________________ ( xviii ) ( xix ) The second difference in my edition will be that I shall follow the enumeration of karikas as given in Professor Wilhelm Rau's 1977 edition (Wiesbaden : Franz Steiner Verlag). Thirdly I shall specifically identify and discuss the problematic phrases in the text, proposing probable solutions wherever possible. The * individual readings too will be different in scores of places. None of this difference in method and approach should be interpreted as a negative comment on Iyer's work. He achieved the best results he could in rather difficult circumstances-indifferent health, generally uncooperative curators of manuscript collections, want of research money specifically allocated to search for new manuscripts and to examine known manuscripts on-the-spot, and publishers less devoted to the accuracy of printing than the firm of Motilal Banarsidass. As Abhinavagupta, another author who serves as a bond between Iyer and myself, says : urdhvordhvam aruhya yad artha-tattvam dhih pasyati Srantim avedayantisphalam tad adyaih parikalpitanam viveka-sopanaparamparanam|| 'Having risen to higher and higher levels, the mind, untouched by fatigue, sees the true nature of something. This phenomenon is but an outcome of the staircases of analysis that one's forebears laid out.' 3. Iyer's letter of 20/01/73 contains the following statement : 'I was a student of Sylvain Levi, A. foucher, Antoine Meillet, Dr.Barnett, Daniel Jones, Mrs. Rhys Davids and Louis de la Vallee Poussin.' 4. Cf. Iyer's letter of 24/07/77: 'May I request you to send me a copy of those cight pages of the Vrtti which you were able to recover in Patan ? I may be ablc, with their help, to make some alterations in my edition of the Vttti at time of the proof-reading. It is clear from the final phrase that. Iyer's edition was in the press or was on its way to the press at the time the letter was written. He did not live to complete proof-reading as is confirmed by the publisher of this volume. 5. Cr. Iyer's letter of 11/03/74: "M. turned out to be a very unsatisfactory photocopy of the Vstti because a very large number of pages are very smudgy and illegible and some totally missing. I had to write to the Curator of the Madras Govt. Mss. Library to send me transcripts of those pages. As for M., I do not know whether its defective condition is due to the person who took the microfilm or to the person whe made the photocopies from it in the Lucknow University.' See also pp. 252, 259, 260, 267, of this Volume.' Footnotes to Foreword 1. At the time I wrote my first letter to Iyer I had not penned even ten lines of my Ph.D. dissertation, but I had the audacity to write to him that I did not agree with him on many matters. In his response dated 08/12/67, Iyer writes: 'It is normal that there should be difference of opinion among workers in the same field. I would appreciate it if you could let me know where you differ from me.' 2. Iyer's commitment to knowledge and interest in the work of cven considerably junior scholars is evident from the following sentences in his letter of 29/09/72: 'I am very anxious to see your Philosophy of Bhartshari's Trikandi [= unpublished Ph. D. dissertation]. You said that you would send me a copy of it. I am waiting cagerly for it.' In response, I informed Iyer on 23 October, 1972 that I would make my personal copy of the dissertation available to him for about one month. On 02/11/72, Iyer wrote back: 'I shall try to read your thesis within thirty days. I understand that it is a rather voluminous one, but I shall put away all other work in order to finish it.'
