________________
The Authorship of the Vākyapadiya-Vrtti
195
nādasya krama-janmatvān na pūrvo na paraś ca sah / akramah krama-rūpena bhedavān iva jāyate // 1.48 // kramavatā hi vyāpāreņopasamhriyamāna-pracaya-rūpo nādaḥ sapratibandhābhyanujñayā vrttyā sphotam avadyotayati. ... pratibimbam yathānyatra sthitam toya-kriyā-vaśāt / tat-pravrttim ivänveti sa dharmaḥ sphoța-nādayoh || 1.49 //
In this passage, we observe a transfer from dhvani in verse 1.47 to nāda in verse 1.48. These two words are not synonymous for the sabda-vyakti-vādin, whose view is put forward in this passage and in verses 1.94—101. According to him, dhvani is subtle and pervading, whereas nāda is the gross and perceptible form of dhvani. He maintains that dhvani manifests the sphota through the intermediacy or instrumentality of nāda. In switching over to nāda, verse 1.48 must be said to assume an indication of this theoretical subtlety in the V of verse 1.47. Otherwise, Bharthari's choice of terms becomes pointless; the juxtaposition of sphota and nāda in verses 1.48–49, 97 and, rather indirectly, in 1.101 does not contrast significantly with the juxtaposition of sphoța and dhvani in verses 1.75, 77, 81, and 93 30 which seem to put forward the view of the sabdākyti-vādin. The second transfer that we notice in the passage cited above is from saḥ in verses 1.47 and 48 (= buddhisthaḥ sabdaḥ in verse 1.46) to sphoța- in verse 1.49. It also cannot be accounted for unless V 1.48 introduces the term sphota which is not found in any of the preceding kārikās.
3.8 Furthermore, the first two kāņdas contain many instances in which a plausible and straight-forward interpretation of a kārikā is made possible only by the V. In about thirty-six cases, the fact that the kārikā considers and answers an objection or a query, and the nature of that objection or query are known only from the V: 1.76, 95—100, 132, 142; 2.14, 23, 25, 36–37, 46, 48, 51, 62, 68, 159, 193—196, 200—201, 221–226, 333, 340, 363, 365. That the kārikā switches over to the consideration of an alternative or a different view is made known only by
agrees with dhvanau. This emendation extends the locative absolute construction up to prāpta-vivarte and the syntactic anomaly is removed. It seems that the copyists were led to add -na after -vivarte by the frequent occurrence of n and na in this sentence.
30 In verse 1.84, which forms a part of the group of verses (1.7593) mainly stating the process of sphoța-manifestation according to the sabdākrti-vādins, nāda and dhvani occur side by side. This is probably due to the exigency of the meter. Vșşabha (p. 150.7, 9), who usually does not explain the meanings of common expressions, comments specifically in this case: nādaih iti dhvanibhih.
