Authorship Of Vakyapadiya Vrtti

Author(s): Ashok Aklujkar
Publisher: Ashok Aklujkar

Page 4

184
ASHOK AKLUJKAR
1.2 Under these circumstances, any doubt about Bhartphari's authorship of the V may seem highly improbable; but, today, all scholars who are interested in the Trikāņdi, as far as I know, entertain such a doubt. Their uncertainty of opinion usually begins when they realize that the V occasionally gives two or more interpretations of one verse (kārikā). Then this uncertainty is deepened either by the occurrence in the V of the word tatra-bhavat, which, in the usage of some ancient authors, serves as Bhartshari's epithet, in a manner indicating reference to a person other than the author (S. IYER 1965: xxxi—xxxii), or by a feeling that some divergence of views exists between the V and the kārikā-text (BIARDEAU 1964a: 5—21 (summarized by S. IYER 1965: xxxiii-xxxiv), 1964 b: 260). But doubtful as they may be, no scholar except MADELEINE BIARDEAU is known to me who has declared the traditional authorship of the V to be illfounded and incorrect. BIARDEAU has gone beyond the range of uncertainty about the validity of the tradition and reached the conclusion that the V cannot be a work of Bhartphari, that it must have been written by Hari-vrşabha sometime after Kumārila, and that the tradition accepted it as Bhartphari's work through a confusion of names.
1.3 The purpose of the present article is to refute this conclusion. Not only do I uphold the validity of the traditional ascription, but I also maintain that the V is an inseparable part of the Vākyapadiya and that it is wrong to think of the Vākyapadiya as a work consisting of kārikās only. Now, there are two ways of establishing this thesis, one negative
matters for exhaustive presentations in the near future and, in the meantime, merely draw the attention of scholars to some of my published sources where the relevant pieces of evidence are already pointed out to some extent: C. SHASTRI 1930: 634638, 644-645, 1934: fns. to various V passages (especially, pp. 3, 5, 87, 103, 115, 126, 128), 1941 (?): fns. to various V passages (especially, V 2.28-29); FRAUWALLNER 1933: 237 (Although the parallel noticed in this article remains valid, FRAUWALLNER, for good reasons, changes his view on the relative chronology of Bhartphari and Dinnāga in his 1959 and 1961 publications); K. M. SARMA 1940: 2-4, 1942: 405409; NAKAMURA 1955: 130; SWAMINATHAN 1963: 66—70; Y. MĪMĀŅSAKA samvat 2020: 347; BIARDEAU 1964b: 260 fn. 4 conclusion; S. IYER 1965: xvii-xxix, 1966b: 28-30; ABHYANKAR-LIMAYE 1965: 210—216, 240, 297-301 (cp. NAKAMURA 1955: 125, V 1.1), 312 (cp. NAKAMURA 1955: 126, V 1.1 verse tha), 328—329 (cp. V 2.315—316), 333 (cp. V 2.64), 352—357; LIMAYE 1966: 228—229; JAMBŪVIJAYA 1966: 40 (V 1.52), 128, tippanāni p. 57 (cp. V 1.140) 192, tippaņāni p. 68 (V 1.8), 197 (V 1.2), 239, tippanäni p. 77 (V 1.9), 241, tippanäni pp. 76-77 fns. 3–5 (V 1.1); AKLUJKAR 1969: 557-561.