kaarikaa

[cardona at unagi.cis.upenn.edu]

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

>--
 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.

Compare the use of sUtra as discussed in the PaspazA by Patanjali: one can
say vyAkaraNasya sUtram, but 'sUtra' can also refer to the entire
aSTAdhyAyI, so that 'vyAkaraNa' and 'sUtra' do not designate distinct
entities.  See PANini his work and its traditions, vol. I, section 850.
Similarly, kArikA can refer to a set of kArikAs.