174. 172 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

172 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

rabhāșya (on Jaimini I. 3. 4, IV. 1. 2) and Kumārila's Tantr- avārtika (I. 3. 5-7, I. 3, 8-9) sometimes give as many as three interpretations of the same sūtra or adhikaraņa. It is impossible to hold that the sutras were intended by the author of the sutras to have three meanings. The पूर्वमीमांसासूत्र contains no sūtra on Raca and Sabara enters on that question in great detail. The पञ्चपादिका of पद्मपाद remarks on this विधिवृत्तमीमांसाभाष्य- कारोऽपि उत्सूत्रमेवात्मसिद्धौ पराकान्तवान् (p. 148 of the Madras Govt. mss. Library ed.). Similarly, Dr. K. Krishnamoorthy on p. 185 refers to the dictum of Kullūka that ācāryas do not speak about their views in the first person but in the third person. There is nothing in this. I showed long ago from Medhatithi's bhāsya on Manu I. 4 (H. of Dh. vo !. I. p.90) which Kullūka merely repeats that this is the practice of ācaryas. But this is not invariably so, as Yaj. I. 56 will show. Dr. Krishnamoorthy further relies on what Dr. K. C. Pandey says in his work on 'Abhinavagupta' pp. 134 ff., who puts forward the practice in Kashmir that the same person wrote sūtras or kārikās and a commentary. Hardly any one would dispute this (at least I do not). But all this is irrelevant. The question is not whether the same writer could have written a vrtti on his own kārikās, but whether in this particular case he actually did so and whether passages of the Locana accept the identity or whether they lead to the inference of non-identity. Dr. Krishnamoorthy (pp. 187 ff.) follows Dr. Mookerjee in the propositions about exegetical etiquette. We are not dealing here with the two works of the same author, but with the remarks of a commen- tator like Abhinava who had before him a work of kārikās and a vrtti thereon. There is nothing in exegetical rules of any kind to prevent the commentator from indicating that the kārikākāra and vrttikāra are identical or different. Kumārila- bhatta, a great commentator and author of the Tantra- vārtika, expressly tells us that several sūtras of Jaimini have no substance in them or are meaningless.1 He combats the positon says: 'यां काएवोपनिषच्छलेन सकलाम्रायार्थसंशोधिनीं सन्चकरर्गुरवोऽनुवृत्तगुरवो वृत्ति सरतां शान्तये।'. 1. अतः परं षट्सूत्रायि भाष्यकारे न लिखितानि। तत्र व्याख्यातारो विवदन्ते। केचिदाहुर्विस्मृतानि। ... फल्गुत्वादुपेक्ितानीत्यन्ये। अनार्षेयत्वादित्यपरे। वृत्त्यन्तरकारस्तु सर्वैर्व्याख्यातानि। सन्ति च जैमिनेरेवंप्रकाराएयनत्यन्तसारभूतानि सूत्रायि। तन्त्रवार्तिक atter जै. III. 4.9 p. 895 (Anan. ed.),