190. 188 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

188 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

1935 used in the present edition of the History of Poetics by me. They did not escape ine as those learned writers state. In fact in my Intro. to arfero I had myself referred to some of those passages. No detailed statement of my views thereon is necessary, as, in my opinion, those passages are either not against the theory of non-identity or are quite explicable on that theory. So also the words इयत्पुनरुच्यते एव in the वृति on p. 131 explained by लोचन as 'अस्माभिरिति वाक्यशेष:' are to be explained in the same way as done above on p. 169 (citing {TRTT[6T) and as shedding no clear light on the question of identity. When the araa says (on p. 14) 'आनन्दवर्धन इति च ग्रन्थकृतो नाम। तेन स एवानन्दवर्धनाचार्य एतच्छास्त्रद्वारेय सहृदयहृदयेषु प्रतिठां ... लभताम्', Dr. Mookerjee argues (B. C. Law vol. I p. 189) that such high praise is not deserved by a mere frTT, if he were not also kārikakara. In the first place, the Locana does not expressly designate आनन्द as शास्त्रकार. All that it says is (literally) 'through this sastra as the door Ananda may secure a firm place in the hearts of sahrdayas.' In the 2nd place, Sankaracārya wrote only a vrtti on the Br. Up. and a bhāsya on the Vedāntasūtra and Patañjali wrote only a com. on the Vartikas, but no one would grudge high praise being bestowed on both of them on account of the fact of their having expounded Advaita Vedanta and Sanskrit grammar respectively. So there is hardly anything in this argument. I may bring to the notice of Dr. Mookerjee that, though Panini is the author of a perfect sūtra, Pātañjali's authority is regarded as greater than even that of Panini by later Sanskrit grammarians. Vide what the Kaumudi says on the sutra 'na bahuvrīhau'1. If the author of the kārikas be different from that of the vrtti and one had to make a choice between the two as to who should be called Sāstrakāra par excellence there is hardly any doubt that most scholars would bestow the palm of superiority on the Vrttikāra. Dr. Mookerjee is not at all right in thinking that the Locana alludes to Kuntaka (B. C. Law vol. I. p. 183). There is no evidence worth the name to prove this or even to make

1. न बहुत्रीहौ। पा. I. 1. 29; सि. कौ. 'बहुव्रीहौ चिकीर्षिते सर्वनाम- संज्ञा न स्यात्। त्वकं पिता यस्य स त्वत्कपितृक इति। भाष्यकारस्तु त्वत्कपितृक मत्कपितृक इति रूपे इष्टापत्ति कृत्वैतत्सूत्रं प्रत्याचल्यौ। यथोत्तरं मुनीनां प्रामाण्यम् ।'.