183. DHVANYĀLOKA 181

DHVANYĀLOKA 181

mss. do not note that anyone of the mss. had the word srger. I have already dealt with the inferences to be drawn from the use of the word अभिप्रायेख and संमतमेव in the वृति (pp.165 and 167 above). Dr. Mookerjee relies upon a passage of the afa intro- ducing the third उद्द्योत (B. C. Law vol. I. pp. 185-186) and enters upon a discussion of the words of the Locana referring to Candrikakara. This has to be very carefully scrutinized. Later on I shall quote several passages from the Locana in which a previous commentator called चन्द्रिकाकार, who belonged to the same family as Abhinava's and who must have preceded him by at least a generation or two, is criticized or mentioned. On p. 150 the लोचन summarises laconically the views of the चन्द्रिकाकार about the construction of certain words of the वृत्ति. At the beginning of the third Uddyota the वृत्ति reads 'एवं व्यङ्य- मुखेनैव ध्वन: प्रदर्शिते सप्रभेदे स्वरूपे पुनव्यअ्जकमुखेन तत्प्रकाश्यते' and then follows the कारिका 'अविवन्ितवाच्यस्य.' The लोचन passage is (p.150) 'यस्तु व्याचप्टे व्यङ्गघानां वस्त्वलक्गाररसानां मुखेन इति स एवं प्रष्टव्यः । एतत्तावत् त्रिभेदत्वं न कारिकाकारेय कृतं वृत्तिकारेण तु दर्शितम्। न चेदानीं वृत्तिकारो भेद- प्रकटनं करोति। ततश्चेदं कृतमिदं क्रियते इति कर्तभेदे का सङ्गतिः। न चैतावता सकलप्राक्तनग्रन्थसङ्गतिः कृता भवति। अविवत्षितवाच्यादीनामपि प्रकाराणां दशित- त्वादित्यलं निजपूर्वजसगोत्र: साकं विवादेन.' It appears that the चन्द्रिका explained the words of the vrtti ( एवं व्यङ्यमुखेनैव) by saying that the vyangya was dilated upon under the three categories viz. वस्तु, अलक्कार and रस (and then it went on to show the सङ्गति of what preceded with what is to come in the kārikas of the third Uddyota). The Locana objects to this explanation of ara- मुखेन and asks a question: 'These three categories were pro- pounded by the वृत्तिकार and not by the कारिकाकार. Further, the vrttikāra does not propound this division into three now and here; when (as you hold) the authors of the कारिका and of the वृत्ति are different, what is the use of showing the सङ्गति by saying this has been done (by the वत्तिकार) and this is being done (by the कारिकाकार in 3rd उद्योत) ? There can be no सङ्ति when the वृत्तिकार says one thing about which the कारिकाकार is silent'. Then लोचन finds further faults in that explanation. To me it appears clear, on the strength of this passage, that the चन्द्रिकाकार held the view of non-identity and the लोचन asserts that no question of asfa arises on the explanation given by the चन्द्रिका of the words व्यंग्यमुखेन. Unless the चन्द्रिका is re- covered no one can be certain of the meaning. Whether the लोचन.