________________
190
ASHOK AKLUJKAR
sloke nirdiśyate. sabdas tu pūrva-prakrtaḥ pravāda-bhedair anvākhyāyate. ...
The last two sentences of this passage mean: "It is not this immediately preceding dhvani, having the property of growth (= becoming gross), which is mentioned in this verse; but the sabda which was formerly taken up for discussion with reference to various views is being explained (or subsequently mentioned)." Now, the immediately preceding verse, 1.108, does not contain the word dhvani. Only the V on that verse mentions dhvani. But the author of the V evidently suspected that some reader may misunderstand tasya in verse 1.109 as a pronoun standing for dhvanih in V 1.10817. Obviously, he looked upon both the V and the kārikā to be his own words intended to be read consécutively. .
3.3 My first piece of the syntactical kind of evidence reveals that, at least once 18 in the first kānda, a kārikā is incomplete without the y and vice versa. Thus, we read in the case of verse 1.92:
sphoteșu 19 bhāgavatsv api teşv eva rūpa-bhedo dhvaneh kramät / nirbhāgesv abhyupāyo vā bhāga-bheda-prakalpanam //
17 tasyeti sarva-nāmnānantarasya dhvaneh pracaya-dharminah pratyavamarśāśanka na karaniya [ity āha] ... kasya tarhi tasya ity anena sambandha ity āha sabdas tu iti. (Vrşabha pp. 178.26-179.6)
18 It is possible that the V supplied padäni to verse 2.55. Unfortunately, however, the guess cannot be confirmed, for the V of that verse is missing in the only available, incomplete, and highly corrupt manuscript of the Väkya-kāņda-vịtti (AKLUJKAR 1969: 555-556).
19 In all the editions of the Brahma-kāņda-vștti, sphoteșu is printed as the last word in the V of verse 1.91: ... tathaiņām arvāg-darśanānām pratipattīņām vākya-8va-rūpa-grahana-pūrvakena väkyārtha-grahanena pradhānena prayuktānām niyatopāye sādhye tasminn arthe niyata-kramapariņāma-bhāgākāra-pratyavabhāsa-mātrā-yuktā buddhayaḥ pravartante sphoteşu // 91 //. This is an error on the part of the editors not only for the reasons mentioned in 3.3 but also for some additional ones. If the cited sentence or clause is read in this manner, its interpreter must understand that there are two loci or objects for the cognitions (buddhi) of which it speaks; one locus is expressed by niyatopāye sādhye tasminn arthe and the other is expressed by sphoţeşu. The interpreter then fails to understand why the first expression should be in the singular and the second in the plural or why there should be a long intervening phrase between the two. In fact, he fails to understand why there should be two loci at all. Furthermore, a sentence ending with pravartante sphoţeşu goes against the stylistic peculiarity of the V that a verb form usually occurs at the end of a sentence. Failure to realize this editorial mistake of C. SHASTRI (1934: 91) has led BIARDEAU (1964a: 133) and S. IYER (1965: 90) to offer confusing translations, and R. SARMĀ (1963: 167) to paraphrase the words of the original in an irritatingly superfluous manner.
