________________
having suffered some damage in manuscript transmission
will be discussed in 4.2, note 24, and 5.3. 5. Peterson does not specify how, when, or where Müller's
suggestion about parvata was made. 6. (a) Tārā-nātha Tarka-vācaspati offers the same identifi
cation as Scharfe's without giving any reasons to support it, as if he was simply explaining or replacing the reading tri-kūţa of the sīkā with citra-kūta.
(b) Scharfe does not indicate awareness of the information given in (a), which, one expects, would have been known to him through Weber 1862.
(c) Scharfe's presentation differs also in that he further identifies Citra-kūţa with Rāma-giri, presumably the same Rāma-giri as the one mentioned by Kālidāsa in his Megha-dūta. It should, therefore, be noted that the identification of Citra-kūta with Rāma-giri is not universally accepted (cf. Gupta 1973:101-3) as Scharfe seems to have thought.
(d) Bronkhorst (1983), who also does not indicate awareness of the information in (a), follows Scharfe in a strange way. On pages 393 and 395, he has Candra going to the Himālaya to acquire "[correct] traditional knowledge” or “The Patañjalian oral tradition.” On the other hand, on page 397, he has Candra at least contemplating a journey through Kausāmbī, as in Scharfe's view, but not necessarily residing at Citra-kūţa, as is Scharfe's view. In other words, Bronkhorst uses Scharfe's discussion to assign Candra to Gujarat or north Maharashtra but not to explain Candra's retrieval of the āgama. In so doing, he severs the direct connec
26
