________________
the early period of the Traikūtaka dynasty, for which, as Mirashi observes, we have no records.
5.4 Thus, whether we accept a tradition of two locations for Candrācārya's achievement or a tradition of one location would depend on whether we are willing to concede the possibility of the inclusion of Tilinga in Tri-kūta and on how natural we find the repetition of eka-desa in the Tikā statement of identification. Acceptance of a tradition of one location does not involve assumption of textual corruption in the sīkā but it does involve the assumption that Tri-kūta, as a region, at one time included Tilinga. As such an acceptance leads us to Sri-parvata, it would better explain why the author of 486 used a general expression like parvata (4.5) in the singular number. But it would also enhance the possibility that even the author of 486 viewed Candrācārya's achievement as a miracles and that the story of the recovery of vyākaraṇāgama is simply one of the myths associated with Srī-parvata (Aklujkar 1982:6-7), thus having no specific historical value. Acceptance of a tradition of two locations, on the other hand, allows us to take Tri-kūta, in conformity with the indisputable part of the available evidence, as a region contiguous to the mountain range Tri-kūța. Such an acceptance leaves room for one further interesting connection. If B was a Maitrāyaṇīya and if the Maitrāyaṇīyas enjoyed a prominent presence in the Nasik area (see references collected in Bronkhorst 1983:396), the author of 486 probably belonged to the Nasik (i.e., the Tri-kūta) area. He could have then recorded in his composition a piece of local history and intended to refer to Tri-kūta by the word parvatāt.
17
