kaarikaa

[vidya at cco.caltech.edu]

A few comments and questions relating to the recent discussion on kArikA - 

1. To my knowledge, the word kArikA, as applied to a whole text, seems to 
be applied only to the sAm.khya kArikAs and the gauDapAda kArikAs. Are there
other texts called kArikAs, that I am unaware of? 

2. The title Agama-Sastra seems to be preferred mainly by Vishusekhara 
Bhattacharya among modern authors. Almost everybody else refers to the 
work primarily as mANDUkya kArikAs or as gauDapAda (gauDapAdIya) kArikAs. 
Obviously, the manuscript evidence will have to be taken into account
to decide which name was preferred within the vedAnta schools. 

3. Both the sAm.khya kArikA and the gauDapAda kArikA seem to occupy a dual
position in terms of their nature as a commentary on an earlier text. The
first is supposed to be based on the shashTI tantra, as pointed out by prof.
Aklujkar, and the other is supposed to be based on the mANDUkya upanishad -
the controversy over whether the prose upanishad came before or later than 
the verse kArikAs aside. The advaita tradition itself views the upanishad
as Sruti, hence apaurusheya, and the kArikAs as the work(s) of a human
author(s).

However, although both these texts do not form commentaries on their root
texts, in the sense that a commentary is a "bhAshya" or a "dIpikA", they
seem to have played pivotal roles in the further developments of the schools
of sAm.khya and vedAnta. They could be called kArikAs in that they "fashioned"
in some sense, the systematic development of their respective schools. 

4. sureSvara's commentaries on Sankara's bhAshyas are most often known as
vArttikas. A vArttika is supposed to say what was left unsaid, to clarify
what was said ambiguously and to elaborate on what was already said by the 
earlier author. Interestingly, padmapAda's work, the pancapAdika, is not
called a vArttika. I am unaware of its being designated by any such generic
name. 

5. Finally, on "Agama-SAstra" - I interpreted Prof. Aklujkar's comments in 
a general sense. Thus, the "canonical" set of works of the Brahminical 
tradition would collectively be called Agama, of which the GK intends to
give the purport. Of course, the Brahmin schools would have excluded any
Buddhist texts from this canon. As far as the Buddhist traditions are 
concerned, by the time of the GK, the various sUtras and/or the Pali
works had already attained the status of "canon", and could be labelled 
Agama with some justification. The Brahmins's canon is "Agama" for the 
Brahmin, and the Buddhist's canon is "Agama" for the Buddhist. I didnt
think a cross-application of the two was intended in Prof. Aklujkar's remarks. 

5. Probably the simplest solution to this issue is analogous to the situation
with the word sUtras, to refer to the whole text and also to individual
sUtras within the text, the referent being made clear by the use of the singular
or plural number. 

S. Vidyasankar

ps. Exception to points 1 and 3 above. There is of course the mUla-madhyamaka
kArikAs, but are they supposed to be a comment on an earlier root text?