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

View full book text
Previous | Next

Page 11
________________ INTERPRETING VĀKYAPADĪYA 2.486 591 that the successors of Patañjali had lost.12 Thus, the Țīkā explanation is untenable for more than one reason.13 2.7 The outcome of the discussion so far is that, n the present state of our resources, alternative (a) mentioned in 2.4 above is the best solution available. True, it implies acceptance of a certain laxity in the composition of 486, with part of that laxity attributable to intervening expressions. However, it does not at hannot to abbes 12 It may be said by way of objection that I am putting too specific an interpretation on the word müla-bhūta—that what the author of the Țikā means is nothing more than vyākaranāgama; he characterizes it as müla-bhūta because it was vital to the understanding of the Mahābhāsya and the doctrines of the Vaiyakaraņa-s; his intention is not to set müla-bhūta vyākaranāgama apart from vyākaranāgama (see fn. 10 above). In other words, mūlabhūta is an adjective that describes, not one that distinguishes. However, it seems extremely unlikely to me that müla-bhūta is intended as a simple descriptive, emphatic, adjective. The author of the summary verses appearing at the end of the Țikā manuscripts, who was most probably a junior contemporary of, if not identical with, the author of the Țikā (Aklujkar 1974:181-4), certainly did not take it that way. The relevant verse in his composition is: bhrastasyāmnāya-särasya vaiyākaraña-gāminaḥ| mūla-bhūtam avāpyātha parvatād āgamam svayam/l. Here the vaiyākarana-gāmin amnāyasāra (that is, the vyākaraṇāgama) is clearly distinguished from the mūla-bhūta āgama. Thus, the Țikā words have been understood as I understand them almost from the time of its author. Secondly, if vyākaranāgama and müla-bhūta vyākaraṇāgama are deemed identical, the Tikā must be understood as implying that the successors of Patañjali mentioned in 485 were initially in possession of a rāvanaviracita āgama and that grantha in 485 means inscribed on stone (upala-tala)'. However, these implications are not at all supported by the Țikā comment on 485. 13 Note also that there is no suggestion of two āgama-s in the Rāja-tarangiņi (1.176) passage reminiscent of 486: candråcāryādibhir labdhvādeśam [v. 1. labdhvā deśāt] tasmāt tadāgamam [read sahāgamam?]/ pravartitam mahā-bhāsyam spam ca vyākaranam kịtam/).

Loading...

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