Vaisesika Vakya And Bhasya

Author(s): Johannes Bronkhorst
Publisher: Johannes Bronkhorst
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/269577/1

Page #1
1. A long period of time separates Prasastapada's Padarthadharmasangraha from the oldest kernel of the Vaisesika Sutra whose system of thought it aims to explain. Vaisesika works were composed in the intervening period, but they have not survived, with the possible exception of Candramati's *Dasapadarthasastra, which survives only in Chinese translation. THE VAISESIKA VAKYA AND BHASYA1 By Mallavadin's Dvadasara Nayacakra, a Jaina work, refers on two occasions to a Vaisesika vakya and bhasya, that were apparently known to Prasastapada. The first and most important passage that contains information about these two reads, in the admirable reconstruction of Muni Jambuvijaya : K 1 JOHANNES BRONKHORST DNC p. 508-09 and 512-13: yad api coktam : vk 1 T1 "vikalpatrayanasrayad vikalpantarasrayanac ca vikalpanupapatteh iti na dosah, nis thasambandhayor ekakalatvat | nistha karanasamagryavyaparakalah pragasato vastubhavah nisthanam samaptih... / sambandhah svakaranasattasamavayah / tayor ekakalatvam, svakaranasattasambandha eva nisthakalah, kutah? samavayasyaikatvat, yasminn eva kale parinistham gacchat karyam karanaih sambadhyate, samavayasambandhena ayutasiddhihetuna - tasminn eva kale sattadibhir api, tasmad apravibhagat prak karyotpatter asatah sadadir anaspado vikalpah/" etad api na ... asatsambandhapariharartham ca nisthasambandhayor ekakalatvat ity etad eva vakyam sabhasyam prasasto 'nyatha vyacaste: "sambandhas ca sambandhas ca sambandhau, nisthayah sambandhau nisthasambandhau, tayor ekakalatvat / nisthitam nistha, kara 1 I would like to thank A. Wezler and J. Houben, who read an earlier version of this article and made valuable suggestions. 19 Annals, BORI [ A. M.]

Page #2
146 ABORI: Amptamahotsava Volume kaparispandad vastubhavam apannam avyapadesyadharam karyam nisthitam nistha ity ucyate, tasya svakaranaih sattaya ca yugapat sambandhau bhavatah / bhasyam api parinistham gacchad gatam ity etam artham darsayati, vartamanasamipye vartamanavad va (P. 3. 3. 131) iti / yatha karakantaram utpadyamanam drstam karakavyaparad vastubhavam apannam avyapadesyadharam nirvrttam sat svakaranaih sattaya ca sambadhyate tatha patakhyam /" tad api na... The phrase nisthasambandhayor ekakalatvat is here called a vakya'. This vakya is twice explained, in the first and in the second half of the above passage respectively. The second explanation (T1) is, Mallavadin tells us, a reinterpretation of the vakya and its bhasya by Prasasta. The first explanation (K 1) must therefore be its bhasya. And indeed, T 1 quotes the words parinistham gacchad from the first explanation, and states that it belongs to the bhasya. There is no reason to doubt that Prasasta - or Prasastamati, as Mallavadin and his commentator Simhasuri call him elsewhere (see below) - is the same person as Prasastapada, the author of the Padarthadharmasangraha. All of these names, and various others, have been used by different authors to refer to the author of the Padarthadharmasangraha." This Prasasta, it is plausible to conclude from the above passage (and the following passage to be considered confirms this), commented both upon the vakya and upon the bhasya, which we will jointly refer to as Vakya-cum-Bhasya'. As Mallavadin points out, Prasasta felt free, where necessary, to interpret this Vakya-cum-Bhasya' the way he considered correct. The quotation from his commentary (T1) makes also clear that he would none-the-less try to show that his interpretation agreed with the bha sya. Passage K 1 throws some light on the nature of the bhasya. It apparently contained and commented upon individual vakyas. A vakya is here - judging by the one vakya we now know - a short nominal sentence, which is explained in the Bhasya in normal Sanskrit. This is in no way surprising. Several works of a similar nature-written in the so-called Varttika-style' - are known from the period round the middle of the first millennium C. E., and the term vakya' used to refer to the sutra-like phrases in them is quite 2 The sentence preceding the vakya may be no more than Mallavadin's restatement of what precedes in the Bhasya, and may not be a literal quotaiion. 3 See Chemparathy, 1970.

Page #3
BRONKHORST : The Vaisesika Vakya and Bhasya : 147 common. The example of these works appears to have been the (Vyakarana-) Mahabhasya of Patanjali. We shall return to this subject below. The second passage in the Dradasara Nayacakra that mentions the vakya and the bhasya reads (p. 516-17): vastutpattikale eva iti vakyakarabhiprayo 'nusrto bhasyakaraih / siddhasya vastunah svakaranaih svasattaya ca sambandha iti prasa stamato 'bhiprayah / This passage does not appear to quote either a vakya or from the bhasya. It rather sums up the positions expressed in K 1 and 1. The passage sugge. sts at first sight that in Mallavadin's opinion vakya and bhasya had different authors. (The plural ending of bhasyakaraih may express respect, and does not necessarily entail that there was more than one bhasyakara.) Both these authors held that connection with the universal 'existence? (sattasambandha) occurs simultaneously with the origination of the thing. This view is contrasted with the one of Prasastamati, who thought that both connection with existence and connection with the own causes' take place when the thing is already there... But is Mallavadin correct in thinking that there were two authors ? Or perhaps : do we understand him correctly? It would be surprising if there actually were two or more ) authors of the Vakya-cum-Bhasya. As stated above, several works are known that date from around the middle of the first millennium C. E. and that consist of vakyas and their explanations. All known examples, however, have one single author. Indeed, works that display this so-called Varttika-style' appear to owe their inspiration to the (Vyakarana-) Mahabhasya, about the authorship of which very different ideas reigned from today. The evidence from Bhartshari's commentary on the Mahabhasya shows that we do not of necessity have to interpret Mallavadin's statement to mean that he believed in two or more authors of the Vakya-cum-Bhasya. Bhartshari, too, speaks about a Vakyakara and a Bhasyakara, be it that he does so while referring to the Mahabha sya. Yet he appears to have thought that the vakyas of the Mahabhasya (i. e., its varttikas') were written by the very person who also explained them in the Bhasya. 4 See also Halbfass, 1986 : 281 f. 5 See Bronkhorst, 1990; also Lang, 1988. 6 This is argued at length in Bronkhorst, 1990. The main evidence can be summarized as follows: (i) Bharthari regularly uses the word 'varttika' to refer to bhasyapassages, the Yuktidipika does so on one occasion; (ii) I-ching gives evidence that no distinction was made between vartikas and the Mahabhasya (this had already been pointed out by J. Brough ).

Page #4
148 ABORI: Amrtamahotsava Volume It is further important to realize that the terms vakya and bhasya are not necessarily titles of works, especially not in a work that drew its inspiration from the Mahabhasya. Bhartrhari's Vakyapadiya (ed. Rau, 1.23) speaks, for example, of bha syas, in the plural, and there can be no doubt that portions of the Mahabhasya are meant. Bhartrhari's Mahabhasya Dipika, moreover, speaks twice of this bhasya', meaning this portion of the Mahabhasya' (Ms 9d7, AL 29. 11, Sw 35. 3, CE I. 24, 15-16;- Ms 97a8, AL 278. 19) and once of this whole bhasya' (sarvam idam bhasyam; Ms. 44d2, AL 135. 22-23, Sw 158. 5, CE IV. 22.17) in the same sense. It is conceivable that Mallavadin, too, when mentioning a vakya and a bhasya, meant portions of a work that, as a whole, carried a different name. Simhasuri mentions two, or perhaps three, Vaisesika works: the Kalandi, Prasastamati's Tika, and a Tika without further specification;. sometimes Prasastamati is simply referred to as Tikakara' (p. 516, 517). The Vakya-cum-Bhasya, or any other. Vaisesika Bhasya, is never mentioned by Simhasuri, except in the context of the two passages discussed above, where he follows Mallavadin and where the discussion concerns the differences or agreements between a vakya and its bhasya. Is it possible that the Katandi is the same work as the one we call Vakya-cum-Bhasya? Several indications support this supposition. On p. 458 we learn about an opinion that has been rejected (purvapaksita) in the Katandi and in the Tika (katandyam tikayam ca). The juxtaposition of these two names creates the impression that the Tika is a commentary on the Katandi. If here too the Tika is Prasastapada's Tika - and there is no reason to believe otherwise the Katandi can hardly be anything but our Vakya-cum-Bhasya. This conclusion is confirmed by the following. The opinion which, according to Simhasuri, figured as purvapaksa in the Katandi and its Tika, and which is accepted by Mallavadin, is summarized by the latter in the following words (p. 459): tasmad vikalpanupapatter na sattasambandho 'bhidhanapratyayahetuh. It is precisely this purvapaksa that is answered in K 1, the only passage that is explicitly attributed to the Vakya-cum-Bhasya by Mallavadin and Simhasuri. The introductory sentence of K 1, it will be recalled, reads: vikalpatrayanasrayanac ca vikalpanupapatteh iti na dosah. Simhasuri ascribes another passage to the Katandi on p. 499. Since this passage rejects the second alternative introduced in a quoted passage on p. 490-491 and thus fils a lacuna left open in the earlier passage, it seems reasonable to assume that both belong together and formed part of the Katandi. Together they read:

Page #5
K 2 DNC p. 490-491: vk 2 BRONKHORST: The Vaisesika Vakya and Bhasya vk 3 149 na, vikalpanupapatteh | [kimi yenaivatmana sat tenaiva asat, ahosvit apeksikam sadasa'tvam anyenatmana mrdadina prak sad ghatadi karyam] ghatatmana casat ? na tavad [ yenaivatmana sat tenaivatmana asat, sadasator vaidharmyat / yad uktam sadasator vaidharmyat karye sadasatta na (VS 9. 12), sattvapratipakso 'sattvam ] asattvapratipaksas ca sattvam/ sat sopakhyam asan nirupakhyam, [ tayor vaidharmyat ekasmin karye ] sadasattvam na bhavatity arthah / DNC p. 499: yad, ucyate saiddharthiyaih upadananiyamadarsanat sat karyam tilatailavat tatkriyadyasattvadarsanad asat, drstam tavat [patarthitayam tantunam evopadanam na tu pamsvadinam, evam patarthas ca kuvindasya vyaparo drstah, J' itaratha tantupamsvadisv avise sah prag ipi vyaparabhavas ca syat, drsta tu kriya [ patartba kuvindasya tantunam eva copadanam; tasmad upadananiyamatadarthavyaparabhyam sadasat karyam, ] ubhayaikante dosadarsanat sad evasad eva veti cayukta ekantah, sadasadatmakatvat karyasya upadananiyamah kriya ca yujyate' iti, tan. apeksikam sadasattvam, prag utpatteh mrdatmana sat karyam ghatatmana casat, nispanne 'pi ghate mrttvadarsanad mrdupadanopapattih, ghatatmana casattvad ghatarthakriyopapattir ity evam kila arhata aha / atrottaram na, asatkaryatvasiddheh | Sevam tarhi mrdatmanah kartavyatvabhavad ghatatmanah kartavyatvad asad eva karyam / tasman na prag utpatteh sadasat karyam / The second half of this quotation is found again on p. 503. The Varttika-style which characterizes also this passage confirms us in our idea that the Katandi is indeed identical with the Vakya-cum-Bhasya'. One final quotation in the Dvadasara Nayacakra that is attributed to the Katandi shows that this work did not consist exclusively of vakyas and their explanations. This third passage explains a Vaisesika sutra: 7 Here and in following quotations from the Nayacakra, square hooks enclose tentative phrases proposed by the editor in footnotes to fill lacunae in the text. 8 What follows is vyakhya according to Simhasuri.

Page #6
150 ABORI: Amstamahotsava Volume K 3 DNC p. 498-499 : sadasator vaidharmyat karye sadasatta na (VS 9. 12), sadasacchabdarthayor virodhad ekasminn eva karye sadasacchabdayor ekadhikaranabhavena prayogo nasti, sad evasat' ity anusandhanan nasty ekadhikaranabhavena iti saptamyabhidhanena darsayati If the reasoning presented thus far is correct, it follows that all the quotations from Vaise sika works that are identified by Mallavadin or by his commentator Simhasuri, belong to the katandi or to the Tika written on it by Prasastapada." The Katandi, furthermore, was then at least partly written in the Varttika-style, which contains vakyas and bhasyas.. It seems reasonable to assume that more quotations from the Katandi and from its TIka occur in the seventh Ara of the Dvadasara Nayacakra. We might furthermore be tempted to think that all quotations that clearly derive from a Vaisesika work and that exhibit the Varttika-style, are quotations from the Katandi. This latter assumption, however, has to be treated with much caution, for the following reason : We have been able to identify one passage from Prasastapada's Tika. in T I, above. Mallavadin rejects the opinion expressed in that passage, saying (p. 513): tad api na, samavayikaranatvavirodhat svavacanabhyupagamavirodhau It appears that this objection had been foreseen by Prasastapada, for Mallavadin quotes the following reply, which must, therefore, belong to Prasastapada's Tika: T 2 DNC p. 514 : (samavayikaranatvanivTttir iti cet) na, anyatrasamava yat / Pyadi tasya ( anyatra samavayo 'bhyupagamyeta syad ayam dosah, na tu tathabhyupagamyate, 1 tasmad adosah / Another objection raised by Mallavadin runs (p. 513): 9 Sinhasuri introduces the explanation with the words; tadvyakhyanam

Page #7
BRONKHORST: The Vaisesika Vakya and Bhasya kim ca, nisthitasya karyasya karapaih sattaya ca sambandho yutasiddhasambandhah, karyasya karanebhyo 'nyatra parinisthitatvat / This objection, too, must have been taken from Prasastapada's commentary, for it is answered in the following quoted passage: T 3 DNC p. 516: 151 na, asyasamyogat / 10na hi karanasambandhibhih karyasya samyogo 'sti / As is clear from these two quotations, it looks as if Prasastapada's Tika, too, contained vakyas. In fact, there is no reason to assume that his Tika was written in the Varttika-style. The two vakyas which occur in the above two quotations from his work answer objections, and a short nominal phrase, subsequently explained, in such a position is not to be confused with the consistently used Varttika-style. The latter does not only express the answers to objections in subsequently explained vakyas, but normally also the objections themselves. We do not know whether the Katandikara used this style consistently in each and every case (the above quotations from his work suggest he didn't), yet the way Mallavadin refers to him allows us, at least tentatively, to assign any quotation in full' Varttika-style to his work. In the context of our purpose - identifying quoted portions from the Katandi - this means that there where we have no other indications but the style, we can only be reasonably sure that a passage belonged to the Katandi if both its objection(s) and answer(s) take the form of a vakya plus explanation. In the case of one such passage we have independent evidence which confirms our belief that it must belong to the Katandi. The passage fulfils our primary requirement that the objection too be expressed in a vakya that is then explained. The extra reason to believe that it derives from the Katandi is that elsewhere in the seventh Ara Mallavadin appears to quote Prasastapada's commentary, or a paraphrase thereof, on at least part of this quoted portion. The passage reads: K 4 DNC p, 486: athava vise sanasambandham antarenapi vastumatranam parasparatisayo 'sti tena visesanasambandhaniyamasiddhih / 10 Simhasuri introduces the explanation with the words: tad vyacaste.

Page #8
152 ABORI: Amstamahotsava Volume vk 4' katham parasparatisaya iti cet / katham prak [ sattasambandhad dravyagunakarmanam parasparato ] atisayah syat / vk 5 na, drstantat | yatba parapakse ( sattasambandhad ste 'pi sattva rajastamasam parasparato ] atisayas tathehapi syat / vk 6. Samanyadivad va yatha samanyadi svata evasti arthantarasam bandhanirapeksam tatha dravyady api ) svata eva syat / Simhasuri ascribes the following lines to Prasastamati : .... DNC p. 462-463 : na ca tad api niratmakam Sasavisanavat, sattasambandhad rte 'pi yatha para pakse pradhanadinam satmakatvam tathehapi syat (tvatpakse drstantabhava iti cet, samanyadivad va, ... Samanyadi vad eva satmakam na ghatadivat satmakam Note that vk 6 is repeated in this passage. The next passage that appears to have been quoted from the Katandi needs some introductory remarks. It was stated above that vk 3 and its explanation are repeated, and refuted, on p. 503. This page, and the ones following it, contain a debate between Mallavadin and an opponent who is, apparently, the author of the Katandi. In this debate a passage occurs which, even though it has Mallavadin's agreement, is written in the full'. Vartika-style. This should not confuse us. Mallavadin agrees at times with the purvapaksa of the Kapandi ( see above), and this latter text contained evidently elaborate arguments. It is at least conceivable that Mallavadin borrowed here too a purvapak sa of his opponent and presented it as his own view. The passage reads : K 5 DNC p. 504-515 vk 7 samarthasya karane 'dhikaraparigrahat sa iti cet samarthasyaiva karyakriyayam [ adhikaraparigrahad upadananiyamah, tasmad] asad eva karyam / vk 8 ekibhavagatarthasya samarthatvat satkaryat vam eva / atha katham tantuturyader eva kar:natvenopadanam patanirvsttau, na pamsuvasyadeh ?11 tasyaiva samarthatvat tatha tatha pasadikaryam tantusu 11 The editor thinks that something is wrong with this sentence and proposes, in a note, the following alternative: atha katham tantuturyadi eva patanirvettau karanam, na pamauvasyadi.

Page #9
BRONKHORST : The Vaisesika Vakya and Bhasya - 153: vartate tatha amsu su tatha paksmatitirenuparamanusu tatha turya disv api, pamsvadisv api ca, karanakaranatvad anuvat/ Summing up our findings of this section, it can be stated that the seventh Ara of the Dvadasara Nayacakra appears to contain a long discussion with a Vaisesika text called Katandi and with its commentary, the Tika by Prasastapada. No other Vaisesika works would seem to be referred to. The Katandi, which had a single author whose name is not mentioned, was written in the Varttika-style that characterizes a number of works of around the middle of the first millennium C. E., a style in which vakyas and their explanations (bhasyas ) play a predominant role. Mallavadin, in his discussion with the Katandi and its commentary, quotes frequently from these two texts. Simhasuri's comments, as well as the recognizable style of the Katandi, allow us to identify a number of its quoted passages. The fact that Mallavadin left, at least in some cases, the Varttika-style unchanged, suggests that he, if he changed his quotations at all, did so to a but limited extent. Before we turn to the next section, which will study the possible link between the katandi and the Padarthadharmasangraha, it will be useful to list here the vakya referred to by Vyomasiva in his Vyomavati (p. 351. 27-28 ), to which attention was drawn by H. Isaacson (1990 : 85): vk 9 purvaparadipratyayanam karane digakhya 2. We have seen that Prasastapada wrote a Tika on the Katandi. This Tika, like the work on which it commented, is now lost. Prasastapada's Padarthadharmasangraha, on the other hand, has survived, and is indeed considered to contain the classical exposition of the Vaise sika system. It seems no more than reasonable to believe that the Padarthadharmasangraha was profoundly influenced by the Kacandi. The question to be posed in this section is whether traces of this influence can actually be found in the text. Note first that the seventh Ara of the Dvadasara Nayacakra contains at least one quotation which corresponds almost word for word to a passage of the Padarth-dharmasangraha.! Our criteria do not permit us to determine whether this quotation originally belonged to the katandi or to the Tika, but either way our expectation is strengthened that the Padarthadharmasangraha may owe a great deal to the now lost Katandi. In the case of the Padarthadharmasangraha our main criterion for identifying a passage as a quotation from the Katandi, is the Varttika-style. 12 See Jambuvijaya's edition of the Dvadasara Nayacakra p. 524 n. 3, 20 Annals BORI ( A.M.

Page #10
ABORI: Amrtamahotsava Volume The Padarthadharmasangraha as a whole is not written in this style, but some passages, usually dealing with the elaboration of rather obscure points of doctrine, are. Those that seem to be unacknowledged quotations from the Katandi will be enumerated and, where necessary, briefly discussed.13 154 The first of these is in a certain way also the most remarkable. It is a vakya along with its explanation. The vakya appears to counter a preceding proposition, which, however, is not found in the Padarthadharmasangraha. The vakya therefore hangs in the air. Its explanation, on the other hand, can be read as a continuation of the exposition that started before the vakya. The only explanation of this extraordinarily strange state of affairs appears to be that Prasastapada borrowed an appropriate passage from another text, but quoted along with it its introductory vakya, even though that vakya was out of place in its new surroundings. There is no reason to doubt that this, other text was the Katandi. I reproduce first the preceding passage of the Padarthadharmasangraha, followed by the presumed quotation from the Katandi: N p. 69; Ki p. 84; tr. Jha p. 152 K 6 vk 10 atmatvabhisambandhad atma / tasya sauksmyad apratyaksatve sati karanaih sabdadyupalabdhyanumitaih srotradibhih samadhigamah kriyate vasyadinam iva karananam kartrprayojyatvadarsanat / sabdadisu prasiddhya ca prasadhako 'numiyate/ na, sari rendriyamanasam ajnatvat 1 na sarirasya caitanyam ghatadivad bhutakaryatvan mrte casambhavat / nendriyanam karanatvat upahatesu visayasannidhye canusmrtidarsanat / napi manasah karanantaranapeksitve yugapad alocanasmrtiprasangat svayam karanabhavac ca / parisesad atmakaryatvad atma samadhigamyate / The following passages presumably quoted from the Katandi are identified exclusively by their style: 13 The Padarthadharmasangraha appears to contain one acknowledged quotation from the Katandi, which will be discussed below. 11. Many commentators (Vyomasiva, Udayana, sridhara, Padmanabha Misra) try to make sense of this vakya by supplying the word caitanyam from the following sentence for its interpretation.

Page #11
BRONKHORST : The Vaisesika Vakya and Bhasya 155 K7 N p. 112-113; Ki p. 133-135; tr. Jha p. 243-245 Sobhanam etad vidhanam vadhyaghatakapakse / sahanavasthanaiaksane tu virodhe dravyajnananut pattiprasangan katham/ gunabuddhisamakalam apeksabuddhivinasad dvitvavinase tada peksasya dve dravye iti dravyajnanasyanutpattiprasanga iti vk 11. Laingikavaj jnanamatrad iti cet syan matam yatha "abhutam bhutasya' (VS 3.1.8) ity atra lingabhave 'pi jnanamatrad anumanami tatha gunavinase 'pi gunabuddhimatrad dravyapratyayah syad iti . . vki 12 na, visesyajnanatvat na hi visesyajnanam sarupyad visesapasam bandham antarena bhavitum arhati / tatha caha sutrakarah samavayinab svaityac chvaityabuddheh svete buddhis te karyakarapa bhute iti na tu laiigikam jnanam abhedenotpadyate tasmad visamo a 'yam upanyasah, na asutpatteh yatha sabdavad akasam iti atra to trini jnanany asutpadyante tatha dvitvadijnanotpattav.ily adosah / vk 13 vadh yaghatakapakse 'pi samano dosa iti cet syan matam / nanu vadhyagbatakapakse 'pitarhi dravyajnananutpattiprasangah katham dvitvasamanyabuddhisamakalam samskarad apeksa - buddhivinasad iti / na, samahajnanasya samskarahetutvat samuhajnanam eva sanskarakara nam nalocanajnanam ity adosah / jnanayaugapadyaprasanga iti cet / syan watam / nanu jnananam vadhyaghatakavirodhe jnanayaugapadyaprasanga iti / vk 16 na, avinasyator avasthanapratisedhat / jnanayauga padyavacanena jnanayor yugapad utpattir avinasyatos ca yugapad avasthanam pratisidhyate na hi vadhyaghatakavirodhe jnanayor yuga pad utpattir avinasyatos ca yugapad avasthanam astiti / K8 N p. 292-94 ; Ki p. 263-65; tr. Jha p. 620-623 Yk 17 kar manam jatipancakatvam ayuktami gamanavisesat / sarvam hi ksapikam karma gamanamatram utpannam svasrayasyordhvam adhas tiryag vapy anumatraih pradesaih samyogavibhagan karoti sarvatra gimanapratyayo 'visistah / tasmad gamanam eva sarvam iti /

Page #12
156 ABORI: Amrtamahor sava Volume * vk 18 na, vargasah pratyayanuvrtivyavittidarsanat, ihotksepanam para trapak sepa nam ity evamadi sarvatra vargasah pratyayanuvrttivyavrtti drste / taddhetuh samanyavisesabhedo 'vagamyate / tesam udadyupasargaviscsat pratiniyatadigvisistakaryarambhatvad upala ksanabhedo 'pi siddhah vk 19 evam api pancaivety avadharananupapatih / niskramanapravesana. disv api vargasal pratyayanuvittivyavsttidarsanat / yady utksepanadisu sarvatra vargasah pratyayanuvrttivyavrttidarsanij jatibheda isyate evam ca niskramanapravesanadisv api / karyabhedat tesu pratyayanuvettivyavetti iti cet na, utksepanadisv api karyabhedad eva pratyaya nuvrttivyavsttiprasangah / atha samane vargasah pratyayanuvettivyavrttisadbhave utksepanadinam eva jatibhedo na nis kramanadinamily atra vis sahetur astiti vk 20 na, jatisarkaraprasargat, niskramanadinam jatibhedat pratyaya. nuvyttivyavrttau jatisankarah prasajyate / katham/ dvayor drastror ekasmad apavarakad apavarakantaram gacchato yugapan niskramanapravesanapratyayau drstau tatha dvarapradese pravisati niskramatiti ca / yada tu pratisirady apanitam bhavati tada na pravesanapratyayo napi niskramanapratyayah kintu gamana pratyaya eva bhavati/ tatha nalikayam vanisapatradau patati bahunam drastroam yugapad bhramanapatanapravesanapratyaya drsta iti jatisan karaprasangah na caivam utk cepanadisu pratyayasankaro drstah / tasmad uiksepanadinam eva jatibheda! pratyayanuvsitivyavstti niskrama. nadinam tu karyabhedad iti / yk 21 kathani yugapal prat yayabheda iti cet / atha matam / yatha jatisan karo nasti evam anckakarmasamaveso 'pi nastity ekasmin karmani yugapad drastinam bhramanapatanapravesanapratyayah katham bhavantiti atra brumah / vk 22 na, avayavavayavinor digvisistasani yogavibhaganani bhedat / yo hi drasta avayavanam parsvalah paryayena dikpradesaih samy ogavibhagan pasyati tasya bhramanapratyayo bhavati / yo hy avayavina urdhvapradesa ir vibhagam adhah samyogam caveksate tasya patanapratyayo bhavati / yah punar nalikantardese samvogam bahirdese ca vibhagam pasyati tasya pravesanapratyayo bhavatiti siddhah karyabhedan niskramanadinam pratyayabheda iti K9 N p. 140-41; Kip. 1-8; tr. Jha p. 363-304 vk 23 nasty ajali saniyogo nis yaparimandalarat prthag anabhidhanat /

Page #13
BRONKHORST : The Vaisesika Vakya and Bhasya 157 yatha caturvidham parimanam utpadyam uktvaha nityam pariman.. dalam ity evam anyatarakarmajadisaryogam utpadyam uktva prthan nityam bruyat / na tv evam abravit / tasman nasty ajah samyogah / Before we turn to the last and most important unacknowledged quotation from the Katandi, we briefly consider what may be the only acknowledged quotation from that work in the Padarthadharmasangraha. It is contained in the following passage (Kip: 235, N p. 239, tr. Jha p. 509-510): nanu cayami visesah 'samsayahetur abhihitah sastre 'tulyajatlyesv arthantarabhutesu (ca) visezasyobhayatha drstatvad' (VS 2. 2. 26 ) iti, na, anyarthatvat / K 10 $abde visesadarsanat samsayanutpattir ity ukte, nayam dravyadinam anyatamasya visesah syac chravaratvani kintu samanyam eva sampadyate kasmat / rulyajatiyesy arthantarabhutenu dravyadibhedanam ekaikaso visesasyobhayatha di statvad ity uktam (v. 1. ukte), na samsayakaranam / anyatha $utsv api padarthcsu samsnyaprasangat / tasmat samanyapratyaksad (v. 1. - pratyayad ) cva sansaya iti / Objection: A specific feature ( visesa ) is stated to be a cause of doubt in the Sastra ( in sutra 2. 2. 26 ) :'[With regard to sound there is doubt whether it is a substance, an action, or a quality, 315 because its specific feature (viz., audibility) is found both in objects) that have the same universal, and in other objects.' [Reply:] (This is not correct), for the sutra ] has to be interpreted differently. (A specific feature can not be a cause of doubt, ( for the following reason:] Having stated : No doubt arises in the case of sound, for we know its specific feature, it is then stated : Audibility is not the specific feature of any one of the categories ) substance etc. It is, on the contrary, common ( 10 these ). Why? Because in each of the categories ) substance etc., we find the specific feature, both in objects that have the same universal and in other objects. If it were otherwise, there would be doubt even in the case of the six categories. For this reason doubt can come about on the basis of perception of a general feature only. It is conceivable that Prasastapada quotes here from another work the words reproduced in italics, and perhaps also the two concluding sentences of this 16 This translates the preceding sutra 2. 2. 25: tasmin dravya din karma guna iti sa risayah.

Page #14
158 - ABORI: Amstamahotsava Volume passage. It is true that the quoted passage does not contain the features of the Varttika-style, but we have seen that this by itself constitutes no reason to believe it did not form part of the Katandl. A confirmation that this passage does indeed derive from the Katandi is provided by the fact that. Dignaga knows the opinion according to which the specific feature ( visesa ) audibility is really a common feature (samanya ). In his. Pramanasamuccaya he cites and refutes those who say : visesa ubhayaira drstatvad urdhvatvadivat samanyam eva 16 His commentator Jinendrabuddhi specifies that the reference is to some Vaisesika(s). We shall see below that there is reason to believe that Dignaga knew the Katandi. One case remains to be considered.' It differs from the preceding ones in that the lines followed by a more elaborate explanation are not vakyas, but verses, the only two verses that occur in the Padarthadharmasangraha. We shall see that there are independent reasons for believing that these verses: were quoted from an earlier work, and the fact that they are explained the way the vakyas are explained makes it reasonable to assume that they too derive from the Katandi. The verses, along with their explanations, read : K11 N p. 200-04; Ki p. 193-95: tr. Jha p. 421-431 lingam punah yad . (st. i) anumeyena sambaddhani prasiddhani ca tadanvite tadabhave ca nasty eva tal lingam anumapakam // (st. ii) vipari tam ato yat syad ekena dvitayena va viruddhasiddhasandigdham alingan kasyapo 'bravit // yad anumeyenarthena desavisc se kalavise se va sahacaritam anumeyadharmanvite canyatra sarvasminn ekadese va prasiddham anumeyaviparite ca sarvasmin pramanato 'sad eva tad aprasiddharthasyapumapakam lingam bhavatiti 16 This is Jambuvijaya's Sanskrit rendering (1961 : 199 ) of the Tibetan translation, which reads, in its two versions : (1) khyad par ni gnyi ga la mthong pa'i phyir bred ba bzhin du sphyi kho na yin no; and (2) bye brag gnyis ka la mthong pa'i phyir de sphyi nyid yin te.

Page #15
BRONKHORST : The Vaisesika Vakya and Bhasya 159 yat tu yathoktat trirupal lingad ekena dharmena dvabhyam va viparitam tad anumeyasyadhigame lingam na bhavatity etad evaha satrakarahaprasiddho 'napadeso 'san sandigdhas ca' (VS 3. 1. 10-11) iti There is an obvious problem connected with the first of these two verses : it requires, but does not contain, the relative pronoun yad.17 Is it possible that either Prasastapa da or someone before himn changed the verse, most probably in order to make it agree with his own views ? Some observations support this supposition: . The first pada of the verse reads : anumeyena sambaddham. Regarding the word anumeya Masaaki Hattori (1972) has made some interesting observations. Dignaga, he points out, criticizes in his Pramanasamuccaya the word sadhya in the context of inference, which he finds used in some unspecified Vaisesika text, and proposes anumeya instead: Prasastapada, most probably under the influence of Digniga, uses the word anumeya throughout. This piece of information may provide us with the solution of the riddle of the first verse quoted in the Padarthadharmasangraha. It contains the word anumeya in its problematic part, and we may hazard the guess that in its original version it contained the word sadhya instead. Metrically acceptable reconstructions are not difficult to find : lingam sadhyena sambaddham is possible; or, with the relative pronoun yat : yac ca sadhyena sambaddham or the like. Both these reconstructed readings give a satisfactory meaning, as may other reconstructions. It is not, in the present context, necessary to choose the correct reconstruction. The main point is that an original reading may have been changed in order to replace original sadhya with anumeya. If this reasoning is correct, the katandi must have been written before Dignaga's Pramanasamuccaya. Is it possible to find out more about its date? The first of the two quoted verses - also in its supposedly original form, with sadhya instead of anumeya - enumerates the three conditions that an inferential mark (linga ) must satisfy. These conditions were laid down in Vasubandhu's Vadavidhi18 and Vadavidhana, 19 and in the anonymous TarkaSastra, which too may have been written by Vasubandhu. We may assume 11 This was already observed by the commentator Udayana. 18 Frauwallner, 1957: 16-17 ( 730-731, ) 33-34 ( 747-748). 19 Frauwallner, 1933: 301 ( 480 ) Fragment 7a. 20. T. 1633, vol. 32. p. 30c 1. 20-21, p. 31a 1. 11 f. : Sanskrit translation in Tucci, 1929 p. 131. 16-17, p. 14 1. 20 f.

Page #16
160 * ABORI: Amstamahotsava Volume : that the Katandi borrowed these conditions from these Buddhist logical texts. Borrowing in the opposite direction is harder to accept. The Tarkasastra, Vadavidhi and Vadavidhana were works in which the discussion of logical issues occupied a central place; the katandi, on the other hand, was primarily a commentary on the Vaise sika Satra, in which logical questions could not but play a sccondary role, The dependence of the Katandi upon the Buddhist logicians seems confirmed by the second verse. This verse enumerates three fallacious reasons (alinga ) : viruddha, asiddha and sandigdha. The explanation of the verse, on the other hand, mentions aprasiddha, asat and sandigdha, terms which occur in, and are here quoted in the context of, VS 3. 1.10-11. Where did the author of the Katandi find the terms viruddha and asiddha ? They occur, together with the third term anaikantika, in the Tarkasastra,32 and in the VAdavidhi. The second verse and its explanation suggest that the author of the Katandi borrowed the two types of fallacious reason called viruddha and asiddha from the Buddhist logicians, but hid this fact by identifying them with ideas already found in th: Vaisesika Sutra. Had the new fallacious reasons constituted a development within Vaisesika, without influence from without, the terms found in the Vaisesika Sutra would most probably have been maintained. It would appear, then, that the katandi was written sometime in the period before Dignaga's Pramanasamuccaya, but after the discovery of the three conditions of the inferential mark, which was perhaps made by Vasubandhu, and which it borrowed without acknowledgment.. 3. Did Dignaga know the katandi? We have seen that in at least one case Dignaga was acquainted with an opinion which we had reason to ascribe to the Katandi (K 10). But there is more, and more convincing evidence. On a few occasions Dignaga's Pramanasainuccaya Vrtti quotes directly from a Vaisesika work different from the Vaise sika Sutra. From the beginnings of the third and fourth Paricchedas it is clear that Dignaga knew the following lines (Jambuvijaya, 1961: 197, 201, 207; Hattori, 1972: 169-170): K 12 sadhyabhidhanam pratijna / tadvaddharmasya hetuh / ubhayaprasiddho drsantah / 81 See further Frauwallner, 1955: 71 ( 208 ) f. 22 T. 1633, vol. 32, p. 36a 1. 7-16: tr. Tucci, 1929: p. 40 1. 10-22. 23 Frauwallner, 1957; 17 (731), 34-35 ( 748-749 ) n. 7,

Page #17
BRONKHORST : The Vaisesika Vakya and Bhasya 161 These sentences define some parts of an inference. The first one is also found in Vasubandhu's Vadavidhi ( Hattori, 1972: 172 ), and this is of course most easily explained if we assume that this Vaisecika work had borrowed from Vasubandhu, as had the Katandi. What is more, it supports the idea that the work from which Dignaga quotes is the Katandi. Further supporting evidence is obtained as follows. The fact that, in matters logical, the Katandi was strongly influenced by the Buddhist logicians, did not leave much for Dignaga to criticize in it; for he himself continued and enriched the tradition of Buddhist logicians. If Dignaga were to criticize the logical ideas of the Katandi at all, we might expect this criticism to be directed against two aspects in particular: (i) points in which Dignaga deviates from his Buddhist predecessors; (ii) points in which the Kafandi tries to hold on to Vaisesika traditions. Both these aspects are represented in K 11, and part of Dignaga's critique might very well be directed against this very passage. The one respect in which K 11 agrees with Dignaga - the three conditions of the inferential mark -- he passes over in silence, as was to be expected. Let us now look more closely at his points of criticism : 24 (i) Dignaga's criticism of the use of the word sadhya is directed as much against his Buddhist predecessors as against the Vaisesikas. As we have seen, the Vadavidhi defines the proposition (pratijna ) as : sadhyabhidhanam pratijna. (ii) The Katandi, as we have seen, borrowed the fallacious reasons viruddha and asiddha from the Buddhists, but claimed that they are the same as the ones called asat and aprasiddha in the Vaisesika Sutra. It did not borrow the term anaikantika, but held on to the Vaiscsika term sandigdha instead. By doing so, it invited criticism directed against the types of fallacious reason enumerated - or presumed enumerated - in VS 3. 1. 10-11. Such criticism is indeed found in Dignaga's Pramanasamuccaya. This text cites the sutras concerned, then points out that none of the possible interpretations of aprasiddha are suitable to denote a fallacious reason. The designation asat is not acceptable either, the correct term - in view of the example in VS 3. 1. 12 (visani tasmad asvo ... ) - is viruddha. Sandigdha, finally, covers according to Dignaga only what he calls adharananaikantika, whereas asadharana and viruddhavyabhicarin are not mentioned by the Vaisesikas. (Note that Prasastapada introduces a fourth fallacious reason, anadhyavasita, to cover these two cases.) It can be seen that Dignaga cites and criticizes the Vaisesikas in the context of logical theory where the katandi appears to be susceptible to such 24' For a detailed discussion, see Hattori, 1972. For a Sanskrit translation of Dignaga's criticism of the Vaisesikas, see Jambuvijaya, 1961; 197 f. 21 Annals BORI (A. M. 1

Page #18
162 ABORI: Amstamahotsava Volume criticism. His criticism, moreover, is confined to these points. We can with certainty conclude from this that Dignaga's Vaisesika opponent agreed with him on certain essential points, most notably on the three conditions of an inferential mark, also mentioned in the Katandi. Dignaga characterizes perception as the simple presentation of the object ( visayalocanamatra ", which is not" preceded by conceptual constructions ( vikalpapurvaka ) ".:5 The former of these two expressions (to be precise, the part alocanamatra) occurs in the Padarthadharmasangraha, in the context of what the commentators call nirvikalpaka perception. This does not, as Hattori (1968: 136 n. 4. 10) rightly pointed out, allow us to infer that Dignaga knew the Padarthadharmasangraha. It does, however, lend additional support to the idea that Dignaga knew Prasastapada's main source, the katandi. We may conclude that a number of different factors - the date of the Katandi (considered above), the direct quotations in the Pramanasamuccaya Vrtti, the nature of Dignaga's criticism of the Vaisesikas - all support the conclusion that Dignaga knew and reacted against the Kafandi. At one point tha Pramanasamuscay, Vrtti distinguishes two contradictory opinions, both of which were apparently held by certain Vaisesikas. The passage reads, in Hattori's translation (19:8:42): Some of the Vaisesikas) consider that the cognition as a resule (phala) is distinct from the pramani, the means of cognition. They claim that the contact between sense and object (indriyarthasamnikarsa ) is the means of cognition since it is the specific cause (asadharanakarana) (of perceptual cognition ). But there art others of the Vaisesikas ) who hold that the contact between soul and mind (atmamanahsamnikarsa ) is the means of cognition since it is the predominant ( cause (pradhana ). This passage occurs in the section of the Pratyak sapariccheda which deals with the Vaisesika view of perception; there can therefore be little doubt that 25 Hattori, 1968: 42: Jambuvijaya, 1961 : 170. 26 See Schmithausen, 1970. 29 The Tibetan reads : (1) kha cig ni tshad ma las don gzhan du 'dod de, thun mong ma yin pa'i rgyu pa'i phyir dbang po dang don du phrad pa tshad mar rtog par byed do. gzhan dag ni gtso bo yin pa'i phyir bdag dang yid du phrad pa tshad ma'o zhes zer ro. (2) kha cig ni tshad ma las' bras du don szhan du 'dod de, thun mong ma yin pa'i rgyu yin pa'i phyir dbang dang don phrad pa tshad mas rtogs par bya'o zhe'o. gzhan dag ni gtso bo yin pa'i phyir bdag dang yid phrad pa tshad ma yin no zher ro.

Page #19
BRONKHORST: The Vaisesika Vakya and Bhasya indeed different representatives of the Vaisesika philosophy are here referred to. This in its turn justifies the conclusion that Dignaga knew several Vaisesika works, or, at the very least, that the Vaisesika work he used contained references to alternative (Vaisesika) views. 163 Dignaga's commentator Jinendrabuddhi ascribes the two views expressed in the above passage to different authors: the first one to Srayaska and others, the second one to Ravana and others. The name Srayaska appears to be unattested elsewhere. Hattori points out, however, that the view here ascribed to him is found in the Nyaya Sutra and Bhasya (1. 1..4; 2. 1. 25-26). The second view ascribed to Ravana by Jinendrabuddhi is more, interesting in the present context, for it occurs in the Padarthadharmasangraha (Ki p. 184, N p. 186): samanyaviseradravyagupakarmavisesanapekad atmamanahsanni karsat pratyaksam utpadyate sad dravyam prthivi visani suklo gaur gacchatiti / Since we have come to think that the Padarthadharmasangraha is heavily indebted to the Katandi, and that Dignaga knew the Katandi, it is tempting to think that Ravana' is the name of the author of the Katandi. This supposition is strengthened by the fact that later sources describe Ravana as the author of the, or a, Bhasya on the Vaise sika Sutra. In Murari's play Anargharaghava the character Ravana describes himself as Vaise sikaKatandi-pandita. The Bhasya mentioned in Udayana's commentary Kiranavali on the Padarthadharmasangraha is ascribed to Ravana by Udayana's subcommentator Padmanabha Misra. Govindananda, in his subcommentary on Sankara's Brahmasutra Bhasya, mentions a Bhasya of Ravana in the context of the Vaisesika philosophy.29 4. The preceding two sections have given us reasons to think that the now lost Katandi profoundly influenced the Padarthadharmasangraha. This is hardly to be wondered at, in view of the fact that Prasastapada himself appears to have written a commentary on that combined text. By way of conclusion we must mention the possibility that the Katandi, or rather its vakyas, may also have influenced the surviving texts of the Vaiscsika Sutra. Vakyas are hard to distinguish from sutras - both are short nominal phrases - and the Katandi constituted a commentary on the Vaise sika Sutra. Someone who 21 See Hattori, 1968: 135; Jambuvijaya, 1961: 174. 29 See Jambuvijaya, 1961: 150 n. 1, and Thakur, 1961: 12 f.

Page #20
164 ABORI: Amrtamahotsava Volume would try to extract sutras from manuscripts of the Katandi - which contained sutras, vakyas, and bhasyas - would be in danger of mistakenly including some vakyas. Of course, it would be hard, perhaps impossible, to prove difinitely that the three surviving versions of the Vaisesika Sutra derive from a common source which is the Katandi. It must however be recalled that cases of early Indian texts that have at some time of their history been peeled out of a commentary are known.33 All we can do in the remainder of this article is briefly consider two points which, to say the least, do not contradict the assumption that our versions of the Vaisesika Sutra do indeed derive from the Katandi. A close study of the available evidence may further support, or disprove, the above assumption. Such a study is however beyond the scope of the present article. VS 1. 1, 4, in the version of the Vaisesika Sutra commented upon by Sankara Misra, reads: 4. dharmavisesaprasutad dravyagunakarmasamanyavisesasamavayanam padarthanam sadharmyavaidharmyabhyam tattvajnanan nihsreyasam An enumeration of the six categories at the beginning of the Sutra-text seems, as Frauwallner (1984: 37 n. 5) observed, essential. Yet this fourth sutra' is absent from the other two surviving versions of the text. How to explain this? The easiest solution seems to be that it was there, but was not recognized as a sutra. This, of course, is only possible if the sutras were extracted from a work that contained more than only sutras, most probably from a commentary. The fact that 'sutra 4' is much longer than sutras 1-3 may explain that it was not so easily recognized as such. Supposing now that the sutras were all taken from a commentary on the Vaisesika Sutra, is there any reason to think that this commentary was the Katandi? The resemblance of sutra 4 to a portion of the Padarthadharmasangraha may constitute such a reason. The following passage from the Padarthadharmasangraha expresses almost the same contents in but slightly differing words (N p. 6-7: Ki p. 4): 30 See Bronkhorst, 1988: 121 f., where it is shown that the first two Kandas of Bhartrhari's Vakyapadiya were peeled out of the Vrtti, a commentary whose author - different from Bhartrhari - is not known. It seems, moreover, that the Yoga sutras were collected by their first commentator, the author of the Yoga Bhasya; see Bronkhorst, 1985a.

Page #21
BRONKHORST: The Vaisesika Vakya and Bhasya 165 dravyagunakarmasamanyavisesasamavayanam padarthanam sadharmyavaidharmyatattvajnanam nihsreyasahetuh / tac cesvaracodanabhivyaktad dharmad eva / It is more than likely to conclude that the fourth sutra' was known to Prasastapada, and was therefore in all probability part of the Katandi. The opinion has been expressed that the above cited fourth sutra' was not created before, but rather under the influence of, and therefore after, the Padarthadharmasangraha.31 In response to this objection it could be pointed out that there is one major difference between the fourth sutra ' and its corresponding passage in the Padarthadharmasangraha: the latter adds God (isvara). God played henceforth a central role in the Vaisesika system. The fact that the fourth sutra' - like all the other Vaisesika sutras - ignores God, can be taken as an indication that the fourth sutra' is older than Prasastapada, and was not composed under the influence of his Padarthadharmasangraha. 33 There is a second indication that the surviving versions of the Vaisesika Sutra may derive from the Katandi. It is the use of the term Ahnika to designate the sections into which the Sutra-text is divided. This term - which means daily, hence what may be studied on one day' is primarily used to designate the subdivisions of the Mahabhasya. As such it has nothing to do with the sutras of the Astadhyayi, on which the Mahabhasya comments. Works that imitate the style of the Mahabbasya may also imitate its division into Ahnikas. And indeed, the Nyaya Bhasya, which is partly written in Varttika style (Windisch, 1888: 15 f.), is divided into Ahnikas. Also the Nyaya Sutra is divided into Ahnikas, but this division is obviously secondary and derives from the Bhasya. In the case of the Vaisesika Sutra we have come to think that it had a commentary that imitated the style of the Mahabhasya. We also know that the Sutra is divided into Ahnikas, in each of its three surviving versions. Nothing seems more natural than to assume that this division, here too, is secondary, and derives from the Katandi, just as the three versions of the Vaiscsika Sutra themselves derive from the Katandi. 31 This was Frauwallner's opinion (1984: 39-40). See Thakur, 1957: (16). 83 On the provenance of God in the Vaisesika system, see my forthcoming article "God's arrival in the Vaisesika system ". 31 Adhyayas 8, 9 and 10 are not divided in ahnikas in the version known to Candrananda, and in that known to the author of the Sarvadarsanasangraha (Thakur, 1961: 21). Also the version of Adhyayas 9 and 10 found and discussed by Thakur (1966) does not divide these Adhyayas into Ahnikas. The other versions do.

Page #22
166 ABORI : Ametamahotsava Volume Is it conceivable that all non-authentic sutras in the surviving versions of the Vaisesika Sutra derive from the Katandi? Or do we have to assume also other sources of inauthentic sutras? It is difficult to answer this question, because the katandi is almost completely unknown to us. Nor do we know the original contexts of inauthentic sutras, even if we suppose that we are at all able to recognize them as such. We do, however, know some things about the Katandi. We have seen, for example, that its logic stood most probably under the influence of a Buddhist logician, most probably Vasubandhu, but not yet under that of Dignaga's Pramanasamuccaya. This helped us in determining the approximate date of the Katandi. It will now help us to show that at least some sutras were added to the text of the Vaiscsika Sutra before the Kagandi. 35 VS 2.1. 15-16 and 3. 2. 6-7 distinguish two kinds of inference: that based on something seen (drsta ), and that based on something seen in general (samanyato drsta ). This cannot but be the same distinction as that between visesato drsta and samanyato drsta, current in Samkhya, and introduced by the Samkhya teacher Vindhyavasin.: Vindhyavasin lived around 400 C. E. (Bronkhorst, 1985: 171 ). These sutras, therefore, appear to have been inserted after that date, but before the katandi which represents the next stage in the development of logic within the Vaisesika school. References Bhartrhari : Mahabhayadipika. 1) Edited by K. V. Abhyankar and V. P. Limaye. Poona : Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. 1970. ( PostGraduate and Research Department Series No. 8.) 2) Partly edited by V. Swaminathan under the title Mahabhasya Tika. Varanasi : Banaras Hindu University. 1965. (Hindu Vishvavidyalaya Nepal Rajya Sanskrit Series Vol. 11.) 3) Manuscript reproduced. Poona : Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. 1980. 4) Critical edition'. Poona : Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. Ahnika 1, edited and translated by Johannes Bronkhorst, 1987: Ahnika 2, by G. B. Palsulc, 1988; Ahnika 3, by G. B. Palsule, 1983; Ahnika 4, by G. V. Devasthali and G. B. Palsule, 1989; Ahnika 5, by V. P. Limaye, G. B. Palsule and V. B. Bhagavat, 1984; Ahnika 6 part 1, by V. B. Bhagavat and Saroja Bhate, 1986: Ahnika 6 part 2, by V. B. Bhagavat and Saroja Bhate, 1990; Ahnika 7, by G. B. Palsule and V. B. Bhagavat, 1991. 35 What follows is essentially based on Frauwallner, 1955: 75 (212) f., esp. 79 (216) n. 30. JU According to Kumarila's Slokavarttika 8 (Anumanapariccheda ), v. 143.

Page #23
BRONKHORST : The Vaisesika Vakya and Bhasya Bharthari: Vakyapadiya. Critical edition by Wilhelm Rau. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner. 1977. (Abhandlungen fur die Kunde des Morgenlandes XLII, 4.) 167 Bronkhorst, Johannes (1985): "On the chronology of the Tattvartha Sutra and some early commentaries." Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde Sudasiens 29, 155-184. Bronkhorst, Johannes (1985a): "Patanjali and the Yoga sutras." Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik 10 (1984), 191-212. Bronkhorst, Johannes (1988): "Etudes sur Bhartrhari, 1. L'auteur et la date de la Vrtti." Bulletin d'Etudes Indiennes 6, 105-143. Bronkhorst, Johannes (1990): "Varttika." Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde Sudasiens 34, 123-146. Chemparathy, George (1970): "Prasastapada and his other names." Indo-Iranian Journal 12, 241-254. Frauwallner, Erich (1933): "Zu den Fragmenten buddhistischer Logiker im Nyayavarttikam." Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde des Morgenlandes 40, 281-304. Reprint: Kleine Schriften (Franz Steiner, Wiesbaden, 1982) pp. 460-483. Frauwallner, Erich (1955): "Candramati und sein Dasapadarthasastram." Studia Indologica. Festschrift fur Willibald Kirfel. Bonn. (Bonner Orientalistische Studien, 3.). Pp. 65-85. Reprint: Kleine Schriften (Franz Steiner, Wiesbaden, 1982) pp. 202-222. Frauwallner, Erich (1957): "Vasubandhu's Vadavidhi." Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde Sud- und Ostasiens 1, 104-146. Kleine Schriften (Franz Steiner, Wiesbaden, 1982) pp. 716-758. Frauwallner, Erich (1984): Nachgelassene Werke. I. Aufsatze. Beitrage, Skizzen. Herausgegeben von Ernst Steinkellner. Wien: Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. (Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historische Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, 438. Band. Veroffentlichungen der Kommission fur Sprachen und Kulturen Sudasiens, Heft 19.) Halbfass, Wilhelm (1986): " Mallavadin and early Vaisesika ontology." Adyar Library Bulletin 50 (Golden Jubilee Volume), 271-286. Hattori, Masaaki (1968): Dignaga, On Perception, being the pratyaksapariccheda of Dignaga's Pramanasamuccaya. From the Sanskrit frag

Page #24
168 ABORI: Amstamahotsara Volume ments and the Tibetan versions translated and annotated. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, Hattori, Masaaki (1972): "Prasastapada and Dignaga : a note on the development of the Vaise sika theory of anumana." Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde Sudasiens 16, 169-180. Isaacson, H. (1990): A study of early Vaisesika. The teachings on perception. Groningen: Unpublished thesis. Jambuvijaya, Muni (ed.) (1961): Vaisesikasutra of Kanada, with the commentary of Candrananda, Baroda : Oriental Institute. (Gaekwad's Oriental Series, No. 136.) Jha, Garga natha (tr.) (1915): Padarthadharmasangraha of Prasastapada, with the Nyayakandali of Sridhara. Varanasi - Delhi : Chaukhambha Orientalia. (Chaukhambha Oriental Studies, 4.) 1982. Lang, Karen (1988): "On Aryadeva's citation of Nyaya texts in the *Sataka." Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde Sudasiens 32, 131-140. Mallavadin : Dvadasara Nayacakra. Edited, with the commentary Nyayagamanusarini of Simhasuri, by Muni Jambuvijaya. Bhavnagar : Sri Jain Atmanand Sabha, 3 volumes. (Sri Atmananda Jaina Granthamala Serial No. 92, 94, 95.) 1966, 1976, 1988. Mesquita, Roque (1980): "Yamuna's Vedanta and Pancaratra: a review." Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde Sudasiens 24, 199-224. Nozawa, Masanobu (1976): "The Vaisesikasutra referred to in the Padharthadharmasangraha." Journal of the Buddhist Studies 24, (32)-(38) ( = 1006-1 00). Prasastapada : Padarthadharmasangraha. 1) Edited, with the commentary Kiranivali of Udayanacarya, by Jitendra S. Jetly. Baroda : Oriental Institute. 1971. 2) Edited, with the commentary Nyayakandali of Sridhara, by Vindhyesvari Prasad Dvivedin. Reprint. Delhi : Sri Satguru Publications. (Sri Garib Dass Oriental Series, 13.) 1984. 3) Edited, with the commentaries Sakti, Setu, and Vyomavati, by Gopinath Kaviraj and Dhundhiraj Shastri. Second edition. Varanasi : Chaukhamba Amarabharati Prakashan. (Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series, 61.) 1983. Schmithxusen, Lambert (1970): "Zur Lehre von der vorstellungsfreien Wahrnehmung bei Prasastapid." Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde Sudasiens 14, 125-129.

Page #25
BRONKHORST : The Vaisesika Vakya and Bhasya . . 169 Sucaritamisra : Kasika. In: The Mimamisaslokavarttika with the commentary Kasika of Sucaritamisra, edited by K. Sambasiva Sastri. Trivandrum 1926 ff. (Trivandrum Sanskrit Series 90, 99, 150.) Thakur, Anantalal (ed.) (1957): Vaisesikadarsana of Kanada, with an anonymous commentary. Darbhanga : Mithila Institute of Post-Graduate Studies and Research in Sanskrit Learning. Thakur, Anantalal ( 1961): " Introduction." = Jambuvijaya, 1961 : 1-23. Thakur, Anantalal ( 1966 ):"Studies in a fragmentary Vaisesikasutravstti." Journal of the Oriental Institute, Baroda, 14 (1965/66 ), 330-335. Tucci, Giuseppe (1929): Pre-Dinnaga Buddhist Texts on Logic from Chinese Sources. Second edition. Madras : Vesta. 1981. Vaisesika Sutra. Edited by Muni Jambuvijaya. Baroda : Oriental Institute. (Gaekwad's Oriental Series, 136.) 1961. Windisch, Ernst (1888): Uber das Nyayabhashya. Leipzig : Alexander Edelmann. Abbreviations AL CE DNC k Ki Ms Mahabhasyadipika of Bhartshari, ed. Abhyankar / Limaye Mahabhasyadipika of- Bhartshari, critical edition Dvadasara Nayacakra of Mallavadin presumed passage from the Katandi Padarthadharmasangraha, ed. Jetly Manuscript of Bhartshari's Mahabhasyadipika Padarthadbarmasangraha, ed. Dvivedin Paninian sutra Mahabhasyadipika of Bhartshari, ed. Swaminathan Taisho edition of Buddhist canon in Chinese presumed passage from Prasasta pada's Tika on Katandi vakya Vaise cika Suira. Sw Vk VS 22 Annals, BORI (A, M.)