Addendum to JAOS 119.1.

• Author: CARDONA, GEORGE

Interpretation and paraphrase of Vakyapadiya 2.7-8 clarified.

My paraphrase of Vakyapadiya 2.7-8 (JAOS 119: 98) requires an additional comment in view of the text cited in my note 58. The paraphrase given assumes the reading citrasyaikasvarupasya for VP 2.8a, which is as I first learned the text. Avoiding the assumption of an elliptical construction such that it is considered a qualifier of a supplied rupasya "color," citrasyaikasvarupasya is best interpreted as referring to a single picture that has one overall characteristic form, with a single overall color. Accordingly, the second part of the verse refers to the supposed component colors of such a picture. Although there is manuscript evidence for the reading with citrasyaikasvarupasya, however, citrasyaikasya rupasya has better support. Under this heading, 2.8a most straightforwardly refers to a single variegated color, and 2.8cd speak of the supposed components of a single variegated color. Punyaraja's commentary could be considered to refer to either of these under alternative readings. Bhartrhari speaks elsewhe re also of an image and its parts. In VP 1.53 (yathaikabuddhivisaya murtir akriyate pate \ murtyantarasya tritayam evam sabde 'pi drsyate) he likens three stages in speech to three stages of painting. For a painter, there is an image that is the object of a single cognition (ekabuddhivisaya murtih), though it is the image of another, external, form that was perceived in parts; the image is then set down on cloth in sequence. So also, one first perceives in parts speech which is uttered, then has a single cognition of a whole, then reconverts it to parts for purposes of communication. In VP 2.290 (yac ca nimnonnatam citre sarupam parvatadibhih \ na tatra pratighatadi karyam tadvat pravartate), Bhartrhari speaks...