Inquiry re: the nature of 'kaarikaa'

[selindqu at rainbow.uchicago.edu]

(Please pardon ITRANS mistakes, it is not something that I have ever had
the need to learn before).  I am currently doing work with the
Gau.dapada-kaarikaa and had a question re: the nature of the term
'kaarikaa'.  As I understand the term, it refers to verse form (of a
particular metre?).  I have been told that it maintains a status similar to
that of suutra (in a sense, a verse form of suutra).  I have been unable to
find any good scholarship that deals with such 'genre' terms.  My questions
are these:  Does kaarikaa refer to a type of text as well or just to the
verse form.  I am only aware of philosophical kaarikaas, though I have been
told that there are kaarikaas on poetics that are not 'philosophical'--
this was the other person's term.  If it is a verse form, is it just one
type of verse or does it include more than that?  Also, any Sanskrit
definitions of kaarikaa would be greatly welcome (please include the
citation if possible).

The reason that I ask these questions is that I am trying to come to terms
with the relationship of the Maa.n.duukya Upani.sad with the
Gau.dapada-kaarikaa, which strikes me as a unique and perplexing textual
situation since I am unaware of any other kaarikaa being self-consciously
written on another type of root text (.sruti, no less) which is also in
verse (meaning that they are often the object of commentaries, rather than
a sort of verse-form 'commentarial rewrite' in themselves).  I am aware of
the argument that says that the upani.sad was written later, but that does
not seem plausible given that .Samkara saw them as independent texts (and
it seems implausible he would have readily accepted the upani.sad as .sruti
in the course of one or two hundred years).

Any thoughts on these matters would be greatly appreciated.

-Steven


Steven E. Lindquist
University of Chicago