________________
ABORI : Diamond Jubilee Volume
pronoun. Re-employment of the word āgama hardly fits the elegantly tight style of 481-490. Besides, if a Sanskrit author repeats a substantive at all in such a context, he introduces the corresponding form of the demonstrative pronoun before it; that is, if the author had intended to use the word āgama again by overlooking the possibility that it could be easily understood from 485, he would have fitted in 486а the phrase saḥ āgamah (or the phrase tam āgamam, to assume, for a moment, that the accusative is permissible). It is perhaps an awareness of these considerations that prompted the author of the Tikā to distinguish, rather obliquely, the āgama referred to by ägamam from the āgama referred to by saḥ, i. e. to speak of a mūla-bhūta vyākaraṇāgama distinct from the vyākaraṇāgama that the successors of Patañjali lost. He seems to have reasoned that if such a distinction is made the construction will not be ungrammatical (vajrań labdhyā maṇiḥ bahudhā bhinnah and vişa-vrk sam saṁvardhya āmra-vrk şah chinnaḥ are acceptable constructions), and the recurrence of the word āgama can also be explained. However, there is no justification in the given context to make the verse say parvatāt rāvaņa-viracitaṁ mūla-bhūta-vyākaraṇāgamam labdhvā candrācāryādibhiḥ sah patanjali-śişyebhyaḥ bhrastaḥ. . vyākaraṇāgamaḥ bahu-sākhatvam nitaḥ. Any author who can write as perspicuously as the rest of the verses bear out is not likely to use the general word āgama for a contextually absent and unexpectedly specific thing, especially when that word can be easily (mis )understood as referring to vyākaraṇāgama. If the author of 481-490 had the mysterious rāvana-viracita müla-bhūta vyākaraṇāgama in mind, he would have either written an additional verse or used a distinct expression indicating the distinction of two āgamas. Thus, āgamain does not appear to be the original reading in 486a. It is also possible that not only agamam but the entire phrase parvatād agama.n is a result of textual corruption. Of what it could be a corruption I am unable to determine at present.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abhinava-gupta. Śri-Malini-vijaya-vārttika. (Ed.) Madhusudan Kaul
Shastri. Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies, no. XXXI. Srinagar. 1921. Aklujkar, Ashok. 1969. “Two textual studies of Bhartshari”. Journal of
the American Oriental Society, 89: 547-563. ...................... 1971. “The number of kārikās in Trikāndi, book I".
Journal of the American Oriental Society, 91 : 510-513. .................... 1972. “The authorship of the Vākyapadiya-vrtti". Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Sudasiens, 16: 181-198.
