167. DHVANYĀLOKA 165

DHVANYĀLOKA 165

vrttikāra loses its force and it has to be explained differently. Probably Abhinava desired, in order to facilitate his comments, to keep the Karikas distinct from the Vrtti and he achieved it by referring to their author in two capacities as Kārikākāra and Vrttikara'. Dr. Sankaran has either failed to grasp the significance and force of the seven or eight passages quoted by me, particularly 2, 6 and 7 or he has shut his eyes to their implications. Morever, he does not consider many other matters which will be set out below. The references here are to the 4th edition of K. M. of 1935 A. D. With reference to passage 8 quoted from the लोचन, one wonders why the लोचन, if it firmly believed in identity, does not straightforwardly say 'यद्यप्यर्थानन्त्यमात्रे हेतुः कारिकायां नोक्तस्तयापि मया वृत्तौ उक्त एत्रेति भावः'. The important passages of the लोचन are: (i) 'अ्रत एव मूलकारिका साक्षात्तन्निराकरयार्था न श्रयते। वृत्तिकृत निराकृतमपि प्रमेयसंख्यापूरणय कएठेन तत्पक्षमनूद निराकरोति येपीत्यादिना । ...... तेनात्र प्रथमोद्योते ध्वनेः सामान्यलक्षणमेव कारिकाकारेश कृतम्। द्वितीयोद्द्योते कारिकाकारोऽवान्तरविभागं विशेषलक्षणं च विदध- दनुवादमुखेन मूलविभागं द्विविधं सूचितवान्। तदाशयानुमारेण वृत्तिकृदत्रैवोद्द्योते मूल- विभागमवोचत् etc. (लोचन. pp. 71-72.); (2) 'न चैतन्मयोक्तम्, अपि तु कारिका- काराभिप्रायणत्याह तत्रेति। भवति मूलतो द्विभेदत्वं कारिकाकारस्यापि संमतमेवेति भाव:।' p. 73; (3) 'उक्तमेव ध्वनिस्वरूपं तदाभासविवेकहेतुतया कारिकाकारो- नुवदतीत्यभिप्रायेश वृत्तिकृदुपस्कारं ददाति p.149; (4) 'एतत्तावत्त्रिभेदत्वं न कारिकाकारेण कृतं वृत्तिकारेश तु दर्शितं न चेदानी वृत्तिकारो भेदप्रकटनं करोति। ततश्चेदं कृतमिदं क्रियते इति कर्तभेदे का सङ्गतिः। pp. 150-151; (5) कारिकाकारेश पूर्व व्यतिरेक उक्त। न च सवथा न कर्तव्योऽपि तु बीभत्सादौ कर्तव्य एवेति पश्चादन्वयः । वृत्तिकारेण तु अन्वयपूर्वको व्यतिरेक इति शैलीमनुसतुमन्वयः पूर्वमुपात्तः' (pp. 160); (6) on the words प्रतिपादितमेवैषामालम्बनम् in the ध्व. (p. 166) the लोचन says 'अस्मन्मलग्रन्थकृतेत्यर्यः'; (7) on the words in the ध्व. (pp. 169-170) 'एवमादौ च विषये यथौचित्यत्यागस्तथा दशितमेवाग्रे' लोचन remarks 'दर्शितमेव्रेति कारिकाकारेेति भूतप्रत्ययः'. The last remark means this: if the कारिका and व त्ति had been the work of the same author, he would have used the future tense in place of the past in the word affra, when referring to what was to be discussed later on; but as the कारिकाs were the work of a predecessor and were al- ready before the व त्तिकार when he wrote this passage, he employs the words दर्शितमेवाग्र (कारिकाकारेण); (8) With reference to the वृत्ति on ध्व. IV. 3 लोचन says 'यधप्यर्थानन्त्यमात्रे हेतुर्वृत्तिकारेणोक्तस्तथापि कारिका- कारेण नोक्त इति।' (Dr. De in Dept. of Letters, Calcutta Un.vol. IX at p.29). For other places where the word वृत्तिकार occurs in the लोचन, thought not expressly in such opposition to the कारिका-