________________
AKLUJKAR : The Concluding Verses of Bhartshari's Vākya-Kāņda
19
bhāsya. Contextually too, it is in the case of the Mahābhāsya that proper understanding is indicated to be dependent on a knowledge of other branches of learning; cf. tirtha-darsinā, sarveşām nyāya-bijānām, alabdha-gādhe gāmbhiryāt, and akrta-buddhinām. (c) Even if we go along with Thieme and understand samgraha-pratikañcuke as meaning “ of which the defensive armour was the Sangraha”, the word does not seem to be so appropriate as a description of the Astādhyāyi as of the Mahābhāsya. From the indications provided in 481 (samk sepa-rucin, alpa-vidyā-parigrahān) and from the known references to the Samgraha (Yudhisthira Mimāmsaka sarvat 2020 : 270-277) one can easily conclude that the Sagraha was very ambitiously planned, that it involved study of many vidyās, and that it was predominantly a work on grammatical theory and linguistic philosophy. It does not seem to have been a commentary to the Astādhyāyi in the usual sense or a defense of the Astādhyāyi per se. On the other hand, as shown in 3. 1 above, the Mahābhāsya drew heavily upon the Samgraha and could be misinterpreted in its absence.
5.1 So far four (see footnote 29 below) different explanations of the expression saṁgraha-pratikañcuka have been proposed. The Tikā seems to be unsure about it, as it neither cites the expression as a pratika, nor provides any explicit gloss. However, there is room to believe that its author decided to read 484d as saṁgraha-pratikañcukaih and to understand it as meaning saṁgraha-pratipaksa-bhūtaiḥ. 27 Goldstücker (1861 : 257-258) adopted the same reading, but assigned it the exactly opposite meaning “ who were partisans of the Sangraha". Among those who are aware of the reading samgraha-pratikañcuke as an adjective of granthe, we have Kielhorn (1876 : 244), who provisionally takes it to be a tat-purusa ( samgrahasya pratikañcuke) meaning “preserving the (contents of the ) Sangraha ", and Thieme, who takes it to be a bahu-vrihi (samgrahaḥ pratikañcukaṁ yasya tasmin ) meaning "of which the defensive armour was the Samgraha” or “whose counter-armour is (was ) the Samgraha ".
5.2 Goldstücker's rendering is clearly inappropriate. We have no reason to suppose that there was a group of Saṁgraha partisans in existence after the Mahābhāsya had gained currency or to suppose that that group was interested in making a case against the Mahābhāsya. The high regard for the Sangraha shown by Patañjali and by the followers of Patañjali such as Bhartphari indicates that the followers of the Mahābhāsya were also followers of the Saṁgraha, not a rival group. Secondly, there does not seem to be any
sangraha-pratipaksa-bhūtair acaryais tarka
27. Note the introduction to 484: tatha ca -vidyamatra-Dedibhih..
