169. DHVANYĀLOKA 167

DHVANYĀLOKA 167

लोचन really regarded आनन्दवर्धन as the author of the वृत्ति and that he was distinct from the author of the arfrars. We have to see how far this accords with the view of other early writers and whit the name of the author of the कारिकाs was, supposing he was not identical with आनन्दवर्धन. Of the above seven p .: ssages again 2, 6, 7 are most im- p rtant. The passage 2 means (on the word प्रकाशित: in धृत्ति): this it not what I, the vrttikara, have stated out of my own head, but I have stated it in accordance with the intention of the author of the kārikās and so the word 'tatra' is used in the vrtti ... (Dhvani) is first of two kinds (as stated in the first Uddyota) and this is also approved of by the kārikākara; this is the meaning, (p. 73 of K. M. ed.). If the कारिका and वृत्ति had been the work of the same author, where was the necessity of the vrttikāra saying that he follows the अभिप्राय of the कारिकाकार and that what he the वृत्तिकार did say is कारिकाकारसंमत ? He could have simply said 'what I meant by the कारिका is this'. In ordinary life if a man makes a statement in one place about a certain matter and makes a different statement about the same matter in another place, he does not speak of his own aifa to what he said before. He can simply say 'I am explaining what I said or what I meant to say or did not say'. No question of ufa arises when the same man makes two statements. Similarly, the passage on p. 166 of the Locana is utterly inexplicable on the theory of the identity of authorship. The passage relates to the relation between gunas and sanghatanā'. A question is asked by on objector in the vrtti: What do you suppose is the substratum of gunas? If sanghatanā is not the āśraya thereof, what is the asraya ? The vrtti gives the reply : 'the substratum of gunas has already been propounded' and quotes kārikā II. 7.On this (i.e. on the word प्रतिपादितमेव) the Locana observes 'अस्मन्मूलग्रन्थकृता' (by the author of the original work on which my vrtti is written). If the author of both कारिका and वृत्ति were the same person and लोचन firmly held that view, would not one expect अभिनवगुप्त to have explained प्रतिपादितं by the words मयैव द्वितीयोदयोते तमर्थ० इति कारिकायामित्यर्थ: ? Why does the लोचन explain as अस्मन्मूलग्रन्थकृता (and not simply मत्कृतकारिकायाम् or मया कारिकायाम्) ? The लोचन does explain certain verses quoted in thevrtti in this way. For example, on the two verses H- भावादिविषय० and रसादिषु विवन्ता तु० quoted on p. 277 with the words