177. DHVANYALOKA 175

DHVANYALOKA 175

containing both arfrars and afur by the same author. Dr. Pandey (in 'Abhinavagupta'p. 135) refers to the fact that the great Utpaladeva, the paramaguru of Abhinava, himself wrote a vrtti and a tika on his own ईश्वर प्रत्यभिशासूत्र (in the form of Karikas) and states that Abhinava in his com. called Vimarsini does not expressly mention (on p. 22 of the विमर्शिनी) that the वृत्तिकार and टीकाकार quoted by the विमशिनी are the same person and thereby might lead a person ignorant of the truth to hold that the two (त्ृत्तिकार and टीकाकार) are different persons. I believe that this is cited by Dr. Pandey as an argument by analogy for establishing the identity of the कारिकाकार and the वृत्तिकार (in the ध्वन्यालोक). Not only is this analogy worthless, but it will rather indicate that Abhin ivagupta did not hold the view that the कारिकाकार (of घ) was identical with the वृत्तिकार and it further demolishs all the strange arguments about the supposed exegeticil etiquette advanced by Dr. Mookerjee and Dr. Krishnamoorthy. In the Introductory verse 5 at p. 3 (of the विमर्शिनी) अभिनवगुप्त expressly states that on the Pratyabhina- sūtras (the kārikās) the author himself (Utpaladeva) wrote a vrtti in which he explained only the purport and a tīkā in which he discussed the doctrines of the karikas (वस्या तात्पर्य टोकया तद्विचार: सूत्रेष्वेतेषु ग्रन्थकारेण दृब्धम् ।). Nothing could be clearer than this. No exegetical etiquette stood in the way of Abhinava- gupta against telling his readers about the identity of the kārikakara and vrttikara. Applying this to the Dhvanyaloka, one may naturally ask : why did not the लोचन of अभिनवगुप्त expressly state in the beginning of his commentary (as he does in the fanfarat) that the kārikakara and vrttikara were identical and why does he keep silence about this identity and leave students to surmises and arguments based on his words sown broadcast in his Locana? Then there is another point. Having once expressly stated that the kārikas, vrtti and țīkā were all composed by Utpaladeva, why should he have every now and then trotted forth the fact of identity ? faa thought that those who cared to understand Kashmir Pratya- bhijua Philosophy would be a few but earnest and careful students and would always bear in mind what he had stated in the very beginning of his commentary. He could not and did not anticipate how writers of theses in the 20th century would handle his works and words. Dr. Krishnamoorthy