________________
-13
Thus, it should not be taken as a settled fact or probabilistic truth that
the VJ came to an end with the fourth unmesa. What surprises me in the whole
speculation is that neither De nor K has taken the trouble of deciding the issue
of the extent on the basis of the internal references or cross-references of the
work. Such an exercise may not prove anything decisively, but it will at least
lend completeness to the discussion.
For example, in lines 12-13 on p. 38 of K's
edition, we read:
etac ca sva-laksana-vyakhyanavas are vyak tim ayasyati.
This
(namely, that a literary work describes one thing and imparts, through it, another
message or instruction) will become clear when the specific definition Cof
prabandha-vakrata) is explained.' It should be an editor's responsibility to
ascertain whether the expectancy created by this remark is satisfied and in which
exact part of the work it is satisfied.
The same applies to 'back-references' or
references to the contents of the preceding part of the work. Except in a rare
case like the one on p. 27, lines 7-8, K does not follow the lead provided by
Kuntaka's internal references to determine the completeness of the available VJ.
An unfortunate consequence of this lack of rigour in studying the work being edited is seen on p. 153. There K reconstructs a karika as follows: na preyas tad-viruđdhah syad aprey (o 'sav alaặkrtih) /alarikarantare syātām anyatrādarśanād api // This reconstruction is faulty, since quarter 'b' does not agree with the
following vrtti and does not add anything significant or contextually appropriate
to the karika. Moreover, the reconstruction is entirely unnecessary. On p. 241,
in making a 'back-reference' to his discussion of preyas, Kuntaka writes: na
preyaso, viruddhah syad, 16 alamkarantare sati/Samsrsti-saħkarau syātām, anyatradarśanad api 11. This is obviously the missing kārikā from p. 153, as even a glance at the vrtti on pp. 153–56 would establish. If K had taken the trouble of referring back to Kuntaka's discussion of preyas, he would have realised the
futility of reconstruction.
