________________
· which jointly preserve Candra's memory. Besides, both are
supported by a piece of information recorded as early as the sīkā (see note 13 for the value of this piece as evidence).
5.2 We have now reached a point in our discussion at which we can choose between the following positions: (a) The uncertainty regarding which of the two locations was actually the place of Candrācārya's discovery belongs to the period of the sīkā; and (b) The uncertainty goes back to the period of the author of 486 (4.4). If we accept (b), it would be pointless to press this discussion further in the hope of being able to determine one location exclusively, for the author of 486 is our earliest source on what Candrācārya achieved. If he is deemed to be undecided, there is practically no hope of our being able to decide what the location of the recovery of vyākaranāgama was in the original account. However, before we accept alternative (b), let us remind ourselves that we have thus far proceeded on the basis of two assumptions: that tri-kūțaika-deśa and tilingaika-desa are separable parts of the sīkā phrase, and that the word tri-kūța can stand only for a mountain (see note 24). Both of these assumptions deserve further examination.
5.3 As is well known, readings in manuscripts should, as far as possible, be interpreted as they are. Assumption of loss or change of text matter should be resorted to only if the available reading cannot make contextually acceptable sense without such an assumption. Such is not the case with the sīkā phrase. It can be understood to mean 'from a part of Tilinga which (in turn) exists in a part of Tri-kūta'. There is nothing contextually incompatible in this meaning.
15
