________________
INTERPRETING VĀKYAPADĪYA 2.486
597
3.5 Since I was so far concerned with discussing the most probable interpretation of only āgamam labdhvā, I have ignored the presence of the word parvatāt and have used expressions that leave room for the inference that Candrācārya and others acquired the āgama portions at a number of distant places in the South. Hence it needs to be clarified that this inference is not an unavoidable aspect of my exposition of agamam labdhvā. What is necessary if my interpretation is to stand is that Candrācārya and his associates be thought of as having visited a number of places in the South and as having made as thorough an effort as was possible in the then prevailing conditions; it is not necessary that they be thought of as having acquired the āgama at a number of places removed from each other. Therefore, the word parvatāt which indicates that the acquisition of agama took place in one region or took place mostly in one region does not conflict with my interpretation. It merely implies that even the written sources for the āgama had become scarce and were not found, as far as the search by Candrācārya and others was concerned, outside a region identifiable as parvata.
which had the potential for development into a variety of views or principles (note bahu-Bakhatvam nitaḥ ... nyāya-prasthāna-mārgāms tān). Such knowledge could be gathered from the commentaries on the Mahābhāsya, but it need not be viewed as exclusively available in them. Besides, if the uncertainty of interpretation evident in Bhartshari's Mahābhāsya-ţikā is any indication, a definite or mostly definite traditional interpretation such as the one commentaries would provide does not seem to have been available in Bhartshari's time. It is, therefore, unlikely to have been acquired by Candrācārya who does not seem to be far removed from Bhartshari in time.
