kaarikaa

[aklujkar at unixg.ubc.ca]

It seems fair to say, as Steven Lindquist himself states, that the nature
of his first inquiry regarding kaarikaa was not clear. Now that he has
clarified that he is interested in the designation of texts as kaarikaa,
the response given by Prof. Cardona applies. In other words, there is no
real problem.  A text consisting of kaarikaas can be called  '--kaarikaa'.
The plural and the singular make no significant difference in such
contexts. 

It is true only in a limited sense that the Saa.mkhya-kaarikaa is an
independent, non-commentarial text. The work itself declares that it is a
summary of the .Sa.s.ti-tantra.

Mr. Lindquist may be right in holding that the name Gau.da-paada-kaarikaa
is older than the name Aagama-;saastra. I have not studied the manuscript
evidence etc. on this particular point. However, I doubt that the latter
name comes into existence for the reason he suggests:  
        >The name appears to be an adaptation from the first prakarana of
the kArikA, after it had gained some authority (hence, Agama).< 
        A clarification of why I think so must await the finalization of a
long study I have in preparation on pre-; a.mkara monism. (Do'nt hold your
breath. I have many things in my plate to clear before I finalise this
study.) Unless certain larger issues associated with Gau.da-paada are
sorted out, the improbability of the above explanation will not be easy to
point out. I shall only state at this point that the reference of 'Aagama'
in  'Aagama-;saastra' is more likely to be the body of Brahmanical and
Buddhist Aagama literature, that is, the tradionally handed down knowledge
in the Vedas etc., the scriptures or canon (approximately speaking). The
Gau.da-paada-kaarikaas purport to give us the instruction (;saastra) based
on or derived from this literature. They constitute a comment or commentary
in that sense. 

Mr. Lindquist, entertaining the possibility of there being some significant
distinction ('text/genre : style/type of verse') implicit in the singular
and plural use, observes: 
        >'Samkhya kArikAs' - which this text is not called as far as I am
aware<
I would be surprised if at least some of the Saa.mkhya-kaarikaa
commentaries do not have sentences in which a dual or plural form of
kaarikaa is used and in which the composition intended cannot be anything
other than two verses or more than two verses of Ii;svara-k.r.s.na, that
is, a part of the work we call Saa.mkhya-kaarikaa. While usages such as
saa.mkhya-kaarikayo.h or saa.mkhya-kaarikaasu may not be found, usages such
as  kaarikayo.h or kaarikaasu, with Ii;svara-k.r.s.na's composition as
their unmistakable reference, are quite likely. 

ashok aklujkar
Professor, Dept. of Asian Studies, University of British Columbia,
Vancouver, B.C., Canada V6T 1Z2
ashok aklujkar
Professor, Dept. of Asian Studies, University of British Columbia,
Vancouver, B.C., Canada V6T 1Z2