The S¯ utrap¯ at . ha of the P¯ a´ supatas¯ utra Peter Bisschop * In 1943 Chintaharan Chakravarti published a short notice about variant readings of the P¯ a´ supatas¯ utra in a manuscript of the Pa˜ nc¯ arthabh¯ as . ya in the collection of the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal, Calcutta. The edition of the P¯ a´ supatas¯ utra with Kaun . d . inya’s Pa˜ nc¯ arthabh¯ as . ya had been published 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 por- tion supplied from the Calcutta manuscript. 1 Chakravarti fails to mention that the variants he lists are not the readings of the P¯ a´ supatas¯ utra as they are quoted in the text of the Bh¯ as . ya, but the readings of the S¯ utrap¯ at . ha preceding the text of the Bh¯ as . ya proper. In fact this S¯ utrap¯ at . ha is also 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¯ utrap¯ at . ha as well. A closer look at the S¯ utrap¯ at . ha suggests a relatively separate transmission alongside the Bh¯ as . ya. In the present paper an edition of this S¯ utrap¯ at . ha of the P¯ a´ supatas¯ utra is presented on the basis of the two mentioned manuscripts and a newly identified manuscript from the Sarasvat¯ ıbhavana Library in Benares. 2 The text of the S¯ utrap¯ at . ha is fairly consistent in all three manuscripts, with a number of noteworthy readings not present in Kaun . d . inya’s text. This consistency also concerns the placement of dan . d . a s, which I regard as an in- trinsic feature of the transmission of the S¯ utrap¯ at . ha. It will be observed that in a number of cases the division of the S¯ utras in the S¯ utrap¯ at . ha, which is * 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¯ utras of the first adhy¯ aya and Bh¯ ashya which covers in this printed 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
21
Embed
The Sutrapath of the Pashupata Sutras - Peter Bisschop
The Sutrapath of the Pashupata Sutras - Peter Bisschop
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
The Sutrapat.ha of the Pasupatasutra
Peter Bisschop∗
In 1943 Chintaharan Chakravarti published a short notice about variantreadings of the Pasupatasutra in a manuscript of the Pancarthabhas.ya in thecollection of the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal, Calcutta. The edition ofthe Pasupatasutra with Kaun.d. inya’s Pancarthabhas.ya had been publishedthree years earlier in the Trivandrum Sanskrit Series (No. CXLIII) on thebasis of a single manuscript discovered in Benares — now in the collectionof the University of Kerala Library (Trivandrum) —, with a missing por-tion supplied from the Calcutta manuscript.1 Chakravarti fails to mentionthat the variants he lists are not the readings of the Pasupatasutra as theyare quoted in the text of the Bhas.ya, but the readings of the Sutrapat.hapreceding the text of the Bhas.ya proper. In fact this Sutrapat.ha is alsopreserved in the manuscript on which the Trivandrum edition is based,and a number of the variants recorded by Chakravarti are found in thismanuscript’s Sutrapat.ha as well. A closer look at the Sutrapat.ha suggests arelatively separate transmission alongside the Bhas.ya. In the present paperan edition of this Sutrapat.ha of the Pasupatasutra is presented on the basisof the two mentioned manuscripts and a newly identified manuscript fromthe Sarasvatıbhavana Library in Benares.2
The text of the Sutrapat.ha is fairly consistent in all three manuscripts,with a number of noteworthy readings not present in Kaun.d. inya’s text. Thisconsistency also concerns the placement of dan. d. as, which I regard as an in-trinsic feature of the transmission of the Sutrapat.ha. It will be observed thatin a number of cases the division of the Sutras in the Sutrapat.ha, which is
∗Research for this article was made possible by a TALENT-grant from the NetherlandsOrganization for Scientific Research (NWO). I would like to thank Arlo Griffiths andHarunaga 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 discoverywas announced as usual to scholars, Dr. T.R. Chintamani m, a., ph. d., of the MadrasUniversity who was then in Calcutta saw an independent manuscript with 1 to 13 pagesonly containing 21 Sutras of the first adhyaya and Bhashya which covers in this printededition 42 pages last but one line, in the Asiatic Society of Bengal Library. On substitutingpages 8 to 13 from the above by copying I found that pages 27 and 28 are still wanting. Themissing pages might contain some important portion, say about Vidyesvara etc., whichgo to make the system a perfect one.” The text of the missing pages 27 and 28 in theTrivandrum MS is preserved in a so far unnoticed manuscript from Benares (on which seebelow). For an edition and translation of this previously unavailable passage, see Bisschopforthc. b.
2This 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 Kaun.d. inya’s Bhas.ya, makes good sense. A strik-ing difference with Kaun.d. inya’s text of the Sutra concerns the five Brahma-mantras which conclude each of the five Adhyayas into which the Sutraand Bhas.ya are divided. On the whole it is conspicuous that Kaun.d. inya’sversion of the Brahma-mantras shows more metrical features,3 while theSutrapat.ha’s version tends to be closer to the version of these Mantras inTaittirıyaran. yaka 10 (= Mahanarayan. a-Upanis.ad). This may be due tolater rewriting of the Sutras by transmitters who were familiar with theseBrahma-mantras. It need not necessarily reflect the original Sutra reading.It is my general impression that the Sutrapat.ha was at one time extractedfrom the Bhas.ya (cf. e.g. the annotation on 1.30 and 5.24 below).4 On theother hand the present study also shows the arbitrary division of the Sutrasas we now have them. It seems likely that Kaun.d. inya had before him astring of originally larger Sutras,5 which he broke up into smaller segmentsin order to comment upon them. It is these quotations of segments whichwe have come to refer to as the Sutras.6
At the outset a peculiarity in the presentation of the Sutrapat.ha in theBenares manuscript should be noted. While the two other manuscriptsquote the entire Sutrapat.ha at the beginning of the text — with a divisioninto five parts indicated by short spaces — the Benares manuscriptintegrates the Sutrapat.ha into the text of each Adhyaya of the Bhas.ya.Thus at the spot where Kaun.d. inya would quote the first Sutra of anAdhyaya in the other two manuscripts, the Benares manuscript quotes therelevant Sutrapat.ha of that Adhyaya.
The following abbreviations are used in the apparatus and notes to theedition of the Sutrapat.ha:
3I am not sure what to make of this. Does this indicate that Kaun.d. inya’s version ismore original or is it the result of a ‘normalizing tendency,’ as Goudriaan and Hooykaasargue with respect to the likewise more metrical version of these Brahma-mantras in Stutiand Stava 360, Brahma-stava (Goudriaan & Hooykaas 1971: 225–227)? The Balineseversion of these five Brahma-mantras is closer to Kaun.d. inya’s version in several respects:cf. the annotation on 1.34 and 2.14 below.
4Cf., however, also 5.11, which suggests a different scenario.5For indications that Kaun.d. inya had access to more than one version of the Sutras,
cf. Hara 2002: 271.6In 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 5.26below. From these and other silent changes made to the text by Sastri, some of which arenoted in the present paper, it will be clear that a critical edition of the Pancarthabhas.yais called for. Cf. also Bisschop forthc. a and b.
2
B Benares, Sarasvatı Bhavana Library, MS 86112. Paper, Devanagarıscript. Folios 1–76; complete; double sided; 8–11 lines a page.7
C Calcutta, Asiatic Society, MS IM-5474. Paper, Devanagarı script. 13folios; incomplete; double sided; 12–15 lines a page. Comes with fourfolios from an unidentified Alam. karasastra work.8
K Sutra as quoted by Kaun.d. inya in the Bhas.ya.
T Trivandrum, University of Kerala Library, MS 2018. Paper,Devanagarı script.9 Folios 1–87 (nos. 1, 8–13, 27, 28 missing);double-sided; 9–10 lines a page. The text for the missing folios 1 and8–13 is preserved on folios numbered 1–11 in a different hand andwritten on more recent paper. This may be the handwriting of theeditor of the Pancarthabhas.ya, who copied this part of the MS fromthe Calcutta MS (cf. n. 1 above). Alternatively someone else mayhave copied it for Sastri from the Calcutta MS. In any case I considerthese eleven folios to be an apograph of part of the Calcutta MS.
Orthographical variants in the MSS are not reported. A few commonvariants are: 1) m. for m at the end of a Sutra; 2) absence of avagraha;3) doubling of t after a preceding r. The above variants are shared byall three MSS, which may indicate their close relationship. B starts withsrıgan. esaya namah. , C with om. srı mahagan. apataye namah. , and T withharih. gan. apataye namah. . The edition and apparatus below only refer to thereading of the Sutrapat.ha. Note that the numbering does not correspondwith the Sutra numbering in the existing edition of Kaun.d. inya’s Bhas.ya.References to Kaun.d. inya’s numbering in the notes are preceded by a K.If not stated otherwise K has the adopted reading. In case there is adifference between Sastri’s edition of the Bhas.ya and what T or the othermanuscripts actually have, this is reported in the notes and the siglum K isin general avoided. In such cases ‘Sastri’ refers to the reading of the Sutrain Sastri’s edition. I have refrained from recording all the variants of theBhas.ya readings in B, because they are full of scribal errors and they donot help in reconstructing the reading of the Sutrapat.ha. In general one
7Cf. A Descriptive Catalogue of the Sanskrit Manuscripts. Acquired for and Depositedin the Sampurnanand Sanskrit University (Sarasvati-Bhavana) Library Varanasi duringthe years 1951–1981. Vol. VI, part II. Tantra Manuscripts. Varanasi 1991, p. 84.
8I am grateful to Dr Abhijit Ghosh for providing me with a copy of the Calcuttamanuscript.
9A copy of this manuscript was provided to me by Dr Dominic Goodall and DrS.A.S. Sarma.
3
gets the impression that the text of the Sutrapat.ha is better preserved inthis manuscript than the text of the Bhas.ya’s Sutras.
Edition
1.1 athatah. pasupateh. pasupatam. yogavidhim. vyakhyasyamah. |pasupatam. yogavidhim. ] B Tpc, pasupatayogavidhim. C Tac.
K reads pasupatam. yogavidhim. with B and Tpc. The variant reading of
C and Tac also occurs in the Bhas.ya in B (f. 2r, ll. 5–6) and in the Sar-
◦nr. tyahud. um. kara◦ is also the reading of B (f. 10v, ll. 3–4.) and C (f. 6r, l. 14) in the
quotation of the Sutra in the Bhas.ya. Instead of ◦namaskarajapyopaharen. opatis. t.het
B wrongly reads ◦namaskaram. tathopaharen. a upatis. t.het there.
1.9 mahadevasya daks.in. amurtim |daks.in. amurtim ] B C, daks.in. amurteh. T.
Sastri agrees with T. The accusative daks. in. amurtim also occurs in the Bhas.ya’s
quotation of this Sutra in B (f. 11v, l. 2) and C (f. 6v, l. 11) and at the end of the
commentary on this Sutra in B (f. 23v, l. 1) and C (f. 11v, l. 5). Although this
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:
Tırthavivecanakan. d. a p. 106, ll. 15–17 linganirmalyadharı ca yatih. svayatane vaset |upagıtahud. um. karastutikr. tyaparah. sada | bhavanad devadevasya daks. in. am. murtim
asthitah. | and Nisvasamukha f. 17r, l. 3 ekavaso hy avaso va daks. in. amurtim asritah. .
Moreover, the reading of this Sutra in the Sutrapat.ha and Bhas.ya in T may very well
be the editor’s own handwriting (see introduction above), while the final reference to
this Sutra at the end of the commentary on K 1.9, for which the original Trivandrum
MS is available again, in fact has daks. in. amurt[t]im as well. A second hand appears
to have tried to correct it to daks. in. amurtteh. (T f. 23r, l. 8). The evidence for the
reading adopted by Sastri is thus rather weak indeed.
1.10 ekavasah. |ekavasah. ] T, ekavasa B C.
K agrees with T.
1.11 avasa va |
1.12 mutrapurıs.am. naveks.et |This and the following Sutra are reminiscent of BaudhDhS 3.8.17 strısudrair
nabhibhas.eta mutrapurıs.e naveks.eta.
1.13 strısudram. nabhibhas.et |For parallels to this Sutra, see Bisschop & Griffiths 2003: 338, n. 121.
1.14 yady aveks.ed yady abhibhas.et |
1.15 upaspr.sya |C reads this Sutra together with 1.16, while B takes 1.15–17 together.
K divides akalus.amateh. | caratah. | tato ’sya yogah. pravartate | (K 1.18–20).
1.19 durad darsanasravan. amananavijnanani casya pravartante |Instead of durad darsana◦ K has duradarsana◦. This Sutrapat.ha variant is not
reported by Sastri or Chakravarti. For the ablative construction, cf. Nisvasamula
f. 22v, l. 4 durac chravan. avijnanam. mananam. tatha, and Yogabhas.ya ad Yogasutra
2.43 tathendriyasiddhir durac chravan. adarsanadyeti. After this Sutra C is not avail-
able for the text of the Bhas.ya anymore.
1.20 sarvajnata |B connects this Sutra with the following.
1.21 manojavitvam |
1.22 kamarupitvam. vikaran. adharmitvam. ca |Sastri has kamarupitvam | vikaran. ah. | dharmitvam. ca | (K 1.25–26). However, T
(f. 17v, ll. 3–4) in fact reads yasmad aha vikaran. eti in the Bhas.ya, indicating that
Kaun.d. inya commented upon the first member of a compound? The compound
vikaran. adharmitva 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 kamarupitvam.
(in agreement with K).
The three kriyasaktis listed in 1.21–22 are also found in a verse transmitted
in the Old Javanese Jnanasiddhanta (JnaSi 9.11.5), with vikaran. adharmitva
changed to avikaradharmitva: yugapad manojavitvam. kamarupitvam eva ca |avikaradharmitvam. tu trisakty etad ucyate ‖ (hypometr.); cf. also the enumeration
of five jnanasaktis and three kriyasaktis at the end of chapter 9 of the same
avikaradharmitvan. Nahan ta n trisakti na. Yogasutra 3.48 has a different list:
tato manojavitvam. vikaran. abhavah. pradhanajayas ca.
1.23 sarve casya vasya bhavanti |
1.24 sarves.am. cavasyo bhavati |cavasyo ] Bpc C T, cava〈dhyo〉syo B.
As can be deduced from Sastri’s note on p. 46, this Sutra is absent in T in the
Bhas.ya. The preceding and following commentary are Sastri’s own reconstruction.
The commentary is also lacking in B.
6
1.25 sarvam. s cavisati |
1.26 sarves.am. canavesyo bhavati |canavesyo ] B C, ca navesyo T.
K agrees with B and C.
1.27 sarve casya vadhya bhavanti |
1.28 sarves.am. cavadhyo bhavati |
1.29 abhıto ’ks.ayo ’jaro ’marah. sarvatra capratihatagatir bhavati |Sastri divides this into five separate Sutras: abhıtah. | aks.ayah. | ajarah. |amarah. | sarvatra capratihatagatir bhavati | (K 1.33–37). The Bhas.ya upon the
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† gun. air yukto bhagavato mahadevasya mahagan. apatirbhavati |Sastri omits the redundant ebhir in the edition. ebhir is absent in the Bhas.ya’s
quotation of the Sutra in B; in fact ebhih. is Kaun.d. inya’s gloss of etaih. : etair
ebhir ity anukrantaih. purvoktair duradarsanadyair vikaran. antaih. na dos.air asar-
vajnatvadibhir ity arthah. (f. 34r, l. 1). This suggests that the Sutrapat.ha was at
one time extracted from the commentary. This Sutra (= K 1.38) is quoted and com-
mented upon in four segments in the Bhas.ya only preserved in B: ity etair gun. air
yuktah. | *bhagavatah. (em.; bhagavatıh. B) | mahadevasya | mahagan. apatir bhavati | .It seems to be referred to in Paramoks.anirasakarika 3a (mahagan. o mahesasya), de-
scribing the goal of yogimahesvarah. (= mahesvarayoginah. ?).
1.31 atredam. brahma japet |This Sutra reads slightly differently in the Bhas.ya preserved in B: atra cedam.
brahma japet. The ca is original, for Kaun.d. inya comments upon it: casabdah.
*sabahyabhyantarakriyasamuccayartho (em.; sabahyo bhyam. tara◦ B) dras.t.avyah.
(f. 34v, l. 10).
1.32 sadyojatam. prapadyami sadyojataya vai namah. |sadyojatam. ] Bpc C T, 〈pratihata〉sadyojatam. B • namah. ] B, namo namah. C T.
The single namah. (metrical!) in B is also the reading of the Sutra in K, who divides
sadyojatam. prapadyami | sadyojataya vai namah. | (K 1.40–41). Thus also Stuti and
Stava 360 (Goudriaan & Hooykaas 1971: 225–227). For the Brahma-mantra in
1.33 bhave bhave natibhave bhavasva mam |natibhave ] B C, (na)tibhave T.
B connects this Sutra with the following. Sastri reads bhave bhave
natibhave | bhajasva mam | (K 1.42–44). However, B (f. 36r, l. 3) and T
(f. 36r, l. 5) in fact omit natibhave in the Bhas.ya quotation. The Sutrapat.ha
reading bhavasva agrees with the Taittirıyaran. yaka version of this Brahma-mantra
(TA 10.43), while K’s bhajasva is found in the Mahanarayan. a-Upanis.ad (MNaUp
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 Sutras I
have given more weight to the readings of T.
1.34 bhavodbhavaya namah. |K has bhavodbhavah. | (K 1.44) instead and thus constitutes a regular sloka (1.32–
34). TA 10.43 agrees with the reading of the Sutrapat.ha. Stuti and Stava 360
(Goudriaan & Hooykaas 1971: 225–227) corresponds to K’s version, except that it
has a vocative bhavodbhava.
2.1 vamadevasya jyes.t.hasya sres.t.hasya rudrasya kalitasanam |vamadevasya ] B C, vamadeva˘ T • kalitasanam ] B Cpc T, kalitasanam. Cac.
Sastri reads differently: vamah. | devasya | jyes. t.hasya | rudrasya | kalitasanam | (K2.1–4). The reading of K constitutes a metrical hemistich of a Sloka. This may
indicate that sres. t.hasya in the Sutrapat.ha is not original, but influenced by the
Taittirıyaran. yaka Brahma-mantra (cf. 2.14). The text of the Bhas.ya for K 2.1 is
not secure: in T vamadeveti is written in the margin in a different hand, but these
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
Sutra, after iti, in the edition on p. 56, l. 7, the MS adds vamah. (not reported by
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: atrapi
taddharmitve s.as. t.hı) that the genitive is original.
2.2 sarvakamika ity acaks.ate |Instead of sarvakamika Sastri has sarvakamika (K 2.6), but this is the editor’s silent
emendation.
2.3 amangalam. catra mangalam. bhavati |
2.4 apasavyam. ca pradaks.in. am |apasavyam. ] B C, ˘ ˘ savyam. T.
2.5 tasmad ubhayatha yas.t.avyo devavat pitr.vac ca |Sastri divides tasmad ubhayatha yas.t.avyah. | devavat pitr.vac ca | (K 2.9–10). This is
8
the editor’s divison: tasmad (B f. 38v, l. 10; T f. 41r, l. 4) and ubhayatha yas.t.avyah.
(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 devah. pitaras ca |Instead of ubhaye K has ubhayam. .
2.7 hars.apramadı |
2.8 caryayam. caryayam. mahatmyam avapnoti |K starts a new Sutra after the second caryayam (K 2.13–14).
2.9 atidattam atigud. ham |Instead of atigud. ham K has atıs. t.am (K 2.15). Contrary to what Sastri suggests, T
(and B) read this Sutra together with the next one (T f. 44v, ll. 3–4). Instead of
the short i in atigud. ham we need a long ı (as transmitted in atıs. t.am) to retrieve
the underlying Sloka in 2.9–12. Probably atigud. ham — the lectio facilior — is not
original. It seems more likely that a relative yat after K’s atıs. t.am has dropped out.
2.10 atitaptam. tapas tatha |atitaptam. ] C T, atitapta◦ B • tapas ] B C, (ta)pas T.
2.11 atyagatim. gamayate |Na-vipula. atyagatim. instead of the more common atigatim. is presumably metri
2.14 vamadevaya namo jyes.t.haya namah. sres.t.haya namo rudraya namah.kalaya namah. kalavikaran. aya namo balavikaran. aya namo balayanamo balapramathanaya namah. sarvabhutadamanaya namo manon-manaya namah. |vamadevaya ] B C, va(ma)devaya T • sres.t.haya namo ] C T, sres.t.haya namo
balapramathanaya nama B • kalavikaran. aya ] B C, kala˘ (ka)ran. aya T • namo
manonmanaya namah. ] B C, +na+(mo) manonma[. . . ] T.
Sastri reads and separates quite differently: vamadevaya namo jyes.t.haya
namo rudraya namah. | kalaya namah. | kalavikaran. aya namah. | balapramathanaya
3.14 yena parebhyah. paribhavam. gacchet |K omits parebhyah. (K 3.18). Note that K alone shows metrical features.
3.15 paribhuyamano hi vidvan kr.tsnatapa bhavati |paribhuyamano hi vidvan ] B C, paribhuya [. . . ] T.
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-rebhyas ca | (K 3.21–23). However, ca is a silent addition by the editor, presum-
ably because Kaun.d. inya 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 Taittirıyaran. yaka 10.45, but it is present in Maitrayan. ısam. hita 2.9.10:130.1–2.
3.18 sarvebhyah. sarvasarvebhyo namas te astu rudrarupebhyah. |sarvebhyah. sarvasarvebhyo ] B C, sa [. . . ] sarvebhyo T.
Sastri reads and divides differently: sarvebhyah. | sarva sarvebhyah. | namas te astu
rudrarupebhyah. | (K 3.24–26), which is closer to the reading of TA 10.45, except
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 Sutra. Sastri does not report K 3.26 correctly either: Kaun.d. inya
comments separately upon namas te ’stu (T f. 56v, ll. 4–5) and rudrarupebhya[h. ]
(T f. 56v, ll. 6–7): the editor has left out rudrarupebhyah. before Kaun.d. inya’s remark
atra rudra iti karan. apadese | (PBh p. 91, l. 10).
loke yena jıryen na karhicit | (SPBh 122.83cd–84ab).
4.8 indro va agre asures.u pasupatam acarat |
4.9 sa tes.am is.t.apurttam adatta mayaya sukr.taya samavindata |adatta ] B C Tpc, adatte Tac.
Sastri divides sa tes. am is. t.apurttam adatta |mayaya sukr. taya samavindata | (K4.11–12). However, instead of K 4.12, T (f. 63r, l. 5) actually reads mayaya
sukr. taya | adatta | . B has the same reading, except that it has payaya (sic) instead
of mayaya (f. 55v, l. 2).
4.10 ninda hy es.am aninda |K reads differently: ninda hy es. aninda tasmat (K 4.13). The variant in the
Sutrapat.ha has not been recorded by Chakravarti. Note that in the Bhas.ya
tasmat belongs to this Sutra, while in the Sutrapat.ha it is part of the following
4.14 anena vidhina rudrasamıpam. gatva na kascid brahman. ah. punaravartate |Sastri divides this into two Sutras: anena vidhina rudrasamıpam. gatva | na kascid
brahman. ah. punar avartate | (K 4.19–20), but this is not done in B (f. 56v, l. 2) or
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 Sutra and the corresponding commentary are missing in
the Bhas.ya. I can add that this is also the case in B.
13
4.16 tatpurus.aya vidmahe mahadevaya dhımahi |K divides tatpurus. aya vidmahe |mahadevaya dhımahi | (K 4.22–23). For the
Brahma-mantra in 4.16–17, cf. Taittirıyaran. yaka 10.46.
4.17 tan no rudrah. pracodayat |
5.1 asangayogı nityatma ajo maitro ’bhijayate |nityatma ajo ] B C, nitya˘ ˘ ˘ jo T.
Sastri divides this into six Sutras and reads differently: asangah. | yogı | nit-
yatma | ajah. | maitrah. | abhijayate | (K 5.1–6), but in fact B (f. 58v, l. 8) and T
(f. 66v, l. 8) have asam. gayogı in place of K 5.1. Note that the Sutrapat.ha reading
constitutes a metrically correct hemistich of a ma-vipula (syncopation in the first
half and caesura after the 5th syllable). Cf. Oberlies (2000: 181, n. 29), who
observes that K 5.4–6 constitute a pada if one dissolves the sandhi, but who does
not mention the metrical problem in K 5.1–3.
5.2 indriyan. am abhijayat |
5.3 rudrah. provaca tavat |
5.4 sunyagaraguhavası |5.4–6 together constitute a Sloka.
5.20 smasanavası dharmatma yathalabdhopajıvakah. |5.20–22 together constitute a Sloka (ma-vipula). Sastri separates three Sutras:
smasanavası | dharmatma | yathalabdhopajıvakah. | (K 5.30–32). However, in place
of K 5.30 (smasanavası), B (f. 66v, ll. 1–2) and T (f. 76r, ll. 9–10) in fact read
smasanavası dharmatma yathalabdhopajıvakah. .
5.21 labhate rudrasayujyam |
5.22 sada rudram anusmaret |Probably the original reading of this last pada of a Sloka (5.20–5.22) was sada
rudram anusmaran. As such it is transmitted in the Bhas.ya in B (f. 67v, l. 5).
16
T reads anusmarat there (f. 77v, l. 9), which has been silently emended to anus-
maret by Sastri, presumably on the basis of the Sutrapat.ha. Cf. the parallel in
the ‘Lingapuran. a’ quoted by Laks.mıdhara (Tırthavivecanakan. d. a p. 107, ll. 4–
5): smasanavası dharmatma yathalabdhena vartate | labheta rudrasayujyam. sada
rudram anusmaran ‖ .
5.23 chittva dos.an. am. hetujalasya mulam |5.23–5.26 together constitute a Vaisvadevı. For parallels, see the annotation on
5.24.
5.24 buddhya sam. cintya sthapayitva tu rudre |Sastri reads and divides differently: buddhya | sam. cittam | sthapayitva ca rudre | (K5.36–38). Actually B and T divide K 5.37 (sam. cittam) 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 sam. cittam to svam. cittam; cf. PBh ad K
5.37: atra *svam (em.; sam Ed.) iti dos. adivislis. t.am. svayam eva svagun. atvena
parigr.hyate. Cf. also Ratnat. ıka p. 20, ll. 9–11: yo vidyanugr. hıtaya buddhya svam.
cittam. niralambanam. karoti so ’mud. ha ity ucyate. taya dharan. aya nirmalıkr. tam.
cittam. rudratattve sthapitam. sudırghakalam. na cyavate. Additional support comes
from Pampamahatmya 11.61cd–62ab (Filliozat 2001, p. 145): tasmad asmin svakam.
Baudhayanadharmasutra(BaudhDhS) [Published in] Dharmasutras. The Law Codes of Apastamba, Gautama,
Baudhayana, and Vasis.t.ha. Annotated Text and Translation [by] PatrickOlivelle. Delhi 2000.
Bhasarvajna(RT. ) Gan. akarika [with Ratnat. ıka] of Acarya Bhasarvajna (With four
appendices including the Karavan. a-Mahatmya). Edit. by ChimanlalD. Dalal. Gaekwad’s Oriental Series 15. Baroda 1920.
Bisschop, Peterforthc. a Review of ‘Minoru Hara, Pasupata Studies. Edited by Jun Takashima.
Vienna 2002. Publications of the De Nobili Research Library XXX.’ Toappear in the Indo-Iranian Journal.
forthc. b ‘Pancarthabhas.ya on Pasupatasutra 1.37–39. Recovered from a newlyidentified manuscript.’ To appear in the Journal of Indian Philosophy.
Bisschop, Peter & Arlo Griffiths2003 ‘The Pasupata Observance (Atharvavedaparisis.t.a 40).’ In: Indo-Iranian
Journal 46, pp. 315–348.Chakravarti, Chintaharan
1943 ‘Pasupatasutra.’ In: Indian Historical Quarterly 19, pp. 270–271.Filliozat, Vasundhara
2001 Kalamukha and Pasupata Temples in Dharwar. Chennai.Gan. apatitattwa
(GT) Gan. apati-Tattwa. An Old Javanese philosophic text. Critically edited andtranslated by Sudarshana Devi Singhal. Dvıpantara-Pit.aka 3. New Delhi1958.
Goudriaan, T. and C. Hooykaas1971 Stuti and Stava (Bauddha and Vais.n. ava) of Balinese Brahman priests.
Verhandelingen der KNAW, afd. Letterkunde, Nieuwe Reeks 76.Amsterdam, London.
Hara, Minoru2002 Pasupata Studies. Edited by Jun Takashima. Publications of the De Nobili
Research Library XXX. Vienna.Jnanasiddhanta
(JnaSi) Jnanasiddhanta. Edited and translated by Haryati Soubadio. BibliothecaIndonesica 7. The Hague 1971.
Kaun.d. inya(PBh) Pasupata Sutras with Pancharthabhashya of Kaundinya. Edit. by
R. Ananthakrishna Sastri. Trivandrum Sanskrit Series CXLIII.Trivandrum 1940.
Kawasaki, Shinjo1988 The Mımam. sa Chapter of Bhavya’s Madhyamaka-hr.daya-karika. Sanskrit
and Tibetan Texts. From Studies 1976, 1987, 1988, Institute of Philosophy,The University of Tsukuba.
Laks.mıdhara
19
(TVK) Bhat.t.a-srı-Laks.mıdhara-viracite Kr.tyakalpatarau As.t.amo bhagah. .Tırthavivecanakan. d. am. Edit. by K.V. Rangaswami Aiyangar. Gaekwad’sOriental Series XCVIII. Baroda 1942.
Lindtner, Christian1997 ‘Bhavya on Mımam. sa.’ in: Studia Indologiczne 4. Aspects of Buddhism.
Proceedings of the International Seminar on Buddhist Studies, Liw 25June 1994. Warsaw, pp. 91–123.
Lingapuran. a(LiP) Srı-Vyasa-mahars.iproktam. Srı-Lingamahapuran. am. , with the Sanskrit
commentary Sivatos.in. ı by Gan. esa Natu. [Edit. by] Gangavis.n. u (son ofKr.s.n. adasa). Venkatesvara Press, Bombay V.S. 1981 [= AD 1924].[Reprinted, with a Slokanukraman. ı by Nagasaran. a Sim. ha, by NagPublishers, Delhi 1989 (2nd ed. 1996)]
Madhyamakahr.dayakarika(MHK) See Kawasaki 1988 and Lindtner 1997.
Mahabharata(MBh) The Mahabharata. For the first time critically edited by V. S. Sukthankar
and others. Poona 1927–59. 19 vols.Mahanarayan. a-Upanis.ad
(MNaUp) La Maha Narayan. a Upanis.ad. Edition critique, avec une traductionfrancaise, une etude, des notes et, en annexe, la Pran. agnihotra Upanis.ad.par Jean Varenne. 2 tomes. Paris 1960.
Maitrayan. ısam. hita(MaiS) Maitrayan. ı Sam. hita. Die Sam. hita der Maitrayan. ıya-Cakha. [Edit. by]
Leopold von Schroeder. 4 vols. Leipzig 1881–1886.Markan. d. eyapuran. a
(MkP) The Marcan. d. eya Puran. a in the original Sanscrit edited by K. M. Banerjea.Bibliotheca Indica 29. Calcutta 1855–62. [Reprinted by Biblio Verlag,Osnabruck 1988.]
Nisvasatattvasam. hitaElectronic transcription of the codex of the Nisvasatattvasam. hita in theNational Archives, Kathmandu, MS 1–227 (= A 41/4) supplemented withreadings from its Kathmandu apograph MS (NGMPP 159/18), by DominicGoodall. Includes the Nisvasamukha, Nisvasamula, Nisvasottara,Nisvasanaya and Nisvasaguhya.
Oberlies, Thomas2000 ‘Kriegslisten und ungeziemendes Benehmen: Die Askesepraktiken der
Pasupatas.’ In: Ryutaro Tsuchida and Albrecht Wezler (eds.),Haranandalaharı. Volume in Honour of Professor Minoru Hara on hisSeventieth Birthday (Reinbek), pp. 175–191.
Sanderson, Alexis*1998 ‘Lakulas and Somasiddhantins. Hilary Term 1998. Handout 5.’
[Unpublished lecture handout.]
20
2002 ‘History through Textual Criticism in the study of Saivism, the Pancaratraand the Buddhist Yoginıtantras.’ In: Francois Grimal (ed.), Les Sources etle Temps. Sources and Time. A Colloquium. Pondicherry 11–13 January1997 (Pondicherry), pp. 1–47.
*2004 ‘The Yoga of Dying. The Saiva Atimarga. Week 5: Handout, 9 November,2004.’ [Unpublished lecture handout.]
Sardhatrisatikalottara(STK) Sardhatrisatikalottaragama with commentary (-vr.tti) of Bhat.t.a
Ramakan. t.ha. Edit. by N.R. Bhatt. Publications de l’Institut Francaisd’Indologie 61. Pondicherry 1979.
Sarvadarsanasam. graha(SDS) Sarva-Darsana-Samgraha of Sayan. a=Madhava. Edited with an original
commentary in Sanskrit by Mahamahopadhyaya Vasudev ShastriAbhyankar. Government Oriental (Hindu) Series Vol. I. Poona 1924.
Schultz, Friedrich August1958 Die philosophisch-theologischen Lehren des Pasupata-Systems nach dem
Pancarthabhas.ya und der Ratnat. ıka. Beitrage zur Sprach- undKulturgeschichte des Orientes 10. Walldorf-Hessen.
Skandapuran. a(SPBh ) Skandapuran. asya Ambikakhan. d. ah. , sam. padakah. Kr.s.n. aprasada Bhat.t.araı.
(SvUp) [Published in] Eighteen Principal Upanis.ads. Vol. I. Upanis.adic Text withParallels from extant Vedic Literature, Exegetical and Grammatical Notesby V.P. Limaye & R. D. Vadekar. Gandhi Memorial Edition. Poona 1958.