Emendation Of Some Verses In Bhrtharis Trikandi

Author(s): Ashok Aklujkar
Publisher: Ashok Aklujkar
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/269725/1

Page #1
EMENDATION OF SOME VERSES IN BHARTRHARI'S TRIKANDI* By Ashok Aklujkar, Vancouver 1.1 Anyone who has tried to edit an ancient or medieval text systematically is usually aware that collection of manuscripts, preparing a genealogy or stemma codicum, collation of relevant manuscripts, and evaluation of available readings amount only to apara vidya or primary textual criticism. A good editor must go beyond even these demanding and time-consuming procedures. After he has proceeded as far as the manuscripts will take him, he must at least try to recover what is not in the manuscripts. Such secondary textual criticism becomes necessary in the case of ancient and medieval works mainly because we can rarely go back all the way to the autograph or the author's own copy. Almost always even the oldest or most reliable of available manuscripts is considerably removed from the original copy. It has usually a long line of predecessors and is seldom better than, say, an inattentively prepared press copy of a modern author. 1.2 As is evident from many of my earlier publications, I have been engaged in a textual study of the works of Bhartrhari and his ancient commentators for the last few years. In the present paper, I shall confine myself to only one work from that complex of works and to only one aspect of secondary textual criticism; I shall concentrate on the karika or main verse text of the Trikandi (or Vakyapadiya) from the point * This paper is a revised version of a part of the paper I read in the South Asia section of the 30th International Congress of Human Sciences in Asia and North Africa, which met in Mexico City in August 1976. I wish to express my thanks to all the individuals because of whose cooperation it became possible for me to study the Trikandi (or Vakyapadiya) karika text in its three traditions: (a) Karika manuscripts, (b) Vrtti mss., and (c) Tika mss. Professor RAU's generosity in allowing me free access to the typescript of his edition of the karikas (1977) helped me considerably in finalising my conclusions at an early date. I am grateful to him also for providing several other study facilities. The findings contained in the paper were made in 1973-74 when I was a research fellow of the American Council of Learned Societies. They were given the present form while I was engaged in Trikandi research as a grantee of the Shastri Indo-Canadian Institute.

Page #2
64 ASHOK AKLUJKAR of view of emendation. A further restriction I shall observe is that I shall not discuss any acceptable emendation that is somehow present in the printed texts and manuscripts pertaining to the Trikandi. In the beginning of my study, I thought of many more emendations than I present below. Gradually I discovered that some of the readings I preferred were available in isolated manuscripts (e. g. aksyadinam in the place of aksadinam in 2.409), or were implicit in the commentaries of the Trikandi (e. g. nirbhagam in the place of nirbhage in 3.11.14), or could be attested in works quoting the Trikandi (e. g. akhyatam sabda-samghato in the place of akhyata-sabdah samghato in 2.1 as can be gathered from Parthasarathi-misra, Nyaya-ratnakara p. 860), or had been suggested by earlier editors (e. g. manvate in the place of manyate in 2.121 as is the suggestion in Raghunatha Sharma's Ambakartri). Here I shall refrain from discussing all such cases. Emendations based entirely on different splitting and different punctuation of the text matter will also be left out of consideration. They amount to correction of previous editions, not necessarily of the more basic manuscripts. Anyone wishing to know them should go through Professor WILHELM RAU's (1977) edition of the karika text, in which the editor has kindly recorded my preferences in sentence segmentation implicitly in some instances (e. g. 2.144c, 2.241 c, 3.1.28b, 3.14.271 ab, and 3.14.307 b) and explicitly with the abbreviation "AA" in some other (e. g. under 1.28d, 2.20 a). 2.1 It is well-known in Mimansa that a person's eligibility to perform a certain rite depends on three factors: (a) He must have desire to perform the particular rite. (b) He must be capable of performing what he desires. (c) He must not have been declared ineligible by the scriptures for the specific sphere of action. Verse 2.79, occurring in a group of verses devoted to listing some mimamsa-nyayas, seeks to state this relatively simple observation in Mimamsa: 2 arthitvam 3 atra4 samarthyam asminn 1 The numbering of Trikandi verses varies considerably in the available editions. I follow RAU's (1977) enumeration. 2 Nonsensical variant readings have been ignored in the following lines. Readings that are grammatical in themselves (and to that extent sensible) are specified in the footnotes irrespective of their syntactic and metrical acceptability. Their sources and their relative worth according to the objective criteria of textual criticism will be known from my proposed edition of the Trikandi. Any inclusion in the present paper of that mass of information would have made some of my arguments even more difficult to follow. 3 v. 1. arthitvad. 4 v. l. asya.

Page #3
Emendation of some verses in Bharthari's Trikandi 65 artho5 na bhidyatesastrali) praptadhikaro 'yam vyudaso 'sya kriyantare. Il In the form known at present, this verse succeeds in making the intended statement as far as the quarters (padas) 'a', 'c', and 'd' are concerned. It is only quarter 'b', syntactically related to samarthyam of the preceding quarter, that does not make any contextually acceptable sense. This is true irrespective of the reading one adopts: samarthyam asmin artho/arthesarthi nibadhyatenibhidyatena bhidyate/na vidyate. Therefore, I would like to suggest that 'b' should be read as: asminn arthini vidyate. There is only a slight departure from manuscripts in reading thus. We are required to assume that artho/arthe arthi ni/na is a corruption of arthini, which is in fact attested in one of the versions of the karika manuscripts (see RAU 1977:64). The other assumption implicit in the emendation, namely that bhidyate resulted from vidyate, is justified by the textual evidence available for 2.136 (see 2.4 below), 3.6.13 (vidhiyate for bhidhiyate), 3.14.417 (degbhavana for Ovasanadeg), and 3.14.536 ("hidhane for vidhane). As for the meaning expressed by the suggested reading, it is easy to see that a remark like samarthyam asminn arthini vidyate ('This person seeking (to perform the specific rite) has [the necessary] capability') is both contextually proper and agreeable to the positive tone of quarters 'a' and 'o'. 2.2 Ever since reading Trikandi 2.91 (aprasiddham tu yad bhagam adrstam anupasyati stavat tv asamvidam mudhah sarvatra prati padyate II) for the first time, I have been puzzled by its wording. At first I thought that what I suspected to be an error existed only in the printed editions .- that the manuscripts would dissolve my problem. However, when I consulted the manuscripts, my hope gradually evaporated. Choice existed only between yam and yat and between tavati and tavat tu. But these were not the words that gave rise to the problem. Nor did they help in solving the problem by precisely determining what the other words of the verse should be. From all indications the problem was to be located in the words asamvidam 'non-cognition, non-awareness', sarvatra 'everywhere, in the whole' and prati padyate "comes to, com 5 v. l. arthe, arthi. 6 v. 1. na vidyate, nibhidyate, nibadhyate. 7 As far as I know, Nandi-nagari is the only script in which v and bh are so close as to cause confusion. Such a confusion is likely, although not equally likely, also in old Telugu and modern Udiya. There is no evidence that the former was used to transmit the Trikandi text. The use of the latter is ruled out by the very age of the manuscripts concerned. 8 v. l. yam. 9 v. 1. tavaty.

Page #4
66 ASHOK AKLUJKAR prehends, thinks'. The context is this: Bhartphari is an advocate of the indivisible sentence-meaning theory. On the strength of several insightful observations, he argues that, although one can, and one does, divide a sentence into certain constituents while engaged in linguistic analysis, on the level of cognition and actual communication a sentence or a sentence-meaning is a whole - something that transcends division. To bolster this thesis, Bhartshari states and refutes almost all the objections one can think of. One apparently powerful objection runs thus: Sometimes a person hears a sentence like vanat pika aniyatam 'Bring a cuckoo from the forest'. It so happens that he does not know the meaning of the word pika. Hence he says, 'I understand vanat and aniyatam, but what does pika mean?' Now, is such a question possible if the sentence were an undivided whole ? Obviously, the person involved understands the meanings of vanat, aniyatam, and pika separately. In other words, there are divisions in sentence-meaning and hence in the sentence. Bhartshari counters this objection by maintaining that actually the person concerned did not understand the whole sentence, although his question gives us the impression that he did not understand only a part thereof. Someone who does not know what a wild bull is and who sees a wild bull for the first time actually does not cognise the entire creature, although it may seem to him at a later moment - on reflection - that a certain part was familiar and a certain other part was previously unseen10. Now, it is such a statement that verse 2.91 should contextually contain. However, one cannot derive any such statement from it unless one switches its words around in a very unnatural way or supplied certain crucial expressions that a careful author like Bhartphari is not likely to have left out. If one accepts the reading tavat tu, the natural meaning of the second half is: 'Until then the dullwitted one accepts non-cognition with respect to the whole.' On the other hand, if one accepts the reading tavati, the natural meaning of the second half is: "The dull-witted one accepts non-cognition of that much (of a part) as non-cognition of the whole.' Both the meanings are contrary to the context, as what the dull-witted one does in Bhartshari's view is exactly the opposite; although he has not comprehended the entire object, he thinks he has comprehended a part thereof; he accepts non-cognition in part, whereas, in Bhartphari's view, he should accept 10 What happens at the first moment of the encounter is relevant in understanding the grammarian's position, not what happens in the later stage of introspection, since the grammarian does not deny that sentence and sentence-meaning are divisible on the level of analysis.

Page #5
Emendation of some verses in Bhartshari's Trikandi 67 it in totality. The commentatorll senses this difficulty and implicitly construes the line as mudhah tu tavat sarvatra asamvidam prati padyate to derive the meaning: 'But (tu), on the other hand (tavat = punah), the dull-witted one (mudhah), in truth, comes to non-cognition (i. e. does not cognise) with respect to the whole'.12 But this construal is extremely forced. It ignores the relative yat or yam of the preceding half. It arbitrarily tears asamvidam from tavat tu or tavati, and places it between sarvatra and pratipadyate. It cannot stand unless the commentator writes a sentence in between telling us what the reality is (paramarthatah). It overlooks the fact that asamvidam prati padyate is a strange construction, since what it should contextually convey can be stated simply by na prati padyate 'does not cognise'13. 2.3 The considerations noted above led me to believe that textual damage had taken place and that the commentator of the second book of the Trikandi had simply offered a desperate interpretation out of his strict adherence to manuscript readings (sthitasya gatis cintaniya). I was confirmed in my belief when I chanced upon Bhoja's (Songaraprakasa vol. II, p. 333) citation of the verse: aprasiddham tu yam bhagam adrstam anupasyati sarvatrasamvidam mudhastavati prati padyate. From the fact that Bhoja transposes the words tavati and sarvatra it is clear that he felt the same contextual and syntactic difficulty as I did. Of course, this does not mean that I must accept Bhoja's solution. Instead of effecting a dainty little emendation, Bhoja almost rewrites the second half of the verse; he acts like a mechanic who prefers replacement of parts to repairing them. A less radical solution is called for and is possible. The problematic verse should be read as: aprasiddham tu 11 The commentary (Tika) to the second book (Vakya-kanda) of the Trikandi is generally ascribed to Punyaraja. In a 1974 article I have argued that it should be ascribed to Helaraja. 12 Tika: tatra ca gavayadau bhagam aprasiddham adrstam aniscitam anupasyati mudhah. paramarthatas tu samvit tasya sarvatra nirvibhage tasmin kutascit karanan notpanna. sarvatrayam asamvidam [ asamvidan ?] tavat punah prati padyata iti. 13 The phrase asamvidam prati padyate is plausible if the intended sense is 'advocates non-cognition, holds non-cognition to be the case. But then one would be speaking of a theoretician, of someone consciously putting forward a view, not of a common man as mudha indicates. In the obviously related preceding verse, prati padyate is used to express what the person perceiving a wild bull thinks, not what deliberate judgement or view he develops.

Page #6
68 ASHOK AKLUJKAR yad bhagam adrstam anupasyati | tavat tv asamvidan 14 mudhah sarvam na prati padyate. || It is then to be understood thus: 'As he regards the notwell-known part as uncomprehended, the dull-witted one, not cognising that much, to the contrary (actually, in fact), does not comprehend the whole'. In this interpretation, the words of the original are not forced out of their natural affiliations, in order not to violate the context. All that one is required to suppose is that asamvidam mudhah is a corruption of asamvidan mudhah (see fn. 14) and that sarvatra is a corruption of sarvam na. Both the corruptions are highly probable in older Sanskrit manuscripts, in which the words of a sentence, as is well-known, are rarely written separately; "dan mu0 written together as 'danmuO can be mistakenly read as "dammuo and later written as dammu (mis). leading the editors to separate it for the modern readers as Odam mu. Similarly, as an anusvara is pronounced like the nasal of the class of the following consonant, sarvam na, pronounced as sarvan na, can be written in the manuscripts as sarvanna. It can then easily be mistaken for sarvatra. 14 When CHARU DEVA SHASTRI's copy of the Vakyapadiya text was collated by the pandits of the Government Oriental Manuscripts Library at Madras with a manuscript in that library (probably A [18] of Rau's (1971) account; see CHARU DEVA SHASTRI 1934: Preface p. 6 for the identification of his source ga 4), he came to know the existence of a reading tavaty asam.. vidan. In his incomplete edition of the Vakyakanda (1941 [?]: 63 fn. 2). he noted that reading and rejected it as ungrammatical. According to Panini 1.3.29, sam + vid, when used intransitively, should take atmane-pada endings, so that tavaty asamvidanah would alone be acceptable in the present context. However, if we read tavat tv instead of tavaty, the use of the parasmaipada present participle asamvidan will not be ungrammatical, as then sam + vid will have an object associated with it in the form of tavat. As for tavat tv, CHARU DEVA SHASTRI objects to its acceptance as follows: atra tu-sabdena kim vyavartyata iti srutya noktam. kim ca. tavatah punar-arthe 'vyayasya parigrahe yad iti purvardha-gatam kena sambadhyeta. That this objection is not valid can be seen from my translation of the verse. The indeclinable tu has been used in the verse to bring out the contrast between (a) thinking that one has not comprehended only a part and (b) the actuality of not having comprehended the whole, i. e...the contrast between an impression and a fact. Secondly, yad is not used in the verse as a relative pronoun standing for any specific entity, so that it would need a form of tad in the remainder of the verse; it rather stands for an observation (a judgement or a proposition, if you will), and is to be translated by a clause-introducing "that" or "as" (cf. the usage of yad in karikas 1.87 and 2.22, and English constructions of the type: "That he is well-versed in Sanskrit need not be doubted').

Page #7
Emendation of some verses in Bhartphari's Trikandi 69 2.4 The difficulty and the solution are of a considerably simpler nature in the case of 2.136: ekasminn api droye 'rthe darsanam bhidyate prthak kalantarena caiko15 'pi tam pasyaty anyatha punah ll. Here the expression bhidyate prthak contains redundancy; either prthak or bhidyate would be sufficient to convey the intended sense. The author of the Tika was probably aware of this, as he shows no explicit recognition of pethak16. In my opinion, the solution lies in changing bhidyate to vidyate. Such a change, besides being minimal, conforms to what is noticed elsewhere in the Trikandi manuscripts (see 2.1 above). No equally elegant or justifiable emendation seems possible for prthak. 2.5 Verse 2.230 (yam' artham ahatur bhinnau pratyayav eka eva tam 17 | kvacid aha pacantiti dhatus18 tabhyam vina kvacit It appears in the discussion of non-uniqueness of grammatical description. Bhartshari stresses that the same linguistic reality can be analysed and described differently in different grammars; grammars are merely means or upayas, and hence should not be mistaken for the reality itself. In this connection he points out the absence of a one-to-one relationship between the elements recognised by a grammar and the components of meaning conveyed. In pacati, two suffixes, sap (= a) and tip (= ti)19, convey agent, voice, tense, etc. However, the same information may be conveyed by only tip (= ti) in yati etc., and in spite of the absence of both sap (= a) and tip (= ti) in ahan etc. Now, 2.230 expresses this observation quite clearly. It can be easily understood as: "The meaning which is expressed by two different suffixes is in some cases expressed by only one suffix. In some (other) cases, the root is bereft of both the suffixes (and yet conveys all the information that is associated with the two suffixes)'. As will be clear from the omission in my translation, the problematic part of the verse is pacantiti. The form pacanti, containing both sap and tip, is hardly appropriate as an example after the statement, 'The meaning which is expressed by two different suffixes is in some cases expressed by only one suffix.' If pacantiti is to be accommodated, it must be understood in the sense of pacanti ity atra and placed 15 v. I. vaiko 'pi. 16 Tika: vastuta ekasminn eka-rupe dreye 'rthe sastra-vasana-bhedad darsanam jnanam asmin bhidyate. eko 'pi ca purusah sugata-darsana-samskrtamatir anyathadhyavasyaty artham, kalantarena vaisesika-sastra-sravanad anyatheti. 17 v. 1. tam. 18 v. l. yas tu. 19 The reference here is, of course, to the grammatical system of Panini.

Page #8
70 ASHOK AKLUJKAR at the beginning of the sentence: pacanti ity atra yam artham bhinnau pratyayau ahatuh tam ekah eva (pratyayah) kvacid aha. The Tika takes this course20. However, a close look at the Vstti helps one realize that the strained construing suggested by the sika need not be followed. As the Vrtti21 says, tatha bhinna-pratyaya-samnidhano 'rthah kenacid eva pratyayenabhidhiyate. tad yatha odanam paca, atti, atsah iti, one can see that the reading it presupposes in the Karika is pacattiti, although the Karika portion even in the Vrtti transcript does not contain that reading. With pacattiti we need not indulge in any transposing. Furthermore, we get a doubly appropriate example; paca illustrates absence of tipstin, and atti illustrates absence of sap. That pacattiti is likely to change into pacantiti should be acceptable to anyone knowing the Indian scripts. 2.6 Verse 2.409 (tesam atyanta-nanatvam nanatva-vyavaharinah aksyadinam 22 iva prahur eka-jati-samanvayat 23 II) is about expressions that are put to different uses without any change in form. When a Vedareciter recites the words of a Veda in daily repetition or review, he does not utter them to convey either their form or content. But when he teaches them to a disciple, they stand for their own forms. Further, when the same words are employed in a ritual they refer to objects that is, they convey meanings other than their own forms. Now the question is: Are these words, which are identical in form, three different entities because of the difference in intention - because of what they do or do not signify - or are they one and the same entity simply assuming three different roles ? Verse 2.409 is written to state the first view. Its first three quarters can be translated thus: "Those who talk of difference say that they (the Veda expressions in the three situations) are utterly different [from each other) just as expressions like aksi [the 20 Tika: tatra pacantityadau bhinnau pratyayau sap-tinar yam artham kartr-laksanam ahatus tam evaiko 'py aha atti juhotityadau. kvacid dhatur eva tam artham tabhyam vinaivaha ahan vstram indra ityadav iti. 21 Bhartphari's Vrtti of the Vakya-kanda or the second book of the Vakyapadiya is not available in its entirety either in the Trikandi editions printed so far or in the manuscripts discovered so far. I propose to publish whatever of it is available in my forthcoming edition of the Trikandi. Until that edition is published, my reference to the Vrtti will naturally be based on the manuscript material in my possession. 22 v. l. asvadinam, aksadinam. 23 v. 1.deg samanvayam.

Page #9
Emendation of some verses in Bhartrhari's Trikandi 71 neuter noun and aksi the finite verb 24] are.' However, the fourth quarter, eka-jati-samanvayat, meaning 'because of the presence of an identical universe', hardly agrees with this statement. In fact, it is contradictory, as it invests the verse with the meaning: 'Vedic words in the three utterances are different from each other because they belong to the same class.' Obviously, the original text must have read something different. I think it can be restored by inserting a visarga after eka-jati. The last quarter then contains two words instead of one and becomes a separate sentence having the meaning: (There is) one universal [of such entities that are actually different] because of continued presence (i. e. because some elements such as form persist because some features are common).' Thus, whereas the first three quarters state the view of the advocates of non-identity, the fourth explains how the advocates of non-identity account for the common acceptance of homophonous expressions as one and the same entity25. 2.7 In 3.14.297 (ekarthe vartamanabhyam asata brahmanena ca | yada 26 jatyantaram bahyam ksatriyady apadieyate ||), the reading yada is as old as Helaraja's time27. It forces the reader to understand at least as much 24 (a) The derivation of aksi as a verbal form is possible in more than one way according to Vrsabha (p. 136.9-10): aksater aser va apratyayena sapi luki ca sati sipi rupam. ader va luni ghasl-bhave karmany uttamaikavacane mantratvac cer luki. (b) The following are the examples given by Bhartrhari of the expressions that can be derived either as a nominal form (naman) or as a verb (akhyata): aksi, asvah, vayuh, tena, khyatam, arunah, syamah, asyah, acitam [?], samah [?], duhita and bhavah gavah (see fn. 25a below). See Tripadi p. 38.13, p. 138.18-19; Vrtti 1.72; Vrtti 2.268, Vrtti 2.315-316, Vrtti 2.409; cf. Tika 2.318 (pp. 218-219), which adds ajapayah, yasya, and tasya to the above list; also Parthasarathi-misra, Nyaya-ratnakara, p. 897, which elucidates asvah as a verb. 25 (a) Vrtti: yathaiva gavo ['ksy a]sv[as t]ena vayur [see fn. 24b above] iti tulya-rupatvan namakhyatayor atyanta-nanatve 'py avisiste buddhi-samanvayad ekatva-vyavaharamatram evam artha-prakaranadibhir atyanta-bhede sva-bhava-siddha eva bhedo gamyate. ha (b) Tika: tesam sabdanam bheda-vadino nanatvam ahuh. kevalam ekajati-samanvayas tesam sadrsya-rupo 'sti. udaharanam aha aksadinam [-aksyadinam?] iveti. yathaksadayah [-yathaksyadayah ?] sabda bhinna eva sthitah. sadrsyat tv abhedenaiva pratiyanta iti. 26 v. 1. yatha. 27 Prakirna-prakasa: idanim anya padartha-pradhana-paksa-vicarayatadavakalpate 'nya-padartha-pradhano nan-samasa iti prakaranad avaseyam... yada tv asat-samanya-vrttir apy ayam nan sad-visesa-nibandhanaya brahmana-srutya samanya-viscsa-bhavenaikadhikaranyena sambandham anubhaya tat-sambandha-prapitarthatikayam bahyam padantaropadanam kna

Page #10
72 ASHOK AKLUJKAR as tada nan-samasah (cf. Helaraja p. 287.11, 18) if the verse is to be syntactically complete. Although it is possible that Bhartrhari could have intended to indicate such a completion in his planned but unwritten Vstti28, the probability of this being the case is negligible. Firstly, in the extant Vrtti (i. e. in the first two books), we find instances of a proper beginning being supplied to a verse (AKLUJKAR 1972: 190-193), but not a single instance in which a necessary concluding portion is supplied. In other words, the syntactic supplementation made by the Vstti always pertains to the subject part, never to the predicate part, of the sentence contained in a Karika. Secondly, 3.14.297, as Helaraja correctly states, introduces the anya-padartha-pradhanya-paksa concerning the nan-samasa. In that respect, it is similar to 3.14.260 and 3.14.306, which respectively introduce the uttara-padartha-pradhanya-paksa and the purva-padartha-pradhanya-paksa. These latter verses state how a nansamasa conveys its meaning or how the meaning understood from a nan-samasa can be characterized. They do not have the form: 'If the semantic situation happens to be such, then a purva-padartha-pradhana nan-samasa (or an uttara-padartha-pradhana nan-samasa) comes into existence'. It would be strange to have that form of expression only for 3.14.297. Thus, the addition of tada nan-samasah or tada anya-padarthapradhanah nan-samasah cannot be justified. Consequently, the reading yada which occasions that addition is suspect. I think yada has come about through a corruption of yad va (mistaking dva for da is not improbable). If one reads yad va ('or', 'to come to another alternative') not only will the syntactic incompleteness be removed, but the verse will also contain the necessary indication to the effect that the discussion of the uttara-padartha-pradhanya-paksa is over with 3.14.296 and that 297 takes up the second paksa for consideration. 2.8 The last passage I wish to discuss here is 3.14.605: ekasyapi 29 pratiyeta 30 bhinna pratikytih31 saha kasya pasyeti 32 tenayam pratyekam avatisthate 11. The context is that of the expressions garuda iveme hastinah triyady anupatati, na tavaty eva vieramyati tadanya-padartha-pradhano nansamasah. tatha hy avidyamano brahmano brahmana-vyaktir asraya-bhuta yasya ksatriyasya ksatriya-jater ity asya anya-padartha-bhutaya varti-padartha. bhyam abhava-brahmanabhyam avaccheda iti jatyantaram bahyam bhavati. 28 I shall discuss the extent of the Vakyapadiya-vitti in a separate paper. 29 v. 1. ekasyatra. 30 v. l. pramiyeta. 31 v. 1. prakertibhih, pravikrtih. 32 v. l. kasyao.

Page #11
Emendation of some verses in Bhartrhari's Trikandi and kasyapa ivemah pratikrtayah. The first is likely to be employed in speaking of the arrangement of an army for a battle. If the elephantriders in the army are arranged in an eaglelike formation, an observer may say, "These elephants are like an eagle'. But suppose the observer is viewing images or statues of the members of the Kasyapa family. Will it be proper if he says kasyapa ivamah pratikrtayah instead of kasyapah ivemah pratikrtayah? If the singular garudah is acceptable in the other expression, why not use a singular here as well? Bharthari points out that in the first expression a group of elephants is compared with an eagle on account of the specific shape of the group. However, images are not compared through some specific feature with the group of Kasyapas in the second expression. Therefore, the only proper usage will be the one with the plural kadyapah. Helaraja explains this point accurately, but, to derive it from the verse, he takes saha in the unattested sense tulya 'equal' and construes the verse as ekasya api kasyapasya bhinna pratikrtih saha (= tulya) pratiyeta33. This is clearly strained. I would like to suggest that saha and kayapasyeti should be replaced by sadrk and kasyapas ceti. The k of sadrk could have been dropped in dictation or uninterrupted writing, as another follows. Then the remaining sady, being an ungrammatical expression, could have been easily mistaken for saha. The emendation suggested for kalyapasyeti is also transcriptionally probable. Thus, spurred by the awkwardness of Helaraja's explanation, we can guess that the first sentence in the verse is to be read as kasyapab iti ca35 ekasya api bhinna pratikrtih sadrk pratiyeta, and to be understood as: 'And, in the case of [the singular 73 33 Prakirna-prakaan: yadi kalyapa ivemah pratikrtayah kaeyapa ity eka-vacanantam upamanam prayujyate tada garudasyeva hastino vyuhena tulyah [...] kasyapasya nana-bhuta pratikrtih kenacit samnivesadina dharmena saha tulya vijnayeta. na tu pratyekam upamanam gamyeta. sahasabdas tulyarthah. tad-yoge kasyapasyeti sasthi. tasmat pratyekam upamanabhava-pratipattyartham atra kasyapa-sabdah pratyupameyam bhedenaivava tisthate. 34 The iti in kasyapasyeti cannot possibly be indicative of quotation. A construal of the form 'kasyapasya' iti ekasya api bhinna pratikrtih saha/ sadrk pratiyeta is out of question, since the form used in the intended usage (cf. Helaraja p. 420.13) is the nominative kasyapah, not the genitive kasyapasya. Therefore, if one reads kasyapasya, one must understand iti in the sense 'therefore' and construe the verse quarters 'abc' as ekasya api kasyapasya bhinna pratikrtih saha/sadrk pratiyeta iti. However, such a construing not only throws together ekasya and kasyapasya that are far removed from each other, but also makes the following tena 'therefore' redundant. 35 Insertion of ca before iti (for the sake of the metre) is not strange, as it is noticed in other verses.

Page #12
74 ASHOK AKLUJKAR expression] kasyapah, the varied images would be comprehended as similar to even one (Kasyapa) [which is a self-contradictory, undesirable proposition]'. BIBLIOGRAPHY AKLUJKAR, ASHOK. 1972. "The authorship of the Vakyapadiya-vitti." Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde Sudasiens, 16:181--198. 1974. "The authorship of the Vakya-kanda-tika. Charu Deva Shastri Felicitation Volume, pp. 165--188. New Delhi. Bhartphari. Trikanai: (a) Kanda 1: (Ed.) SUBRAMANIA IYER, K. A. Vakya padiya of Bhartihari with the Vstti and the Paddhati of Vrsabhadeva. Deccan College Monograph Series, no. 32. Poona: Deccan College. 1966. (b) Kanda 2: (Ed.) MANAVALLI, GANGADHARA SASTRI. Vakyapadiyam... Sri-Bhartphari-viracitam Sri-Punyaraja-ksta-prakasakhya-tika-yutam. Benares Sanskrit Series no. 11, 19, 24. Benares: Braj B. Das & Co. 1880. (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 fn. 1 above. . Bhoja. Sengara-prakasa. (Ed.) JOSYER, G. L. Mysore: International Aca demy of Sanskrit Culture. 4 volumes. 1960--1974. CHARU DEVA SHASTRI. 1934. (Ed.) Vakyapadiyam prathamam kandam. Lahore: Ramlal Kapoor Trust. - 1941 [?] (Ed.) Vakyapadiyam Bhartsharyupajna-vitti-sanatham Punya raja-tika-samyutam dvitiyam kandam. Lahore: Ramalal Kapoor Trust. [Incomplete] Helaraja. See Bhartphari (c). Parthasarathi-misra. Nyaya-ratnakara commentary on Kumarila-bhatta's Tantravarttika. (Ed.) TAILANGA, RAMA-SASTRI MANAVALLI. Chau khamba Samsksta Granthamala No. 3. Kasi. 1898. Prakirna-prakasa. See Bhartshari (c). RAU, WILHELM. 1971. Die handschriftliche Uberlieferung des Vakyapadiya und seiner Kommentare. Abhandlungen der Marburger Gesellschaft, no. 1. Munchen: Wilhelm Fink Verlag. - 1977. (Ed.) Bhartpharis Vakyapadiya (mula-karikas). Monograph series of the Deutsche Morgenlandische Gesellschaft, no. XLII, 4. Wies baden: Franz Steiner Verlag. SHARMA, RAGHUNATHA. 1968. (Ed., comm.) Vakyapadiyam Part II (Vakya kandam). Sarasvati Bhavana Grantha-mala, no. 91. Varanasi: Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya. Tika. Usually ascribed to Punyaraja. Available in MANAVALLI's (see under Bhartshari above) and RAGHUNATHA SHARMA's editions. See AKLUJKAR 1974 for the view that Helaraja is probably the real author. Trikandi. See Bhartrhari. Tripadi. (Eds.) ABHYANKAR, K. V. and LIMAYE, V. P. Mahabhasya-dipika of Bhartphari. Post-graduate and Research Department Series, no. 8. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. 1967--1970. Visabha. See Bhartphari (a). Vstti. See Bhartihari (a) and fn. 21 above.