The Sutrapath of the Pashupata Sutras - Peter Bisschop


of 21
The Sutrapath of the Pashupata Sutras - Peter Bisschop
The S¯trap¯tha of the P¯´upatas¯tra u a. as u Peter Bisschop∗ In 1943 Chintaharan Chakravarti published a short notice about variant readings of the P¯´upatas¯tra in a manuscript of the Pa˜c¯rthabh¯sya in the as u n a a. collection of the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal, Calcutta. The edition of the P¯´upatas¯tra with Kaundinya’s Pa˜c¯rthabh¯sya had been published as u n a a. .. three years earlier in the Trivandrum Sanskrit Series (No. CXLIII) on the basis of a single manuscript discovered in Benares — now in the collection of the University of Kerala Library (Trivandrum) —, with a missing portion supplied from the Calcutta manuscript.1 Chakravarti fails to mention that the variants he lists are not the readings of the P¯´upatas¯tra as they as u are quoted in the text of the Bh¯sya, but the readings of the S¯trap¯tha a. u a. preceding the text of the Bh¯sya proper. In fact this S¯trap¯tha is also a. u a. preserved in the manuscript on which the Trivandrum edition is based, and a number of the variants recorded by Chakravarti are found in this manuscript’s S¯trap¯tha as well. A closer look at the S¯trap¯tha suggests a u a. u a. relatively separate transmission alongside the Bh¯sya. In the present paper a. an edition of this S¯trap¯tha of the P¯´upatas¯tra is presented on the basis u a. as u of the two mentioned manuscripts and a newly identified manuscript from the Sarasvat¯ ıbhavana Library in Benares.2 The text of the S¯trap¯tha is fairly consistent in all three manuscripts, u a. with a number of noteworthy readings not present in Kaundinya’s text. This .. consistency also concerns the placement of dandas, which I regard as an in.. trinsic feature of the transmission of the S¯trap¯tha. It will be observed that u a. in a number of cases the division of the S¯tras in the S¯trap¯tha, which is u u a. Research for this article was made possible by a TALENT-grant from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO). I would like to thank Arlo Griffiths and Harunaga Isaacson for their comments upon an earlier version of this paper. 1 Cf. Sastri’s remark on p. 19 of the introduction to the edition: “When this discovery was announced as usual to scholars, Dr. T.R. Chintamani m, a., ph. d., of the Madras University who was then in Calcutta saw an independent manuscript with 1 to 13 pages only containing 21 S¯tras of the first adhy¯ya and Bh¯shya which covers in this printed u a a edition 42 pages last but one line, in the Asiatic Society of Bengal Library. On substituting pages 8 to 13 from the above by copying I found that pages 27 and 28 are still wanting. The missing pages might contain some important portion, say about Vidyesvara etc., which go to make the system a perfect one.” The text of the missing pages 27 and 28 in the Trivandrum MS is preserved in a so far unnoticed manuscript from Benares (on which see below). For an edition and translation of this previously unavailable passage, see Bisschop forthc. b. 2 This manuscript (MS 86122) was first brought to my attention by Dominic Goodall. Dr S.A.S. Sarma (EFEO, Pondicherry) kindly provided me with a copy of this manuscript. ∗ 1 different from that given in Kaundinya’s Bh¯sya, makes good sense. A strika. .. ing difference with Kaundinya’s text of the S¯tra concerns the five Brahmau .. mantras which conclude each of the five Adhy¯yas into which the S¯tra a u and Bh¯sya are divided. On the whole it is conspicuous that Kaundinya’s a. .. version of the Brahma-mantras shows more metrical features,3 while the S¯trap¯tha’s version tends to be closer to the version of these Mantras in u a. Taittir¯ aranyaka 10 (= Mah¯n¯r¯yana-Upanisad). This may be due to ıy¯ . a aa . . later rewriting of the S¯tras by transmitters who were familiar with these u Brahma-mantras. It need not necessarily reflect the original S¯tra reading. u It is my general impression that the S¯trap¯tha was at one time extracted u a. from the Bh¯sya (cf. e.g. the annotation on 1.30 and 5.24 below).4 On the a. other hand the present study also shows the arbitrary division of the S¯tras u as we now have them. It seems likely that Kaundinya had before him a .. string of originally larger S¯tras,5 which he broke up into smaller segments u in order to comment upon them. It is these quotations of segments which we have come to refer to as the S¯tras.6 u At the outset a peculiarity in the presentation of the S¯trap¯tha in the u a. Benares manuscript should be noted. While the two other manuscripts quote the entire S¯trap¯tha at the beginning of the text — with a division u a. into five parts indicated by short spaces — the Benares manuscript integrates the S¯trap¯tha into the text of each Adhy¯ya of the Bh¯sya. u a. a a. Thus at the spot where Kaundinya would quote the first S¯tra of an u .. Adhy¯ya in the other two manuscripts, the Benares manuscript quotes the a relevant S¯trap¯tha of that Adhy¯ya. u a. a The following abbreviations are used in the apparatus and notes to the edition of the S¯trap¯tha: u a. 3 I am not sure what to make of this. Does this indicate that Kaundinya’s version is .. more original or is it the result of a ‘normalizing tendency,’ as Goudriaan and Hooykaas argue with respect to the likewise more metrical version of these Brahma-mantras in Stuti and Stava 360, Brahma-stava (Goudriaan & Hooykaas 1971: 225–227)? The Balinese version of these five Brahma-mantras is closer to Kaundinya’s version in several respects: .. cf. the annotation on 1.34 and 2.14 below. 4 Cf., however, also 5.11, which suggests a different scenario. 5 For indications that Kaundinya had access to more than one version of the S¯tras, u .. cf. Hara 2002: 271. 6 In a number of cases the division as we now have it is actually not that of the manuscripts but Sastri’s: cf. the annotation on 1.22, 2.5, 2.9, 4.14, 5.1, 5.20, 5.24 and 5.26 below. From these and other silent changes made to the text by Sastri, some of which are noted in the present paper, it will be clear that a critical edition of the Pa˜c¯rthabh¯sya n a a. is called for. Cf. also Bisschop forthc. a and b. 2 B Benares, Sarasvat¯ Bhavana Library, MS 86112. Paper, Devan¯gar¯ ı a ı script. Folios 1–76; complete; double sided; 8–11 lines a page.7 C Calcutta, Asiatic Society, MS IM-5474. Paper, Devan¯gar¯ script. 13 a ı folios; incomplete; double sided; 12–15 lines a page. Comes with four folios from an unidentified Alamk¯ra´¯stra work.8 . a sa K S¯tra as quoted by Kaundinya in the Bh¯sya. u a. .. T Trivandrum, University of Kerala Library, MS 2018. Paper, Devan¯gar¯ script.9 Folios 1–87 (nos. 1, 8–13, 27, 28 missing); a ı double-sided; 9–10 lines a page. The text for the missing folios 1 and 8–13 is preserved on folios numbered 1–11 in a different hand and written on more recent paper. This may be the handwriting of the editor of the Pa˜c¯rthabh¯sya, who copied this part of the MS from n a a. the Calcutta MS (cf. n. 1 above). Alternatively someone else may have copied it for Sastri from the Calcutta MS. In any case I consider these eleven folios to be an apograph of part of the Calcutta MS. Orthographical variants in the MSS are not reported. A few common variants are: 1) m for m at the end of a S¯tra; 2) absence of avagraha; u . 3) doubling of t after a preceding r. The above variants are shared by all three MSS, which may indicate their close relationship. B starts with ´r¯ . e´¯ya namah, C with om ´r¯ mah¯ganapataye namah, and T with s ıgan sa a . . . s ı . harih ganapataye namah. The edition and apparatus below only refer to the . . . reading of the S¯trap¯tha. Note that the numbering does not correspond u a. with the S¯tra numbering in the existing edition of Kaundinya’s Bh¯sya. u a. .. References to Kaundinya’s numbering in the notes are preceded by a K. .. If not stated otherwise K has the adopted reading. In case there is a difference between Sastri’s edition of the Bh¯sya and what T or the other a. manuscripts actually have, this is reported in the notes and the siglum K is in general avoided. In such cases ‘Sastri’ refers to the reading of the S¯tra u in Sastri’s edition. I have refrained from recording all the variants of the Bh¯sya readings in B, because they are full of scribal errors and they do a. not help in reconstructing the reading of the S¯trap¯tha. In general one u a. Cf. A Descriptive Catalogue of the Sanskrit Manuscripts. Acquired for and Deposited in the Sampurnanand Sanskrit University (Sarasvati-Bhavana) Library Varanasi during the years 1951–1981. Vol. VI, part II. Tantra Manuscripts. Varanasi 1991, p. 84. 8 I am grateful to Dr Abhijit Ghosh for providing me with a copy of the Calcutta manuscript. 9 A copy of this manuscript was provided to me by Dr Dominic Goodall and Dr S.A.S. Sarma. 7 3 gets the impression that the text of the S¯trap¯tha is better preserved in u a. this manuscript than the text of the Bh¯sya’s S¯tras. a. u Edition 1.1 ath¯tah pa´upateh p¯´upatam yogavidhim vy¯khy¯sy¯mah | a . s a a a . . as . . p¯´upatam yogavidhim ] B Tpc , p¯´upatayogavidhim C Tac . as as . . . K reads p¯´upatam yogavidhim with B and Tpc . as The variant reading of . . C and Tac also occurs in the Bh¯sya in B (f. 2r, ll. 5–6) and in the Sara. vadar´anasamgraha (p. 162, ll. 1–2): tatredam ¯dis¯tram—ath¯tah pa´upateh s a u a . s . . p¯´upatayogavidhim vy¯khy¯sy¯ma iti | . as a a a . Note in this connection also the compound p¯´upatayogavidh¯nam in RT p. 21, l. 19. as a . 1.2 bhasman¯ trisavanam sn¯y¯ | a . a ıta . . trisavanam ] Bpc C T, ´isavanam Bac • sn¯y¯ ] C T, sn¯y¯ B. s. a ıta a ıt . . . . . Chakravarti erronously transcribes C as reading sn¯y¯t. a a 1.3 bhasmani ´ay¯ | s ıta ´ay¯ ] C T, ´ay¯ B. s ıta s ıt 1.4 anusn¯nam | a T connects this S¯tra with the next one (i.e. by omitting the danda). u .. 1.5 nirm¯lyam | a For testimonia for this and/or the following S¯tras, cf. the annotation to 1.8 and u 1.9. 1.6 lingadh¯r¯ | ˙ aı 1.7 ¯yatanav¯s¯ | a aı 1.8 hasitag¯ . tyahudumk¯ranamask¯rajapyopah¯renopatisthet | ıtanr a a . . . a .. ◦ nrtyahudumk¯ranamask¯ra◦ ] B C, ◦ nrttadumdumk¯ranamask¯ra◦ Tpc , ◦ nrttaa a . . . a . . . . . a . dumdumk¯ra◦ Tac . a . . . . Chakravarti erronously transcribes C as reading ◦ huhumk¯ra ◦ . C connects this . a S¯tra with the following one. K agrees with the reading of Tpc . However, external u evidence suggests that B and C’s hudumk¯ra ◦ reflects the original reading. . . a Sanderson (2002: 30, n. 32) has argued that the intended vocalization must be huddun. Cf. also Ratnat¯ a p. 19, ll. 4–6 tad evam nirvartyopah¯ram dhy¯yann a . a .. ˙ . ık¯ . ◦ ¯sam hasitag¯ . tyahudukk¯ranamask¯rajapyaih . adangopah¯ram, Ni´v¯samukha ı´ . ıtanr a a a . s a . . s . ˙ f. 5v , l. 4 hudukk¯rasya nrtyasya mukhav¯dy¯.. ah¯sayoh | trisk¯lam caiva kurv¯no a a att a a. . . . . a . bhaved gana[h] sa cottamah , and Ni´v¯samukha f. 17r , l. 3 lingasy¯yatane s a ˙ a . . . v¯so huddunk¯rastavais tath¯ | g¯ . tyanamask¯rair brahmabhir japasamyutah . a a ıtanr a .. ˙ a . . 4 ◦ nrtyahudumk¯ra ◦ is also the reading of B (f. 10v, ll. 3–4.) and C (f. 6r, l. 14) in the . . . a quotation of the S¯tra in the Bh¯sya. Instead of ◦ namask¯rajapyopah¯renopatis. het u a. a a . .t B wrongly reads ◦ namask¯ram tathopah¯rena upatis. het there. a . a . .t 1.9 mah¯devasya daksin¯m¯rtim | a . .a u daksin¯m¯rtim ] B C, daksin¯m¯rteh T. . .a u . .a u . Sastri agrees with T. The accusative daksin¯m¯rtim also occurs in the Bh¯sya’s a. . .a u quotation of this S¯tra in B (f. 11v, l. 2) and C (f. 6v, l. 11) and at the end of the u commentary on this S¯tra in B (f. 23v, l. 1) and C (f. 11v, l. 5). Although this u may be considered to be the lectio facilior — as has been argued in Bisschop & Griffiths 2003 (p. 327, n. 61) — the accusative is supported by two external sources: T¯ ırthavivecanak¯nda p. 106, ll. 15–17 linganirm¯lyadh¯r¯ ca yatih sv¯yatane vaset | a. . ˙ a a ı . a upag¯ ıtahudumk¯rastutikrtyaparah sad¯ | bh¯van¯d devadevasya daksin¯m m¯rtim a a a a u . . . . . .a. a ¯sthitah | and Ni´v¯samukha f. 17r , l. 3 ekav¯so hy av¯so v¯ daksin¯m¯rtim ¯´ritah. s a a a a as . . .a u . Moreover, the reading of this S¯tra in the S¯trap¯tha and Bh¯sya in T may very well u u a. a. be the editor’s own handwriting (see introduction above), while the final reference to this S¯tra at the end of the commentary on K 1.9, for which the original Trivandrum u MS is available again, in fact has daksin¯m¯rt[t]im as well. A second hand appears . .a u to have tried to correct it to daksin¯m¯rtteh (T f. 23r, l. 8). The evidence for the . .a u . reading adopted by Sastri is thus rather weak indeed. 1.10 ekav¯s¯h | a a. ekav¯s¯h ] T, ekav¯s¯ B C. a a. a a K agrees with T. 1.11 av¯s¯ v¯ | aa a 1.12 m¯trapur¯. am n¯vekset | u ıs . a . This and the following S¯tra are reminiscent of BaudhDhS 3.8.17 str¯sudrair u ı´¯ n¯bhibh¯. eta m¯trapur¯. e n¯vekseta. a as u ıs a . 1.13 str¯sudram n¯bhibh¯set | ı´¯ a. . a For parallels to this S¯tra, see Bisschop & Griffiths 2003: 338, n. 121. u 1.14 yady aveksed yady abhibh¯set | a. . 1.15 upaspr´ya | .s C reads this S¯tra together with 1.16, while B takes 1.15–17 together. u 1.16 pr¯n¯y¯mam krtv¯ | a.a a . . a 1.17 raudr¯ . g¯yatr¯ . bahur¯p¯ . v¯ japet | ım a ım u ım a 5 1.18 akalusamate´ caratas tato ’sya yogah pravartate | s . . tato ’sya ] B Cpc T, tasyato Cac (‘2’ above ‘sya’; ‘1’ above ‘to’). K divides akalusamateh | caratah | tato ’sya yogah pravartate | (K 1.18–20). . . . . 1.19 d¯r¯d dar´ana´ravanamananavij˜¯n¯ni c¯sya pravartante | ua s s na a a . Instead of d¯r¯d dar´ana ◦ K has d¯radar´ana ◦ . This S¯trap¯tha variant is not u a s u s u a. reported by Sastri or Chakravarti. For the ablative construction, cf. Ni´v¯sam¯la s a u f. 22v , l. 4 d¯r¯c chravanavij˜¯nam mananam tath¯, and Yogabh¯sya ad Yogas¯tra u a na . a a. u . . 2.43 tathendriyasiddhir d¯r¯c chravanadar´an¯dyeti. After this S¯tra C is not availu a s a u . able for the text of the Bh¯sya anymore. a. 1.20 sarvaj˜at¯ | n a B connects this S¯tra with the following. u 1.21 manojavitvam | 1.22 k¯mar¯pitvam vikaranadharmitvam ca | a u . . . Sastri has k¯mar¯pitvam | vikaranah | dharmitvam ca | (K 1.25–26). a u . . . However, T (f. 17v, ll. 3–4) in fact reads yasm¯d ¯ha vikaraneti in the Bh¯sya, indicating that a a a. . Kaundinya commented upon the first member of a compound? The compound .. vikaranadharmitva is supported by PBh p. 50, l. 10 and l. 18, and RT p. 10, ll. 4–5; . . cf. also Schultz 1958: 133 and Hara 2002: 256. T punctuates after k¯mar¯pitvam a u . (in agreement with K). The three kriy¯´aktis listed in 1.21–22 are also found in a verse transmitted as in the Old Javanese J˜¯nasiddh¯nta (J˜¯Si 9.11.5), with vikaranadharmitva na a na . changed to avik¯radharmitva: yugapad manojavitvam k¯mar¯pitvam eva ca | a u . a avik¯radharmitvam tu tri´akty etad ucyate (hypometr.); cf. also the enumeration a s . of five j˜¯na´aktis and three kriy¯´aktis at the end of chapter 9 of the same na s as work (p. 134, ll. 8–12): Pa˜ca´akti naranya: yugapat dar´ana, yugapat ´ravanam, n s ˙ s s yugapat mananam, yugapat vij˜¯nam, mah¯sarvaj˜at¯. Nahan ta n pa˜ca´akti na a n a ˙ n s na. ˙ Tri´akti na: s ˙ yugapat manojavitvam, yugapat k¯mar¯pitvam, yugapat a u avik¯radharmitvan. Nahan ta n tri´akti na. Yogas¯tra 3.48 has a different list: a ˙ s ˙ u tato manojavitvam vikaranabh¯vah pradh¯najaya´ ca. a . a s . . 1.23 sarve c¯sya va´y¯ bhavanti | a s a 1.24 sarves¯m c¯va´yo bhavati | .a . a s c¯va´yo ] Bpc C T, c¯va dhyo ´yo B. a s a s As can be deduced from Sastri’s note on p. 46, this S¯tra is absent in T in the u Bh¯sya. The preceding and following commentary are Sastri’s own reconstruction. a. The commentary is also lacking in B. 6 1.25 sarv¯m´ c¯vi´ati | a.s a s 1.26 sarves¯m c¯n¯ve´yo bhavati | .a . a a s c¯n¯ve´yo ] B C, ca n¯ve´yo T. a a s a s K agrees with B and C. 1.27 sarve c¯sya vadhy¯ bhavanti | a a 1.28 sarves¯m c¯vadhyo bhavati | .a . a 1.29 abh¯ ’ksayo ’jaro ’marah sarvatra c¯pratihatagatir bhavati | ıto . a . Sastri divides this into five separate S¯tras: u abh¯ . | aksayah | ajarah | ıtah . . . amarah | sarvatra c¯pratihatagatir bhavati | (K 1.33–37). The Bh¯sya upon the a a. . words sarvatra up to atredam brahma japet (1.31) was previously unavailable . due to loss of two folios (33–34) in T: it is, however, preserved in the Benares manuscript (see n. 1 above). 1.30 ity etair †ebhir† gunair yukto bhagavato mah¯devasya mah¯ganapatir a a . . bhavati | Sastri omits the redundant ebhir in the edition. ebhir is absent in the Bh¯sya’s a. quotation of the S¯tra in B; in fact ebhih is Kaundinya’s gloss of etaih: etair u . .. . ebhir ity anukr¯ntaih p¯rvoktair d¯radar´an¯dyair vikaran¯ntaih na dosair asara u s a . u .a . . vaj˜atv¯dibhir ity arthah (f. 34r, l. 1). This suggests that the S¯trap¯tha was at n a u a. . one time extracted from the commentary. This S¯tra (= K 1.38) is quoted and comu mented upon in four segments in the Bh¯sya only preserved in B: ity etair gunair a. . yuktah | *bhagavatah (em.; bhagavat¯. B) | mah¯devasya | mah¯ganapatir bhavati | . ıh a a . . . It seems to be referred to in Paramoksanir¯sak¯rik¯ 3a (mah¯gano mahe´asya), dea a a a . s . scribing the goal of yogimahe´var¯h (= m¯he´varayoginah?). s a. a s . 1.31 atredam brahma japet | . This S¯tra reads slightly differently in the Bh¯sya preserved in B: atra cedam u a. . brahma japet. The ca is original, for Kaundinya comments upon it: ca´abdah s .. . *sab¯hy¯bhyantarakriy¯samuccay¯rtho (em.; sab¯hyo bhyamtara ◦ B) dras. avyah a a a a a . .t . (f. 34v, l. 10). 1.32 sadyoj¯tam prapady¯mi sadyoj¯t¯ya vai namah | a . a aa . sadyoj¯tam ] Bpc C T, pratihata sadyoj¯tam B • namah ] B, namo namah C T. a . a . . . The single namah (metrical!) in B is also the reading of the S¯tra in K, who divides u . sadyoj¯tam prapady¯mi | sadyoj¯t¯ya vai namah | (K 1.40–41). Thus also Stuti and a . a aa . Stava 360 (Goudriaan & Hooykaas 1971: 225–227). For the Brahma-mantra in 1.32–1.34, cf. Taittir¯ aranyaka 10.43 (≈ Mah¯n¯r¯yana-Upanisad 277–278). ıy¯ . a a a . . 7 1.33 bhave bhave n¯tibhave bhavasva m¯m | a a n¯tibhave ] B C, (n¯)tibhave T. a a B connects this S¯tra with the following. u n¯tibhave | bhajasva m¯m | (K 1.42–44). a a Sastri reads bhave bhave However, B (f. 36r, l. 3) and T (f. 36r, l. 5) in fact omit n¯tibhave in the Bh¯sya quotation. The S¯trap¯tha a a. u a. reading bhavasva agrees with the Taittir¯ aranyaka version of this Brahma-mantra ıy¯ . ¯ (TA 10.43), while K’s bhajasva is found in the Mah¯n¯r¯yana-Upanisad (MN¯Up a a a . a . ¯ 278) and is recorded as a variant reading to TA 10.43 as well. After the first bhave T starts on a new folio in the original hand. Consequently, for the next S¯tras I u have given more weight to the readings of T. 1.34 bhavodbhav¯ya namah | a . K has bhavodbhavah | (K 1.44) instead and thus constitutes a regular ´loka (1.32– s . ¯ 10.43 agrees with the reading of the S¯trap¯tha. Stuti and Stava 360 34). TA u a. (Goudriaan & Hooykaas 1971: 225–227) corresponds to K’s version, except that it has a vocative bhavodbhava. 2.1 v¯madevasya jyesthasya ´resthasya rudrasya kalit¯sanam | a s .. a .. v¯madevasya ] B C, v¯madeva ˘ T • kalit¯sanam ] B Cpc T, kalit¯s¯nam Cac . a a a a a . Sastri reads differently: v¯mah | devasya | jyes. hasya | rudrasya | kalit¯sanam | (K a . a .t ´ 2.1–4). The reading of K constitutes a metrical hemistich of a Sloka. This may indicate that ´res. hasya in the S¯trap¯tha is not original, but influenced by the s .t u a. Taittir¯ aranyaka Brahma-mantra (cf. 2.14). The text of the Bh¯sya for K 2.1 is ıy¯ . a. not secure: in T v¯madeveti is written in the margin in a different hand, but these a words are inserted at the wrong place in the text in the manuscript, namely after the vo in bhavodbhava (PBh p. 56, l. 2). At the end of the commentary on this S¯tra, after iti, in the edition on p. 56, l. 7, the MS adds v¯mah (not reported by u a . Sastri). Instead of rudrasya (PBh p. 57, l. 11), B (f. 37r, l. 10) and T (f. 37v, l. 5) have rudra, although it is clear from the commentary (PBh p. 57, l. 17: atr¯pi a taddharmitve . as. h¯ that the genitive is original. s . t ı) 2.2 sarvak¯mika ity ¯caksate | a a . Instead of sarvak¯mika Sastri has s¯rvak¯mika (K 2.6), but this is the editor’s silent a a a emendation. 2.3 amangalam c¯tra mangalam bhavati | ˙ ˙ . a . 2.4 apasavyam ca pradaksinam | . . . apasavyam ] B C, ˘ ˘ savyam T. . . 2.5 tasm¯d ubhayath¯ yastavyo devavat pitrvac ca | a a .. . Sastri divides tasm¯d ubhayath¯ yas. avyah | devavat pitrvac ca | (K 2.9–10). This is a a .t . . 8 the editor’s divison: tasm¯d (B f. 38v, l. 10; T f. 41r, l. 4) and ubhayath¯ yas. avyah a a .t . (B f. 49r, ll. 2–3; T f. 41r, ll. 7–8) are commented upon separately in T as well. 2.6 ubhaye tu rudre dev¯h pitara´ ca | a. s Instead of ubhaye K has ubhayam. . 2.7 hars¯pram¯d¯ | a ı .a 2.8 cary¯y¯m cary¯y¯m m¯h¯tmyam av¯pnoti | a a. a a. a a a K starts a new S¯tra after the second cary¯y¯m (K 2.13–14). u a a 2.9 atidattam atig¯dham | u. Instead of atig¯dham K has at¯. . am (K 2.15). Contrary to what Sastri suggests, T u. ıst (and B) read this S¯tra together with the next one (T f. 44v, ll. 3–4). Instead of u the short i in atig¯dham we need a long ¯ (as transmitted in at¯. . am) to retrieve u. ı ıst ´ the underlying Sloka in 2.9–12. Probably atig¯dham — the lectio facilior — is not u. original. It seems more likely that a relative yat after K’s at¯. . am has dropped out. ıst 2.10 atitaptam tapas tath¯ | a . atitaptam ] C T, atitapta◦ B • tapas ] B C, (ta)pas T. . 2.11 aty¯gatim gamayate | a . Na-vipul¯. aty¯gatim instead of the more common atigatim is presumably metri a a . . causa. 2.12 tasm¯d bh¯yas tapa´ caret | a u s K divides tasm¯t | bh¯yas tapa´ caret | (K 2.18–19). a u s 2.12 n¯nyabhaktis tu ´amkare | a s . 2.13 atredam brahma japet | . 2.14 v¯madev¯ya namo jyesth¯ya namah ´resth¯ya namo rudr¯ya namah a a a .. a . s .. a . k¯l¯ya namah kalavikaran¯ya namo balavikaran¯ya namo bal¯ya aa a a a . . . namo balapramathan¯ya namah sarvabh¯tadaman¯ya namo manona u a . man¯ya namah | a . v¯madev¯ya ] B C, v¯(ma)dev¯ya T • ´resth¯ya namo ] C T, ´resth¯ya namo a a a a s .. a s .. a balapramathan¯ya nama B • kalavikaran¯ya ] B C, kala ˘ (ka)ran¯ya T • namo a .a .a manonman¯ya namah ] B C, +na+(mo) manonma[. . .] T. a . Sastri reads and separates quite differently: v¯madev¯ya namo jyes. h¯ya a a .t a namo rudr¯ya namah | k¯l¯ya namah | kalavikaran¯ya namah | balapramathan¯ya a a . aa . .a . namah | sarvabh¯tadaman¯ya namah | mano’man¯ya namah | (K 2.22–27). Note u a a . . . that this is the second time that K omits the word ´res. ha (cf. the annotation s .t 9 on 2.1). Taittir¯ aranyaka 10.44 has ´res. h¯ya namah, but lacks bal¯ya namah, ıy¯ . s .t a a . . this in agreement with K. The Mah¯n¯r¯yana-Upanisad recension, however, has a a a . . ´res. h¯ya namah as well as bal¯ya namah, but reads the latter invocation before s .t a a . . balavikaran¯ya namah (MN¯Up 280). Stuti and Stava 360, finally, is again closer a .a . to K, in that it omits both ´res. h¯ya namah and balavikaran¯ya namah, although s .t a . .a . it includes bal¯ya namah. According to Goudriaan & Hooykaas (1971: 225) “[t]he a . ´ words ´res. h¯ya namah are omitted also in Indian Sivaite manuals.” The last S¯tra s .t a u . (K 2.27) is a silent conjecture by the editor: T (and B) reads yan manonman¯ya a namah (f. 47r, l. 8). On the other hand, Kaundinya indeed seems to comment . .. upon mano’man¯ya in the commentary (PBh p. 77, l. 2 = T 47v, ll. 5–6). On a f. 66r, l. 10, however, where Kaundinya refers to this mantra, T reads manonmana .. and not mano’mana as Sastri has it (p. 109, l. 19); also on f. 68r, l. 7 (= p. 113, l. 15). 3.1 avyaktaling¯ vyakt¯c¯rah | ˙ ı a a . vyakt¯c¯rah ] B, avyakt¯c¯rah C T. a a . a a . The reading of B is also the reading of K: avyaktaling¯ | vyakt¯c¯rah | (K 3.1–2). For ˙ ı a a . the significant variant in C and T, cf. V¯sisthadharma´¯stra 10.18 (avyaktalingo a .. sa ˙ ’vyakt¯c¯rah). Note also the next line of the same text: anunmatta unmattavesah a a . . . ´ (V¯sDhS 10.19). This is related to a passage in the J¯b¯la-Upanisad (quoted in a a a . Oberlies 2000: 175): avyaktaling¯ avyakt¯c¯r¯ anunmatt¯ unmattavad ¯carantah. ˙ a a a a a a . Instead of avyaktaling¯ iti (PBh p. 78, ll. 1–2), T (f. 50r, l. 4) and B (f. 43v, ˙ ı l. 8) in fact have avyaktalingeti, suggesting that K comments upon a compound ˙ avyaktalingavyakt¯c¯rah. ˙ a a . 3.2 avamatah sarvabh¯tesu | u . . B reads this together with the following S¯tra. Kaundinya comments upon two u .. separate S¯tras (K 3.3–4). u 3.3 paribh¯yam¯na´ caret | u a s 3.4 apahatap¯pm¯ pares¯m pariv¯d¯t | a a a a .a . apahatap¯pm¯ pares¯m pariv¯d¯t ] B C, apa(ha)ta [. . .] riv¯d¯t T. a a a a a a .a . T drops the t (in pariv¯d¯t) in the Bh¯sya quotation of this S¯tra (f. 51v, l. 6), a a a. u while B (f. 47r, l. 1) reads pariv¯d¯sta (sic). a a 3.5 p¯pam ca tebhyo dad¯ti | a . a 3.6 sukrtam ca tes¯m ¯datte | . . .a a sukrtam ] B T, sukrta C (anusv¯ra possibly lost due to damage). a . . . 10 3.7 tasm¯t pretavac caret | a K divides after tasm¯t (K 3.10–11). Oberlies (2000: 178) has pointed out the para allel to this and the following S¯tras in Taittir¯ u ıyabr¯hmana II 3.9.9: t´sm¯d ev´m a a a a. . ´ vidv ¯ n v ´ va nrtyet | pr´va calet | vy´syev¯ksy`u bh¯. eta | man. ´yed iva kr¯th´yed a ¯ ı e a a . a as a a . . ta ´ ´ ´ iva ´rng ¯ yeteva | ut´ m´pavadeyuh ut´ p¯pm ¯ nam ´pahanyur ¯ ti. s. ˙ a a o a a a a ı . 3.8 kr¯theta v¯ | a a kr¯theta v¯ ] B C T, last two syllables damaged in T. a a 3.9 spandeta v¯ | a spandeta v¯ ] B C, spam [. . .] T. a . 3.10 manteta v¯ | a .. manteta ] em., madeta B, matheta Cac , mateta Cpc (anusv¯ra above ‘ma’ possibly a .. . . lost due to damage); ill. T. K has man. eta. .t 3.11 ´rng¯reta v¯ | s. ˙ a a 3.12 apitatkury¯t | a 3.13 apitadbh¯set | a. 3.14 yena parebhyah paribhavam gacchet | . . K omits parebhyah (K 3.18). Note that K alone shows metrical features. . 3.15 paribh¯yam¯no hi vidv¯n krtsnatap¯ bhavati | u a a . a paribh¯yam¯no hi vidv¯n ] B C, paribh¯ya [. . .] T. u a a u 3.16 atredam brahma japet | . 3.17 aghorebhyo ’tha ghorebhyo ghoraghoratarebhyah | . ghoraghoratarebhyah ] C T, ghoratarebhyah B. . . Sastri reads and divides differently: aghorebhyah | atha ghorebhyah | ghoraghorata. . rebhya´ ca | (K 3.21–23). However, ca is a silent addition by the editor, presums ably because Kaundinya comments upon it. As noted by Bisschop & Griffiths .. (2003: 332, n. 89) there is considerable variation of reading and accentuation of this mantra in Vedic and other sources; ca is absent in the version of this mantra in Taittir¯ aranyaka 10.45, but it is present in Maitr¯yan¯ . hit¯ 2.9.10:130.1–2. ıy¯ . a . ısam a 3.18 sarvebhyah sarva´arvebhyo namas te astu rudrar¯pebhyah | s u . . sarvebhyah sarva´arvebhyo ] B C, sa [. . .] ´arvebhyo T. s s . Sastri reads and divides differently: sarvebhyah | ´arva sarvebhyah | namas te astu . s . ¯ rudrar¯pebhyah | (K 3.24–26), which is closer to the reading of TA 10.45, except u . 11 ¯ that TA 10.45 has sarvatah instead of the first sarvebhyah. However, sarvatah is . . . actually the reading of B (f. 59v, l. 4) and T (f. 56r, l. 9): the editor has silently emended the S¯tra. Sastri does not report K 3.26 correctly either: Kaundinya u .. comments separately upon namas te ’stu (T f. 56v, ll. 4–5) and rudrar¯pebhya[h] u . (T f. 56v, ll. 6–7): the editor has left out rudrar¯pebhyah before Kaundinya’s remark u . .. atra rudra iti k¯ran¯pade´e | (PBh p. 91, l. 10). a .a s 4.1 g¯dhavidy¯ taponanty¯ya prak¯´ate | u. a a as g¯dhavidy¯ taponanty¯ya ] B Cpc T, g¯dhavidy¯ya taponity¯ya Cac . u. a a u. a a Sastri transcribes tapa ¯nanty¯ya instead of taponanty¯ya, but B (f. 50v, l. 5) and a a a T (f. 57r, l. 6) read taponanty¯ya in the Bh¯sya’s quotation of the S¯tra. Moreover, a a. u instead of prak¯´ate both MSS have prak¯´yate. Note that Kaundinya considers as as .. tapo ’nanty¯ya as a variant reading in his commentary on K 4.1 (p. 92, l. 16). a 4.2 g¯dhavrato g¯dhapavitrav¯nih | u. u. a. . g¯dhapavitrav¯nih ] B C, g¯dhapavi [. . .] h T. u. a. . u. . 4.2 and 4.3 together constitute a hemistich of an Indravajr¯. a g¯dhavratah | g¯dhapavitrav¯nih | (K 4.2–3). u. a. . . u. K divides 4.3 sarv¯ni dv¯r¯ni pidh¯ya buddhy¯ | a. a a. a a K divides sarv¯ni dv¯r¯ni pidh¯ya | buddhy¯ | (K 4.4–5). The words of this S¯tra a. a a. a a u have a parallel in pr¯nay¯ma descriptions. Cf. e.g. pidh¯ya buddhy¯ dv¯r¯ni a. ¯ a a a a a. in V¯yupur¯na 17.4c (≈ M¯rkandeyapur¯na 41.20c), pidh¯ya sarvadv¯r¯ni in a a. a a. a a a. .. S¯rdhatri´atik¯lottara 11.13a (= Sarvaj˜¯nottara Yogap¯da 19a, = Agnipur¯na a s a na a a. 2.214.22a) and Wrhaspatitattwa 56a (= Ganapatitattwa 6a, ≈ J˜¯nasiddh¯nta na a . . 15.4a). For a possible allusion to this S¯tra in the Madhyamakahrdayak¯rik¯, see u a a . the annotation on 5.17. 4.4 unmattavad eko vicareta loke | This is also the reading of K, but it seems likely that this S¯tra goes back to an u original unmatta eko vicareta loke (a regular Indravajr¯ p¯da). a a 4.5 krt¯nnam utsrstam up¯dad¯ | a ıta . a ... up¯dad¯ ] C, up¯dad¯ B, up¯da ˘ ta T. a ıta a ıt a This is an Upendravajr¯ p¯da. a a 4.6 unmatto m¯dha ity evam manyante itare jan¯h | u. a. . ity evam ] B Cpc T, ityesavam Cac . . . . ´ 4.6 and 4.7 together constitute a Sloka. 4.7 asamm¯no hi jant¯n¯m sarves¯m uttamah smrtah | u a. . a .a . . . Instead of jant¯n¯m K has yantr¯n¯m, which is probably original (cf. PBh ad u a. a. a . 12 PS 4.9). Additional support comes from two verses in the original Skandapur¯na a. ´ (ca. sixth century AD), which contain a reference to this S¯tra. Siva is teaching u the gods the P¯´upata observance (vrata): yantr¯n¯m paramam yantram anyad as a. a . . yasm¯n na vidyate | . adangam sarvak¯m¯ . sarvalokanamaskrtam (SPBh a s . ˙ . a ıyam . 122.81); tasm¯t sarvaprah¯n¯rtham yantram etat sam¯caret a a. a a . loke yena j¯ ıryen na karhicit | (SPBh 122.83cd–84ab). asammatah sad¯ a . . 4.8 indro v¯ agre asuresu p¯´upatam acarat | a as . 4.9 sa tes¯m ist¯p¯rttam ¯datta m¯yay¯ sukrtay¯ samavindata | a a a .a . .a u . a a ¯datta ] B C Tpc , ¯datte Tac . a Sastri divides sa tes¯m is. ¯p¯rttam ¯datta | m¯yay¯ sukrtay¯ samavindata | (K a a a .a . ta u . a 4.11–12). However, instead of K 4.12, T (f. 63r, l. 5) actually reads m¯yay¯ a a sukrtay¯ | ¯datta | . B has the same reading, except that it has p¯yay¯ (sic) instead a a . a a of m¯yay¯ (f. 55v, l. 2). a a 4.10 nind¯ hy es¯m anind¯ | a a .a K reads differently: nind¯ hy es¯nind¯ tasm¯t (K 4.13). The variant in the a a a .a S¯trap¯tha has not been recorded by Chakravarti. Note that in the Bh¯sya u a. a. tasm¯t belongs to this S¯tra, while in the S¯trap¯tha it is part of the following a u u a. S¯tra. u Cf. however Kaundinya’s remark: .. atra tasm¯cchabdah p¯rvottaram a . u . c¯peksate | (p. 104, l. 2). a . 4.11 tasm¯n nindyam¯na´ caret | a a s As mentioned above, K omits tasm¯n, connecting it with the preceding S¯tra. After a u this S¯tra K adds an additional S¯tra aninditakarm¯ | (K 4.15), which is not in the u u a S¯trap¯tha. u a. 4.12 sarvavi´isto ’yam panth¯h satpathah | s .. a. . . K divides sarvavi´is. o ’yam panth¯h | satpathah | (K 4.16–17). s .t a. . . 4.13 kupath¯s tv anye | a 4.14 anena vidhin¯ rudrasam¯ . gatv¯ na ka´cid br¯hmanah punar a ıpam a s a . . a ¯vartate | Sastri divides this into two S¯tras: anena vidhin¯ rudrasam¯ . gatv¯ | na ka´cid u a ıpam a s br¯hmanah punar ¯vartate | (K 4.19–20), but this is not done in B (f. 56v, l. 2) or a a . . T (f. 64v, l. 1): in the place of K 4.19 both MSS have the entire line. 4.15 atredam brahma japet | . As Sastri remarks, this S¯tra and the corresponding commentary are missing in u the Bh¯sya. I can add that this is also the case in B. a. 13 4.16 tatpurus¯ya vidmahe mah¯dev¯ya dh¯ a a ımahi | .a K divides tatpurus¯ya vidmahe | mah¯dev¯ya dh¯ a a ımahi | (K 4.22–23). .a Brahma-mantra in 4.16–17, cf. Taittir¯ aranyaka 10.46. ıy¯ . For the 4.17 tan no rudrah pracoday¯t | a . 5.1 asangayog¯ nity¯tm¯ ajo maitro ’bhij¯yate | ˙ ı a a a nity¯tm¯ ajo ] B C, nity¯ ˘ ˘ ˘ jo T. a a a Sastri divides this into six S¯tras and reads differently: u asangah | yog¯ | nit˙ . ı y¯tm¯ | ajah | maitrah | abhij¯yate | (K 5.1–6), but in fact B (f. 58v, l. 8) and T a a a . . (f. 66v, l. 8) have asamgayog¯ in place of K 5.1. Note that the S¯trap¯tha reading ı u a. . constitutes a metrically correct hemistich of a ma-vipul¯ (syncopation in the first a half and caesura after the 5th syllable). Cf. Oberlies (2000: 181, n. 29), who observes that K 5.4–6 constitute a p¯da if one dissolves the sandhi, but who does a not mention the metrical problem in K 5.1–3. 5.2 indriy¯n¯m abhijay¯t | a.a a 5.3 rudrah prov¯ca t¯vat | a a . 5.4 ´uny¯g¯raguh¯v¯s¯ | s¯ a a a aı ´ 5.4–6 together constitute a Sloka. 5.5 devanityo jitendriyah | . K divides devanityah | jitendriyah | (K 5.10–11). . . 5.6 sanm¯s¯n nityayuktasya bh¯yistham sampravartate | u .. . . . aa K divides . anm¯s¯n nityayuktasya | bh¯yis. ham sampravartate | (K 5.12–13). s . a a u .t . With this S¯tra compare Mah¯bh¯rata 12.232.30cd (sanm¯s¯n nityayuktasya u a a . . a a ´abdabrahm¯tivartate) and 14.19.60cd (sanm¯s¯n nityayuktasya yogah p¯rtha s a . . a a . a pravartate). Note that in contrast to these two Epic passages the present S¯tra u has no subject; in his commentary ad K 5.12 Kaundinya argues for a ‘remote .. connection’ (d¯rasthah sambandhah) with K 1.21 (vij˜¯n¯ni c¯sya pravartante) u na a a . . and K 1.38 (ity etair gunair yuktah). . . 5.7 bhaiksyam p¯tr¯gatam m¯msam adusyam lavanena v¯ | a . . a a . a. . . . ´ 5.7 and 5.8 together constitute a Sloka. K divides bhaiksyam | p¯tr¯gatam | m¯msam a a a. . adusyam lavanena v¯ | (K 5.14–16). a . . . 5.8 ¯po v¯pi yath¯k¯lam a´n¯ ad anup¯rva´ah | a a a a s ıy¯ u s . 5.9 godharm¯ mrgadharm¯ v¯ | a . a a ´ 5.9–12 together constitute a Sloka. 14 5.10 adbhir eva ´ucir bhavet | s 5.11 siddhayog¯ na lipyeta | ı K connects this with the following S¯tra (= K 5.20). Instead of lipyeta K has u lipyate. The S¯trap¯tha variant is not reported by Sastri or Chakravarti. Note u a. that lipyeta is metrical, while lipyate is not. It may therefore very well represent the original reading, a conclusion which is confirmed by a quotation — identified by Sanderson (*1998) — of this and the following S¯tra in the 9th chapter u (M¯ ams¯tattvanirnay¯vat¯rah) of Bhavya/Bh¯(va)viveka’s Madhyamakahrdayaım¯ . a a . a a . . k¯rik¯ (MHK 9.62): siddhiyogo [sic] na lipyeta karman¯ p¯takena v¯ | iti bruv¯naih a a a a a a. . . sanm¯rg¯n nas. air anye ’pi n¯´it¯h . That lipyate is not just a scribal error in a a as a . .t K is suggested by Kaundinya’s commentary ad loc.: na lipyate na samyujyata ity .. . arthah | ¯ha: kena lipyate | tad ucyate karman¯ | . This would seem to suggest that . a .a the shared reading of the MHK and the S¯trap¯tha goes back to an older tradition, u a. unless it is assumed that both sources independently changed lipyate to lipyeta for metrical reasons. 5.12 karman¯ p¯takena v¯ | a .a a 5.13 rcam ist¯m adh¯ ıta | ıy¯ . . .a K connects this with the following S¯tra (= K 5.21). 5.13–16 together constitute a u ´ Sloka. 5.14 g¯yatr¯ ¯tmayantritah | a ım a . B omits 5.14–5.17. 5.15 raudr¯ . v¯ bahur¯p¯ . v¯ | ım a u ım a C omits the danda. .. 5.16 ato yogah pravartate | . 5.17 omk¯ram abhidhy¯y¯ | a ıta . a abhidhy¯y¯ ] T, abhidhy¯¯ C. a ıta aıta ´ 5.17–19 together constitute a Sloka. phrased in As has been observed by Sanderson (*1998), this and the following S¯tra, along with 5.24 and 5.26, are parau Madhyamakahrdayak¯rik¯ 9.114–115: a a [samyamitamatidv¯ ]rah a . . . sth¯payitv¯ ´ive manah | tathomk¯ram abhidhy¯yan dh¯rayan dh¯ran¯m hrdi a a s a a a .a. . . . a ksity¯didh¯ran¯bhy¯s¯t pr¯ksam¯hitam¯nasah | ¯se prasanne duhkh¯ntam gaca .a a a a a a ı´ . a . . a . chat¯ etad apy asat . The compound samyamitamatidv¯rah (‘having restrained ıty a . . the doors of his mind’) is Lindtner’s reconstruction; the syllables up to rah are . lost in the unique Sanskrit manuscript of the MHK. Kawasaki, in his edition of the ninth chapter of the MHK, reconstructs [samyamakabuddhidv¯ ]rah on the a . . 15 basis of Tibetan blo yi sgo rnams legs bsdams la. Both reconstructions suggest a paraphrase of 4.3 (sarv¯ni dv¯r¯ni pidh¯ya buddhy¯ ) above, but they suffer a. a a. a a from the metrical defect that the second and third syllables are both short. Harunaga Isaacson has provided me with the following information concerning the Tibetan rendering. First of all yi and yis are often exchanged in Tibetan, and so yi (genitive particle) may be a corruption of yis (instrumental particle). If we read blo yis, the Sanskrit could be reconstructed to buddhy¯ samyamitadv¯rah a a . . (‘having restrained the doors with the buddhi’). On the other hand, the Tarkajv¯l¯ aa commentary in the Derge (sDe dge) edition of the Buddhist canon has the shorter form of the genitive blo’i, which makes confusion with the instrumental less likely. In addition, the commentary’s blo’i sgo dban po thams cad (Derge f. 303r , l. 7) ˙ could be glossing buddhidv¯ra(-¯ni?) with sarvendriy¯ni. As to what root lies a a. a. behind the rendering bsdams there is no certainty, but in addition to ‘restrain,’ ‘bind,’ the meaning ‘close’ is also, depending on context, possible. Considering that the legs would normally suggest an adverbial prefix such as su- or sam-, a reconstruction supihita- may also be considered. The latter reconstruction would take us close to the probable P¯´upatas¯tra source of this verse. The view refuted as u ´ ´ in MHK 9.114–115 is ascribed to the Siva or Saiva tantra (´i ba’i rgyud ) in the s Tarkajv¯l¯ (Derge f. 303r , ll. 5–6). There is no parallel for the hemistich MHK aa 9.115ab in the P¯´upatas¯tra. as u 5.18 tat sad iti hrdi kurv¯ dh¯ran¯m | ıta a . a . dh¯ran¯m ] Bpc C T, dh¯ranam Bpc . a .a . a . . K omits the words tat sad iti. The reading of the S¯trap¯tha is hypermetrical; only u a. K is metrically correct. For an exposition of the mantra om tat sat, referred to in . the S¯trap¯tha, cf. e.g. Mah¯bh¯rata 6.39.23–28. u a. a a 5.19 rsir vipro mah¯n esa v¯gvi´uddho mahe´varah | a . a s s .. . K separates three S¯tras: r. ir vipro mah¯n esah | v¯gvi´uddhah | mahe´varah | . u a . . a s s .s . . 5.20 ´ma´¯nav¯s¯ dharm¯tm¯ yath¯labdhopaj¯ s sa aı a a a ıvakah | . ´ 5.20–22 together constitute a Sloka (ma-vipul¯). Sastri separates three S¯tras: a u ´ma´¯nav¯s¯ | dharm¯tm¯ | yath¯labdhopaj¯ s sa a ı a a a ıvakah | (K 5.30–32). However, in place . of K 5.30 (´ma´¯nav¯s¯ B (f. 66v, ll. 1–2) and T (f. 76r, ll. 9–10) in fact read s sa a ı), ´ma´¯nav¯s¯ dharm¯tm¯ yath¯labdhopaj¯ s sa a ı a a a ıvakah. . 5.21 labhate rudras¯yujyam | a 5.22 sad¯ rudram anusmaret | a ´ Probably the original reading of this last p¯da of a Sloka (5.20–5.22) was sad¯ a a r¯dram anusmaran. As such it is transmitted in the Bh¯sya in B (f. 67v, l. 5). u a. 16 T reads anusmarat there (f. 77v, l. 9), which has been silently emended to anusmaret by Sastri, presumably on the basis of the S¯trap¯tha. Cf. the parallel in u a. the ‘Lingapur¯na’ quoted by Laksm¯ ˙ a. ırthavivecanak¯nda p. 107, ll. 4– a. . . ıdhara (T¯ 5): ´ma´¯nav¯s¯ dharm¯tm¯ yath¯labdhena vartate | labheta rudras¯yujyam sad¯ s sa a ı a a a a a . rudram anusmaran . 5.23 chittv¯ dos¯n¯m hetuj¯lasya m¯lam | a .a . a . a u 5.23–5.26 together constitute a Vai´vadev¯ For parallels, see the annotation on s ı. 5.24. 5.24 buddhy¯ samcintya sth¯payitv¯ tu rudre | a a a . Sastri reads and divides differently: buddhy¯ | samcittam | sth¯payitv¯ ca rudre | (K a a a . 5.36–38). Actually B and T divide K 5.37 (samcittam) into sam (B f. 70v, l. 9; . . T f. 81v, l. 4) and cittam (B f. 70v, l. 11; T f. 81v, l. 6). Sanderson (*2004: 1) has suggested to emend the hapax samcittam to svam cittam; cf. PBh ad K . . 5.37: atra *svam (em.; sam Ed.) iti dos¯divi´lis. am svayam eva svagunatvena a s .t . . . parigrhyate. Cf. also Ratnat¯ a p. 20, ll. 9–11: yo vidy¯nugrh¯ a buddhy¯ svam a a . . ık¯ . ıtay¯ . cittam nir¯lambanam karoti so ’m¯dha ity ucyate. tay¯ dh¯ranay¯ nirmal¯ . tam a u. a a . a ıkr . . . cittam rudratattve sth¯pitam sud¯ a ırghak¯lam na cyavate. Additional support comes a . . . from Pamp¯m¯h¯tmya 11.61cd–62ab (Filliozat 2001, p. 145): tasm¯d asmin svakam a a a a . cittam *samsth¯py¯tyantani´calam (samsth¯py¯ ◦ conj.; susth¯py¯ ◦ Ed.) idam vaa a s a a a a . . . . pus tyaj¯m¯ tasya buddhir bhavet sad¯ | , which probably goes back to a passage a ıti a from the Ratnat¯ a (p. 16, ll. 4–5): dosahetuj¯lebhya´ chinnasya m¯l¯khy¯nivrttau a s ua a . . ık¯ . cittasya rudre ’vasth¯nam atyantani´calatvam sthitir ucyate. a s . The present passage has a parallel in the Atharva´iras-Upanisad, with some ins . teresting variants. The variant samcintya of the S¯trap¯tha corresponds with the u a. . ´ . version with Samkar¯nanda’s commentary: tr. n¯m chittv¯ hetuj¯lasya m¯lam buda s. a . a a u . . ´ dhy¯ samcintya sth¯payitv¯ tu rudre (ASiUp p. 37, ll. 4–5), while samcittam (K) a a a . . corresponds more closely with N¯r¯yana’s version: tr. n¯m hitv¯ hetuj¯lasya m¯lam a a . s. a . a a u . . ´ buddhy¯ samcitam sth¯payitv¯ tu rudre (ASiUp p. 17, ll. 1–2). There are other varia . a a . ants; cf. Hara 2002: 151–152. The tu of the S¯trap¯tha (instead of ca) is present u a. in both versions. Lingapur¯na 2.18.40cd (tr. n¯m chittv¯ hetuj¯lasya m¯lam bud˙ a. a a u . . s. a . dhy¯ cintyam sth¯payitv¯ ca rudre), on the other hand, is closer in this respect to a a a . ´a ı. K. In the Lingapur¯na the verse has been rewritten to form a S¯lin¯ This wide ˙ a. variation suggests that the passage from the Atharva´iras-Upanisad may go back s . to an early corruption of svam → sam, repaired in different ways. In the process of . . repairing the original metre was lost. The presence of samcintya — the reading of . ´ . Samkar¯nanda’s version — in the S¯trap¯tha indicates a contaminated tradition. a u a. For an allusion to this S¯tra in the Madhyamakahrdayak¯rik¯, see the annotation u a a . on 5.17. 17 5.25 ekah †ksemy¯msam† v¯ sokah | a. . ıta´ . . . Instead of ksemy¯msam (?) Sastri has ksem¯ san, but Tac (f. 82r, l. 7) and B a. . . . ı (f. 72v, l. 1) have ksemy¯san in the Bh¯sya’s quotation of this S¯tra. A second hand a a. u . (Sastri?) seems to have tried to correct this to ksem¯ san in Tpc , presumably be. ı cause of Kaundinya’s interpretation: tath¯ s¯ksmasth¯lasab¯hy¯bhyantaralaksanaa u . u a a .. . . vilaksan¯su kriy¯su vinivrtt¯su rudre sthitacitto niskriyah san ity abhidh¯ a ıyate (PBh . .a . a . . ´ as p. 139, ll. 14–15). The S¯tra bears a partial resemblance to Svet¯´vatara-Upanisad u . 2.14d: ekah krt¯rtho bhavate v¯ sokah. ıta´ . . a . 5.26 apram¯d¯ gacched duhkh¯n¯m antam ¯sapras¯d¯t | a ı ı´ a a . a a gacched duhkh¯n¯m ] B Cpc , gacche duhkh¯n¯m Cac , gacche [. . .] -¯n¯m T. a a . a a . a a Instead of Sastri’s K 5.40, which is identical with this S¯tra, B (f. 73r, ll. 1–2) and u T (f. 82, l. 10) actually only have apram¯d¯ The entire S¯tra is quoted later in a ı. u the Bh¯sya: K p. 141, l. 3 = B f. 73r, ll. 4–5 / T f. 83, ll. 2–3, where T does not a. read apram¯d¯d, as Sastri has it, but apram¯d¯ (w.r. for apram¯d¯ In order to a a a a a ı). retrieve the Vai´vadev¯ metre underlying 5.23–5.26, sandhi between v¯ sokah and s ı ıta´ . apram¯d¯ must be applied. For the Madhyamakahrdayak¯rik¯ testimonium of this a ı a a . S¯tra, see the annotation on 5.17 above. u 5.27 atredam brahma japet | . 5.28 ¯s¯nah sarvavidy¯n¯m ¯svarah sarvabh¯t¯n¯m | ı´a . a a ı´ ua a . K divides ¯s¯nah sarvavidy¯n¯m |¯svarah sarvabh¯t¯n¯m | . C omits the danda after ı´a . a a ı´ ua a . .. sarvabh¯t¯n¯m. ua a 5.29 brahm¯dipatir brahmano ’dhipatir brahm¯ ´ivo me astu sad¯´ivom | a as as . brahm¯dipatir ] B C, bra [. . .] tir T • sad¯´ivom ] C T, sad¯´ivo B. a as as . K reads and divides differently: astu | sad¯ | ´ivah | (5.44–47). a s . (applying Sandhi): brahmano ’dhipatir brahm¯ | ´ivo me a s . ´ Note that K alone constitutes a regular Sloka The latter reading is also that of ¯s¯nah sarvavidy¯n¯m ¯svarah sarvabh¯t¯n¯m | brahmano ı´a . a a ı´ ua a . . ’dhipatir brahm¯ ´ivo me ’stu sad¯ ´ivah | . a s a s . identical with Taittir¯ aranyaka 10.47. ıy¯ . Ni´v¯saguhya f. 109v , l. 1. The reading of the S¯trap¯tha, on the other hand, is s a u a. iti p¯´upatas¯tr¯ni samp¯rn¯ni | as u a. . u .a Bibliography Agnipur¯na a. ¯ a (AgnP) Agnipur¯na of Maharsi Vedavy¯sa. Ed. by Ach¯rya Baladeva Up¯dhy¯ya. a. a a a . The Kashi Sanskrit Series 174. Varanasi 1966. 18 Atharva´iras-Upanisad s . ´ ´ ı-N¯ a . ´ . (ASiUp) [Published in] Sr¯ ar¯yana-Samkar¯nanda-viracitad¯ asamet¯n¯m a ıpik¯ a a Atharva´ikh¯dy¯n¯[m] Hamsopanisadant¯n¯m Dv¯trim´anmit¯n¯m s a a a . a a. a .s a a . . Upanisad¯m Samuccayah. Anand¯´ramasamskrt¯valih 29. [Poona] 1895. as . a. . ¯ . . a . Baudh¯yanadharmas¯tra a u ¯ (BaudhDhS) [Published in] Dharmas¯tras. The Law Codes of Apastamba, Gautama, u Baudh¯yana, and Vasistha. Annotated Text and Translation [by] Patrick a .. Olivelle. Delhi 2000. Bh¯sarvaj˜a a n ¯ a (RT) Ganak¯rik¯ [with Ratnat¯ a] of Ac¯rya Bh¯sarvaj˜a (With four a n . . a a . ık¯ appendices including the K¯ravana-M¯h¯tmya). Edit. by Chimanlal a a a . D. Dalal. Gaekwad’s Oriental Series 15. Baroda 1920. Bisschop, Peter forthc. a Review of ‘Minoru Hara, P¯´upata Studies. Edited by Jun Takashima. as Vienna 2002. Publications of the De Nobili Research Library XXX.’ To appear in the Indo-Iranian Journal. forthc. b ‘Pa˜c¯rthabh¯sya on P¯´upatas¯tra 1.37–39. Recovered from a newly n a a. as u identified manuscript.’ To appear in the Journal of Indian Philosophy. Bisschop, Peter & Arlo Griffiths 2003 ‘The P¯´upata Observance (Atharvavedapari´ista 40).’ In: Indo-Iranian as s .. Journal 46, pp. 315–348. Chakravarti, Chintaharan 1943 ‘P¯´upatas¯tra.’ In: Indian Historical Quarterly 19, pp. 270–271. as u Filliozat, Vasundhara 2001 K¯l¯mukha and P¯´upata Temples in Dharwar. Chennai. aa as Ganapatitattwa . (GT) Ganapati-Tattwa. An Old Javanese philosophic text. Critically edited and . translated by Sudarshana Devi Singhal. Dv¯ antara-Pitaka 3. New Delhi ıp¯ . 1958. Goudriaan, T. and C. Hooykaas 1971 Stuti and Stava (Bauddha and Vaisnava) of Balinese Brahman priests. .. Verhandelingen der KNAW, afd. Letterkunde, Nieuwe Reeks 76. Amsterdam, London. Hara, Minoru 2002 P¯´upata Studies. Edited by Jun Takashima. Publications of the De Nobili as Research Library XXX. Vienna. J˜¯nasiddh¯nta na a (J˜¯Si) na J˜¯nasiddh¯nta. Edited and translated by Haryati Soubadio. Bibliotheca na a Indonesica 7. The Hague 1971. Kaundinya .. (PBh) Pasupata Sutras with Pancharthabhashya of Kaundinya. Edit. by R. Ananthakrishna Sastri. Trivandrum Sanskrit Series CXLIII. Trivandrum 1940. Kawasaki, Shinjo 1988 The M¯ ams¯ Chapter of Bhavya’s Madhyamaka-hrdaya-k¯rik¯. Sanskrit ım¯ . a a a . and Tibetan Texts. From Studies 1976, 1987, 1988, Institute of Philosophy, The University of Tsukuba. Laksm¯ . ıdhara 19 Bhatta-´r¯ a . . . s ı-Laksm¯ . ıdhara-viracite Krtyakalpatarau Astamo bh¯gah. . .. T¯ ırthavivecanak¯ndam. Edit. by K.V. Rangaswami Aiyangar. Gaekwad’s a. . Oriental Series XCVIII. Baroda 1942. Lindtner, Christian 1997 ‘Bhavya on M¯ ams¯.’ in: Studia Indologiczne 4. Aspects of Buddhism. ım¯ . a Proceedings of the International Seminar on Buddhist Studies, Liw 25 June 1994. Warsaw, pp. 91–123. Lingapur¯na ˙ a. ´ ı-Vy¯sa-maharsiproktam Sr¯ ngamah¯pur¯nam, with the Sanskrit (LiP) Sr¯ a a a. . . . ´ ı-Li ˙ ´ commentary Sivatosin¯ by Gane´a N¯tu. [Edit. by] Gang¯visnu (son of ı a ˙ a .. . . . s Krsnad¯sa). Venkatesvara Press, Bombay V.S. 1981 [= AD 1924]. a .. . ´ a [Reprinted, with a Slok¯nukraman¯ by N¯ga´arana Simha, by Nag a s .ı . . Publishers, Delhi 1989 (2nd ed. 1996)] Madhyamakahrdayak¯rik¯ a a . (MHK) See Kawasaki 1988 and Lindtner 1997. Mah¯bh¯rata a a (MBh) The Mah¯bh¯rata. For the first time critically edited by V. S. Sukthankar a a and others. Poona 1927–59. 19 vols. Mah¯n¯r¯yana-Upanisad a a a . . (MN¯Up) La Mah¯ N¯r¯yana Upanisad. Edition critique, avec une traduction a a a a . . fran¸aise, une ´tude, des notes et, en annexe, la Pr¯n¯gnihotra Upanisad. c e a. a . par Jean Varenne. 2 tomes. Paris 1960. Maitr¯yan¯ . hit¯ a . ısam a (MaiS) Mˆitrˆyanˆ Samhitˆ. Die Samhitˆ der Mˆitrˆyanˆ ¸ ˆkhˆ. [Edit. by] a a .ı a a a a . ıya-Ca a . . Leopold von Schroeder. 4 vols. Leipzig 1881–1886. M¯rkandeyapur¯na a a. .. (MkP) The M´rcandeya Pur´na in the original Sanscrit edited by K. M. Banerjea. a .. a. Bibliotheca Indica 29. Calcutta 1855–62. [Reprinted by Biblio Verlag, Osnabr¨ck 1988.] u Ni´v¯satattvasamhit¯ s a a . Electronic transcription of the codex of the Ni´v¯satattvasamhit¯ in the s a a . National Archives, Kathmandu, MS 1–227 (= A 41/4) supplemented with readings from its Kathmandu apograph MS (NGMPP 159/18), by Dominic Goodall. Includes the Ni´v¯samukha, Ni´v¯sam¯la, Ni´v¯sottara, s a s a u s a Ni´v¯sanaya and Ni´v¯saguhya. s a s a Oberlies, Thomas 2000 ‘Kriegslisten und ungeziemendes Benehmen: Die Askesepraktiken der P¯´upatas.’ In: Ryutaro Tsuchida and Albrecht Wezler (eds.), as Har¯nandalahar¯ Volume in Honour of Professor Minoru Hara on his a ı. Seventieth Birthday (Reinbek), pp. 175–191. Pa˜c¯rthabh¯sya n a a. See Kaundinya. .. Paramoksanir¯sak¯rik¯ a a a . [Published in] Astaprakaranam. Edit. by Vrajavallabha Dvived¯ ı. .. . Yogatantra-grantham¯l¯ vol. 12. Varanasi 1998. aa Sanderson, Alexis *1998 ‘L¯kulas and Somasiddh¯ntins. Hilary Term 1998. Handout 5.’ a a [Unpublished lecture handout.] (TVK) 20 2002 *2004 ´ ‘History through Textual Criticism in the study of Saivism, the Pa˜car¯tra n a and the Buddhist Yogin¯ ıtantras.’ In: Fran¸ois Grimal (ed.), Les Sources et c le Temps. Sources and Time. A Colloquium. Pondicherry 11–13 January 1997 (Pondicherry), pp. 1–47. ´ ‘The Yoga of Dying. The Saiva Atim¯rga. Week 5: Handout, 9 November, a 2004.’ [Unpublished lecture handout.] S¯rdhatri´atik¯lottara a s a (STK) S¯rdhatri´atik¯lottar¯gama with commentary (-vrtti) of Bhatta a s a a . .. R¯makantha. Edit. by N.R. Bhatt. Publications de l’Institut Fran¸ais a c .. d’Indologie 61. Pondicherry 1979. Sarvadar´anasamgraha s . (SDS) Sarva-Dar´ana-Samgraha of S¯yana=M¯dhava. Edited with an original s ˙ a . a commentary in Sanskrit by Mahamahopadhyaya Vasudev Shastri Abhyankar. Government Oriental (Hindu) Series Vol. I. Poona 1924. Schultz, Friedrich August 1958 Die philosophisch-theologischen Lehren des P¯´upata-Systems nach dem as Pa˜c¯rthabh¯sya und der Ratnat¯ a. Beitr¨ge zur Sprach- und n a a. a . ık¯ Kulturgeschichte des Orientes 10. Walldorf-Hessen. Skandapur¯na a. (SPBh ) Skandapur¯nasya Ambik¯khandah, samp¯dakah Krsnapras¯da Bhattar¯¯ a. a a .. . . a . .. . . . aı. Mahendraratnagrantham¯l¯ 2. Kathmandu 1988. aa ´ as Svet¯´vatara-Upanisad . ´ (SvUp) [Published in] Eighteen Principal Upanisads. Vol. I. Upanisadic Text with . . Parallels from extant Vedic Literature, Exegetical and Grammatical Notes by V.P. Limaye & R. D. Vadekar. Gandhi Memorial Edition. Poona 1958. Taittir¯ ıyabr¯hmana a . ´ ımad-S¯yan¯c¯rya-viracita-Bh¯sya-sametam. (TBr) Taittir¯ ıyabr¯hmanam. Sr¯ a a .a a a. . ´ [Edit. by] V.S.R. N¯r¯yana S¯stri ‘Godbole’. a a . ´a . ¯ Anand¯´ramasamskrtagranth¯valih 37 [3 Vols.]. Poona 1898. as a . . . Taittir¯ aranyaka ıy¯ . ¯ ´ (TA) Taittir¯ aranyakam. [Edit. by] V.S.R.R. B¯b¯ S¯str¯ ‘Phadake’. ıy¯ . a a ´a ı . ¯ Anand¯´ramasamskrtagranth¯valih 36 [2 Vols.]. Poona 1897. as a . . . V¯yupur¯na a a. (V¯P) a The V¯yumah¯pur¯nam. Edit. by Khemar¯ja. Delhi 1983. Nag Publishers. a a a. a [Reprint of the Venkate´vara edition of AD 1895] ˙ s V¯sisthadharma´¯stra a .. sa ´ ¯ (V¯sDhS) [Published in] Dharmas¯tras. The Law Codes of Apastamba, Gautama, a u Baudh¯yana, and Vasistha. Annotated Text and Translation [by] Patrick a .. Olivelle. Delhi 2000. Wrhaspatitattwa . (WrT) Wrhaspati-Tattwa. An Old Javanese philosophical text. Critically edited . . and translated by Sudarshana Devi. Dv¯ antara-Pitaka 1. New Delhi 1957. ıp¯ . Yogas¯tra u (YS) V¯caspatimi´raviracitat¯ asameta´r¯ asabh¯syasamet¯ni a s s ıvy¯ a. a . ık¯ P¯ta˜jalayogas¯tr¯ni. Anand¯´ramasamskrtagranth¯valih 47. [Poona] a n u a. ¯ as a . . . 1904. 21