________________
142
J. BRONKHORST
vārtika
143
It is clear from this enumeration that 'Varttikal came to designate primarily a commentary in verse-form. Prose Värttikas like the YuktidTpika and the Tattvärthavārttika are few in number. Besides these two works there is Uddyotakara's NyĀyavarttika which however contains only some passages in 'Varttika' style (see WEZLER 1974: 441f.). Other prose Värttikas like Kumarila's Tantravarttika, Vijanabiksu's Yogabhagyavārttika and Krsnahlasuka's Daivavärttika do not seem to preserve a trace of it. Moreover, the 'Vārttika'style is used once in Jayantabhatta's NyKyamafjart (WEZLER 1974: 4421.), a work which does not seem to have been considered a 'Värttika' at any time. The same is true of the Nyāya Bhāsya, in which this style was already noticed by WINDISCH (1888: 15f.). Something closely resembling this style is found in other works as well, e.g., in Sankara's Bhadiranyakopanişad Bhasya 26 This means that the style of the Yuktidipika and of the Tattvarthavārttika stopped being looked upon as typical for prose Värttikas rather soon. We may suspect that this was not unconnected with the changing ideas regarding the Mahabhäşya.
Bibliography
I-ching's description of the Vșttisätra ("It discusses fully the (grammatical) usages current in the world, and investigates the rules of (the language adressed to) the gods"; see above) may reflect the opening lines of the Mahabhasya (keşām sabdanám | laukikandm vaidikandmca), as BROUCH (1973: 257) has pointed out. In this case the conclusion seems justified that these lines were considered part of the 'Varttika'at that time.
The objection that the name 'Jayaditya points toward the Kasikā as being meant by 'Vrttistra' is not strong. The opinion that the Kašika had two authors, Jayāditya and Vamana, is almost certainly wrong and probably due to Jinendrabuddhi's Nysa (BRONKHORST 1983: App. I). This means that we know little about who wrote the Kašikā, and few conclusions can be drawn from the name Jayaditya
It must here be conceded that BROUGH was able to draw what appear to be correct conclusions merely from 1-ching's statements, without the information which we now think we possess on the ideas which existed regarding the MahābhAsya in 1-ching's time. He observed (1973: 257): "It seems likely, however, that I ching was unable to discriminate between the Varttikas and the Mahabhasya: witness his statement that the 'uptti-slutra' consists of 18,000 ilokas, and the second part of the Chinese passage quoted makes sense if I ching is basing it on the opening lines of the Mahābhasya...". This lack of discrimination, we now think, was not confined to I-ching 3.2. The name 'Varttika' did not only come to denote works like the YuktidTpika and the Tattvarthavarttika. In fact, among the early works called 'Värttika *there are far more which are of a different type altogether. Most seem to follow the example of the verses quoted in the MahabhRaya, often called slokavdrtlika by the commentators (see KIELHORN 1886: 229 [215]). Indeed, several works are called
Slokavårttika'. The most famous among them was composed by the Mimāmsaka Kumarila Bhatta. Another Slokavárttika was written by Vidyānanda and comments on the Tattvartha Stra. There is also a Niruktaslokavārttika.
Besides the self-styled Slokavärttikas' there are many 'Varttikas which consist of verse. From among the many instances may be mentioned Dharmakirti's Praminavirttika, Suresvara's Brahmastra, Brhadaranyakopanişad- and Taittiriyopanişad-yirttika, two Sivasutra vårttikas (one by BhIskara, one by Varadaraja), and others.
* The original Varttika of Katy yana wae, in accordance with ita derivation, 'dealing with the procedure of the grammar (of Panini' (THEME 1955: 429 (697) n. 1). The later authors of Varttikas may or may not have had a similar purpose in view.
ABHYANKAR, K.V. (ed.) 1967: Paribhsamgraha. Poona: Bhandarkar
Oriental Research Institute (Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute
Post-graduate and Research Department Series, no. 7). Akalanka: TattvArthavirttika. Edited by MAHENDRA KUMAR JAIN. Banaras:
BhAratiya Jhanapitha Kishi, 1953 (JAAna-Pitha Mortidevi Jaina Granthamili, Samskrit Grantha no. 10). [Only one volume, covering four
Adhyâyas, was accessible to me). BALI, SURYAKANT 1976: Bhattoji Dikrita: His Contribution to Sanskrit
Grammar, New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal. Bharthari: Mahabh&şyadTpika. 1) Edited by K.V. ABHYANKAR and V.P.
LIMAYE. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1970 (PostGraduate and Research Department Series, no. 8). 2) Partly edited by V. SWAMINATHAN under the title MahabhAgya Tka, Varanasi: Banarsa Hindu University, 1965 (Hindu Vishvavidyalaya Nepal Rajya Sanskrit Series, vol. 11). 3) Manuscript reproduced. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1980. 4) Critical edition. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. At this moment six volumes have been published, Ahnika 1 by J. BRONKHORST (1987). Ahnika 2 and 3 by G.B. PALSULE (1988 and 1983). Ahnika 4 by G.V. DEVASTHALI and G.B. PALSULE (1989). • Ahnika 5 by V.P. LIMAYE, G.B. PALSULE and V. B. BHAGAVAT (1984), and
Ahnika 6 part 1 by V. B. BHAGAVAT and SAROJA BHATE (1986).
* This was pointed out to me by Prof. T. E. Vetter.
