. A. Vakyapadiya... with the commentary of Helaraja. Deccan College Monograph Series, no. 21. Poona : Deccan College. 1963. Vakyapadiya... with the Prakirnaka-prakasa of Helaraja. Poona Deccan College. 1973. See footnote 1 above. Goldstucker, Theodor. 1861. Panini: his place in Sanskrit literature. London. Reprint : Chowkhamba Sanskrit Studies, vol. XLVIII. Varanasi Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office. Also, Osnabruck: Otto Zeller. ... Joshi, S. D. 1976. "Sanskrit grammar ". Ramakrishna Gopal Bhandarkar as an Indologist, a symposium. (Ed.) Dandekar, R. N. Poona : Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. Kielhorn, F. 1874. "The concluding verses of the second or Vakya-kanda of Bhartrhari's Vakyapadiya". Indian Antiquary, 3 : 285-287. 1875. "Note on Rajatarangini I 176". Indian Antiquary, 4 107-108. 1876. "On the Mahabhasya". Indian Antiquary, 5: 241-251. 1885. "Der Grammatiker Panini'. Gottinger Nachrichten, pp. 185-199. The preceding four are reprinted in Franz Kielhorn Kleine Schriften. (Ed.) Rau, Wilhelm. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag. Ksema-raja. Vimarsini on Vasu-gupta's Siva-sutras. (Ed.) Chatterji, J. C. Kashmir Series of Sanskrit Texts and Studies, no. 1. Srinagar. 1911. Malla-vadin. Dvadasara-naya-cakra. (Ed.) Jambu-vijaya, Muni. Bhavnagar; Jain Atmananda Sabha. 2 volumes. 1966, 1977. Patanjali. Vyakarana-mahabhasya (Ed.) Kielhorn, F. Bombay. 1878-1885. Poona Bhandarkar Oriental Research 3 volumes. Third edition. Institute. 1962-1972 Peterson, P. 1885. 4 Annals (D. J.) "Note on the date of Patanjali". Journal of the Bombay

Page #18
26 . ABORI : Diamond Jubilee Volume . Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, no. XLIII, vol. XVI : 181-189. Raghavan Pillai, K. 1971. (Ed., tr.) The Vakyapadiya [ Books 1-2]. Delhi : Motilal Banarsidass. Rau, Wilhelm. 1977. (Ed.) Bhartshari's Vakyapadiya (mula-karikas ). * Monograph Series of the Deutsche Morgenlandische Gesellschaft, no. XLII, 4. Wiesbaden : Franz Steiner Verlag. Scharfe, Hartmut. 1976. "A second index fossil of Sanskrit grammar; ians ". Journal of the American Oriental Society, 96: 274-278. Sharma, Raghunatha. 1968. (Ed.,.comm.) Vakyapadiyam Part II (Vakya..kandam). Sarasvati Bhavana Grantha-mala, no. 91. Varanasi : * Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya. Subramania Iyer, K. A. 1969. Bhartyhari : a study of the Vakyapadiya in . the light of the ancient commentaries. Deccan College Building Centenary and Silver Jubulee Series, no. 68. Poona : Deccan College. . Thieme, Paul. 1956. " Panini and the Paniniyas". Journal of the American Oriental Society, 76: 1-23. Reprinted in Paul Thieme Kleine Schriften, vol. 2, pp. 573-595. Wiesbaden : Franz Steiner Verlag. 1971. Tika. Usually ascribed to Punya-raja. Available in Manavalli's (see under Bhartshari above) and Raghunatha Sharma's editions: See Aklujkar 1974 for the view that Hela-raja is probably the real author. Trikandi. See Bhartphari. Tripadi. (Eds.) Abhyankar, K. V. and Limaye, V. P. Mahabh@sya-dipika of Bhartrhari. Post-graduate and Research Department Series, no. 8. Poona : Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. 1967-1970.. Upadhyaya, Baladeva. 1968. See introduction of Raghunatha Sharma 1968. Vidyabhusana, Satis Chandra. 1921. A history of Indian Logic. Calcutta. Reprint 1971. Delhi : Motilal Banarsidass. Vtsabha. See Bhartphari (a). Yrtti. See BhartThari (a). Weber, Albrecht. 1862. " Zur Frage uber Zeitalter Panini's" Indische Studien, 5:1-176. Berlin : Ferd. Dummler's Verlagsbuchhandlung. Harrwitz und Gossmann. Yudhisthira Mimamsaka. samvat 2020. Samskrta vyakarana-sastra ka itihasa. Revised edition of volume one. Ajmer : Bharatiya-pracyavidyapratisthana.