kaarikaa

[selindqu at rainbow.uchicago.edu]

>Some aspects of Steven E. Lindquist's inquiry of 18 Apr have been
>adequately addressed by the responses of Prof. Cardona and others.

While not attempting to be rude (I truly appreciated Cardona's, Thompson's,
and other's responses), none of my queries has be delt with 'adequately'.
Perhaps this, though, is because I want answers that are not there or
perhaps I did not make myself clear in my exact interest.

>very charming as they are, for example, in Bhaskaraacaarya's mathematica
>In the earlier ;saastra works, one almost invariably finds ;sloka employed
>for those compositions for which one may later use kaarikaa.

This, perhaps is a good example of where I am not making myself clear.
When I question the designation of 'kArikA', I am not speaking of broad
designation of verse (anustubh - which this text is in - or otherwise), I
am speaking of the clasification of the TEXT as a kArikA (such as the
Samkhya KArikA, which strikes me as different from 'Samkhya kArikAs' -
which this text is not called as far as I am aware - which would mean
'verses which are kArikAs, or verses in the form of kArikAs', rather than a
text which is a kArikA).  That is, I am speaking of 'kArikA' as a genre
distinction, rather than a style distinction.  It is possible that I am
viewing the question in the wrong way, but so far I, while I think this may
be the case, noone has pointed it out.  A text, being declared a kArikA, is
not solely made up of kArikAs, but rather it seems to declare a TYPE of
text.  For example, those texts designated as kArikAs, are root texts that
are commented upon and are not comments upon other texts.  kArikA form
(style, i.e. verse)  is of course used....

>The title Gau.da-paada kaarikaa must have come into existence at a date
>later than the title Aagama-;saastra.

Colophons of manuscripts as well as Vedantic commentaries seem to indicate
exactly the opposite.  The name appears to be an adaptation from the first
prakarana of the kArikA, after it had gained some authority (hence, Agama).

>This is not as rare a phenomenon as it might seem. Sure;svara wrote
>kaarikaas on important sections of ; a.mkara's bhaa;syas on the
>B.rhadaara.nyaka and Taittiriiya Upani;sads. There are also works
>commenting on the Nirukta and the A.s.taadhyaayii or their v.rttis in verse
>form. Early vaartttikas seem to consist of what we would now call
>kaarikaas.

But were they called kArikAs in their circulation?  I ask this out of
ignorance, not out of argumentality.  As far as I know, this is true only
as a stile.  Again, I am speaking of a type of text, rather than a style of
textual writing.

I apologize if I am sounding contentious.  It is more so out of a
discontent that I did not make my initial query as clear as I could have.
I truly do appreciate all of these responses because they help me to
formalize, systematize, etc. my own thoughts, as well as to absorb others.

Steve

--
Steven Lindquist
University of Chicago
--