171. DHVANYĀLOKA 169

DHVANYĀLOKA 169

ion in the लोचन. But that is a mere protest without warrant. He has not cited a single passage where the word ग्रन्थकृत् has been undoubtedly applied to the author of the कारिकाs by the लोचन. Why does the लोचन introduce the मङ्गल verse स्वेच्छाकेसरियः with the word व त्तिकार: ? If both the कारिका and वृत्ति were the work of the same man in the opinion of the लोचन, why does it not introduce the मङ्गल verse with the word कारिकाकार: or even ग्रन्थकार: ? It is noteworthy that the first कारिका is introduced on p. 3 as merely आदिवाक्य and nothing more. Similarly, on p. 45 (एवमभिप्रायद्रयमपि साधारणोक्त्या ग्रन्थकृन्न्यरूपयत्); p. 70 (शत एव ग्रन्थकार ... ध्वनौ भक्तेरभावमभ्यधात्);1 onp. 109 (ततश्च ... अरयं ग्रन्थकृत आरशयः), onp.289 (where the Prakrit verse अरहिय अरपओरअरसिएसु is cited for illustrating ध्वने: संसृष्टालक्कारसंसृष्टत्व on which लोचन remarks ताभ्यां ध्वनेः सक्कर इति ग्रन्थकारस्याशयः) the word ग्रन्थकृत or ग्रन्थकार is applid to the वत्तिकार alone. Therefore, in the two places on p. 14 of the लोचन where the word ग्रन्थकृत् occurs (आनन्द इति च ग्रन्थकृतो नाम and सहृदय ... ग्रन्थकृदिति भाव:) the same meaning must be taken. The 7th passage दशितमेवाग्रे is satisfactorily explicable only on the theory that the author of the karikas is different from the vrttikāra. Dr. Krishnamoorthy's reference to other places where the future is employed in the vrtti will not explain away the use of the past tense in दर्शितमेवाग्रे. He merely echoes Dr. Mookerjee who refers to pp. 14, 23, 26, 34 of the old K. M. edition (pp. 18, 27, 31, 40 of ed. of 1935). These references are put forward merely because the वृत्ति contains a word in the future. But they are of no value. On p. 18 the वृत्ति says 'स त्द्यर्थों ... वस्तुमात्रमलक्वारा रसादयश्चेत्यनेकप्रभेदप्रभिन्नो दर्शयिष्यते.' This is not a reference to any कारिका but to the वृत्ति itself in the 2nd उद्योत. There is no single कारिका which expressly divides ध्वनि into वस्तु, अलक्कार and रसादि. On p. 27 the वृत्ति says 'द्वितीयोपि प्रभेदो वाच्याद्वि- भिन्नः सप्रपञ्चमश्रे दर्शयिष्यते'. This again does not refer to a कारिका, but to his own वृत्ति as the word सप्रपञ्चं makes clear and लोचन understands it to be a reference to वृत्ति only (अग्रे इति द्वितीयोदोते

same remarks apply to the passages on pp. 31, 40. They

I. तस्माद्भक्तिरलक्षणम् -these are the words in the वृत्ति (P. 67). कारिका I. 21 on which this वृत्ति० occurs does not employ the word भक्ि at all, but गुणवृत्ति. So लोचन must be held to refer to the वृत्ति.