Book Title: Interpreting Vakyapadiya Historically
Author(s): Ashok Aklujkar
Publisher: Ashok Aklujkar

View full book text
Previous | Next

Page 10
________________ 590 : THE ADYAR LIBRARY BULLETIN in this connection is also the fact that the Țikā explanation does not clarify what the relation of the activities of Candrācārya and others was to the vyākaraṇāgamagranthall preserved among the Southerners. Did Candrācārya and others get hold of this grantha or was the furthering of vyākaraṇāgama achieved by them independently of the grantha-achieved only through the mūlabhūta vyukaraṇāgama and study of the Mahābhāsya ? It is obviously the first alternative that is more likely to have been intended by the author of 486, for if Candrācārya and others are not said to have known the grantha, the mention of grantha in verse 485 becomes vacuous, and Candrācārya and others cannot be said to have made the vyākaraṇāgama many-branched; they cannot make many-branched something they do not possess, and verse 485 tells us that vyäkaranā gama was preserved only in grantha form (note grantha-mātre). But if Candrācārya and others did get hold of the grantha and the vyākaranāgama contained in it, how do we get a statement to that effect from 486a, should we decide to follow the Țikā explanation ? Under that explanation, once 486a is made to state that Candrācārya and others got hold of the mūla-bhūta vyākaranāgama we have no space to accommodate a statement to the effect that Candrācārya and others got hold of the vyākaranāgama 11 I retain the expression grantha in order to be able to preserve the ambiguity of the original; verse 485 does not specify whether the vyākaraṇāgama was preserved in one grantha (manuscript, composition, written form of a work, manuscript bundle) or several grantha-s.

Loading...

Page Navigation
1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21