Book Title: Makaranda Madhukar Anand Mahendale Festshrift
Author(s): M A Dhaky, Jitendra B Shah
Publisher: Shardaben Chimanbhai Educational Research Centre

Previous | Next

Page 104
________________ Vivakṣā in Käsikävṛtti: Jayāditya and Vamana Bronkhorst lastly adopted and elaborated J. Brough's idea12 (originally perceived by H. Oldenberg) that the vṛtti-sutra cited by I-ching, who attributes its authorship to Jayaditya, must actually be understood as the body of vārttikas that the curni, that is the bhāṣya, comments on, I-ching's vṛtti-sūtra and curni together making up the present Mahābhāṣya. 93 A few years earlier13, Bronkhorst had explained that Jayaditya's name must have emerged from confusion between värttikakāras, because the Kāśikā, as well as the Mahabhāṣya, includes a collection of värttikas. Bronkhorst initially spoke of two authors for the Kāśikā, the värttikakāra Jayaditya and Vamana, and believed that I-ching was indicating the Käsikā when using the term vṛtti-sutra. But in the end he has fully rejected tradition : "The opinion that the Kāśikā had two authors, Jayaditya and Vamana, is almost certainly wrong and probably due to Jinendrabuddhi's Nyasa14." Here we would like to go back to the arguments set forth by D. Bhattacharya as early as 1946, when the inconsistencies which cannot be explained by assigning them to the respective opinions of Jayaditya and Vamana had not yet been sufficiently taken into consideration. However, the important annotations from the Nyasa, the Padamañjarī, and the Bhāṣāvṛtti as well as those from more recent commentators had already been collected, and attention had focused on manuscript tradition. In 1946, that name mentioned by I-ching, Jayaditya, was still generally considered as the name of the author of the Kāśikā, the only inexplicably strange thing being that he had been regarded as the sole author, while tradition named two. On the basis of this knowledge and with the self-confidence of one who feels history has not completely left him in the dark, D. Bhattacharya had attempted to grasp the distinctive features of that part of the vṛtti attributed to Vamana (VI-VIII adhyāyas) as opposed to that attributed to Jayaditya. It is from this point of view that we wish to determine whether there was an evolution in the idea of vivakṣā between the first and the second part of the Käsikāvṛtti1. From a review of the occurrences of vivakṣā terminology in the two parts of the Käsikävṛtti traditionally attributed to Jayaditya and Vamana respectively (adhyāyas I-V; adhyāyas VI-VIII), it becomes evident that the second part moves decisively towards the medieval idea of vivakṣā

Loading...

Page Navigation
1 ... 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284