________________
192
ASHOK AKLUJKAR
bandham yena prakāreņa pratipadyante, tenaiva prakāreņa 21 duravadhāratve 'pi bhedasya 22 agni-sabdas tathaivāyam agni-sabda-nibandhanaḥ/ agni-drutyaiti sambandham agni-sabdābhidheyaya // 1.60 // (b) 1.65 and its V. See 3.4. (c) yathā viņayendriya-dharma evāyam prākrta-cakşuşām, dūrād ārūpa-mātropalabdhau 23 vrkṣādin hastyādivat prati padyante, taddeśāvasthitā eva pranidhānābhyāsāt krameņa punar yathāvayavam [yathāvad ?] upalabhante, vyaktālokāc ca dèśāt sahasā mandasamnivista-prakāśān apavarakādin praviấya rajjvādin sarpādivat pratipadya tathaiva praņidhānābhyāsāc cakşuşi prakrtisthe yathāvad upalabhante 24 vyajyamāne tathā25 vākye vakyābhivyakti-hetubhih / bhāgāvagraha-rūpeņa pūrvam buddhiḥ pravartate // 1.90 // (d) 1.92 and its V. See 3.3. (e) devadattādinām ca [vi]bhāgābhimatānām artha-yogābhyupagame,
21 There is no indication of the phrase tenaiva prakāreņa in Vrşabha's commentary. In view of tathaiva in the kārikā that follows, it does introduce redundancy in the construction proposed by me. But this fact does not indicate that the author of the V is not the same as that of the kārikā-text. In all well-known works of the kārikā-vștti type, an effort is made to give as much syntactical independence as is possible to each type of text. This is most probably so because the ancient writers were aware of the tendency of (and convenience in) singling out the metrical kārikātext for the purposes of study and memorisation. Connecting the drstänta with the dārstāntika separately in verse and prose portions is a result of such considerations. Compare the V on kārikās 1.89–90; 2.20—21, 185-186, 216217, 275-278, 298–299, 300—301, 420-421, 462–463. Unfortunately the V on the kārikās 2.8—9, 90—92, 93—94, in which also the dpstānta and the dārstāntika spread over more than one verse, is lost in the manuscript.
22 All editions indicate the end of V 1.59 after bhedasya. Overlooking the fact that the preceding words do not form a complete sentence. As a consequence, BIARDEAU (1964a: 101) and S. IYER (1965: 64) are forced to supply some words in their translations. R. SARMĀ (1963: 121) seems to have sensed the syntactical difficulty; but he does not point it out explicitly.
23 The editions read akyti-mätropalabdhau; but Vrşabha's (p. 155 fn. 3) reading, which is adopted here, is more appropriate both contextually and stylistically. See V 1.81 p. 148.1; V 1.102 p. 168.2 (Vrsabha p. 168.14); V 1.116 p. 191.1.
24 According to the editors of the available editions, upalabhante marks the end of a syntactically complete sentence. That is why they put a full stop after it. As a result, both BIARDEAU (1964 a : 131) and S. IYER (1965: 89) overlook the initial word yatha in their translations.
. 25 The word tathā is primarily connected with yathaiva in verse 1.89 and only secondarily with yatha in V 1.89. See fn. 21 above.
