________________
12. The questions I have about this particular assumption
are: Was travel in the range of fifty miles generally viewed by Candra's contemporaries as possible in one day? Would an ordinary man eat only once during a fifty-mile journey when the journey is to be completed with ancient means? Would it be correct to hold that the Candra Vrtti example is from the perspective of a monk who eats only one meal per day?
13. The attitude that may be implicit in Peterson's and Scharfe's attempts at identification also needs comment. Both these scholars write as if the Tikā identification does not exist or need not be taken seriously. This is hardly a justifiable view to take of a piece of information that is about one thousand years old; that is unlikely to have been given unless it was known to earlier students and commentators of the VP (cf. anuśruyate in the Tikā); and that is in itself very plausible (especially because it contains the names Tri-kūta and Tilinga attested in a number of inscriptions, etc.). If Peterson or Scharfe had pointed out that the Tīkā detail offends common sense (has a mythic character like some other details in the Țikā) or is contradicted by another equally old source, they would have been justified in setting it aside. By not following any such procedure they give the impression that information preserved by scholars directly in the line of transmission deserves little or no credence. This is an unwarranted and unprofitable position to take. Moreover, since their own views are based on the use of some indirectly related tradition, they are open to a charge
31
