Makaranda Madhukar Anand Mahendale Festshrift

Author(s): M A Dhaky, Jitendra B Shah
Publisher: Shardaben Chimanbhai Educational Research Centre

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