Page Text
________________
tion between VP 2.486 and Candra Vrtti 1.3.106-7 that Scharfe seeks to establish. Thus, his view is similar to Varma's (2.1) and is partly based on what Scharfe thought to be justified. As my discussion shows, both Varma and Scharfe have put forward views that violate contextual considerations and go against the available evidence about Candra's achievement. Bronkhorst's composite view, therefore, stands doubly refuted and need not be discussed separately.
7. (a) Note that the option of considering Citra-kūța as relatively southern is not open to Scharfe because in his view the verses deal with the withering of the MB tradition in the South and hence the location of agama retrieval must be in the North; cf. Bronkhorst 1983:395.
(b) In his letter of 6 November 1987, Scharfe makes the following remarks, which serve to clarify his 1976 interpretation of verse 485: "... the VP stanza says that the southern tradition existed only in manuscripts; that implies that it existed in the north also orally, and that would be the place to get this tradition. If B had wanted to say that these manuscripts were all that existed of the Mbh [= Mahā-bhāṣya] tradition, it would be odd to refer to South India at all. He would rather have said: "The tradition existed only in manuscripts." My preceding remarks should suffice to establish that this interpretation is contextually improbable. It is also flawed by lack of logical implication. There is no incompatibility between (i) saying that the MB tradition existed only in the form of manuscripts, and (ii) saying that the MB tradition existed only in the South. Third,
27
| SR No. | 269664 |
| Book Title | Paninian Studies |
| Original Sutra Author | N/A |
| Author | Ashok Aklujkar |
| Publisher | Ashok Aklujkar |
| Publication Year | |
| Total Pages | 47 |
| Language | English |
| Classification | Article |
| File Size | 4 MB |