________________
vyākaraṇāgama found? The Tikā explanation, in effect, accomplishes this, although it speaks of a brahma-rakṣas in the place of a parvata ascetic.
7.2 Parvatat is the only "down-to-earth" detail in VP 2.486. It is unfortunate that we are required to keep two lines of interpretation (mountain and person) open and to entertain two possible identifications (Sri-parvata and Tri-kūṭa) in the first line of interpretation. However, I believe such a course will serve the interests of future research better than a rushed, precise identification. Our ignorance of what actually happened may be disturbing but now it will at least have well-defined boundaries.
If a preference must be indicated, I would rank as follows the identifications defended above. In the present state of our knowledge, the strongest identification appears to be 'parvata = an ascetic or brahma-rakṣas belonging to Śrī-parvata'. Next in strength seems to be 'parvata = Sri-parvata', with the attendant assumption that some scholar, or scholarly community, on Śrī-parvata had in his, or its, possession the manuscripts in which the agama of the MB was preserved. Last in terms of acceptability is the equation 'parvata = Tri-kūta (as mountain or region)'.
This rank-ordering is based (a) on a consideration of how many independent lines of evidence point in the same direction, and (b) on whether an identification forces us to assume something which is not in the evidence and thus to sacrifice economy of explanation.
The elements of what I consider to be the strongest identification can be related to the evidence as shown in table 1.
21