________________
The Authorship of the Vākyapadiya-Vịtti
191
Here sphoteşu in the V will clearly remain dangling if it is not understood to be a part of what follows. The kārikā will also be incomplete and out of step with the preceding kārikā (see fn. 19 above) if sphoțeșu is not read into it. Thus, here we have one phrase with a locative absolute construction teşv eva sphoţeşu bhāgavatsv api which spreads over both the V and the verse, the subject of which appears only in the V, and the pronoun in which will have no antecedent if the V is missing.
3.4 The third piece of internal evidence is found in verse 1.65 and its V:
evam ca krtvoccāryamāṇasya tasyābhidheya-bhāvena yah sabdaḥ samavasthitaḥ/ tasyāpy uccārane rūpam anyat tasmād vivicyate II,
Here the syntactical relation between uccāryamāṇasya and tasya if too obvious to need any comment. What is more important is that, is the phrase evam ca krtvoccāryamāṇasya were missing, we would not have either understood the relation of the present kārikā with the preceding kārikā or we would have done so only by overlooking a grave syntactic anomaly nowhere to be noticed in the well-preserved portions of Bhartshari's writings. In the preceding kārikā, which is
gunah prakarsa-hetur yaḥ svātantrenopadiśyate /
tasyāśritād guņād eva praktstatvam pratīyate // 1.64 II, the pronoun tasya stands for gunah. In the absence of the V phrase connecting the two kārikās, tasya in the present kārikā would also have referred back to guṇaḥ and the kārikā would not have conveyed any consistent meaning whatsoever.
3.5 This leads us to the next finding that, in about ten 20 instances, the V is joined to the following kārikā in a manner which is different from the manner in 'which Sanskrit commentators, while commenting on somebody else's work, introduce the words of that work. The instances I have in mind are as follows:
(a)... tatra vyddhyādayah sabdāḥ sva-rūpādhişthānāḥ svenārthenarthavantaḥ sva-rūpena sabdāntara-sva-rūpāny upajighşkşantaḥ svarānunāsikya-bhinnair ākārādibhir, ādaicchabdādibhiḥ pratyāyitaiḥ, sam
20 I am not sure whether one should include V 2.28–29 in this group.
