Some Observations On Manuscript Transmission Of Nyayabhasya

SR No.: 269206
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Yasutaka Muroya
Publisher: Yasutaka Muroya
Total Pages: 42
Language: English
Classification: Article
File Size: 5 MB

Page 32

Journal of Indological Studies, No. 18 (2006)
work. 131 Śrīkantha elaborates on suspicion referred to by Udayana and his refutation of it: The phrases constituting the important topics beginning with "what is to be eliminated is pain" are not found in certain mss. (kesu pustakeşu, pl.), i.e., the "absence of some writing" mentioned by Udayana refers to a lacuna in part of the ms. transmission of the NV. If this interpretation by Srikantha is accepted, it adduces evidence for the fact that Udayana appears to have had access to some manuscript(s) of the NV which contained a lacuna at this point.
Secondly, with regard to Uddyotakara's "nonconformity to the NBh" (ayathābhāsyatā), Udayana does not provide any concrete explanation apart from the vague reference to "restatement of the meaning intended in the NBh).” 132 It remains unclear how unconformable the NV is to the NBh and which precise phrase(s) are concerned. Srikantha clarifies the situation and does not hesitate to point out the problem involved. According to his gloss, Uddyotakara's nonconformity to the NBh consists in the additional statement of "what is to be attained" (adhigantavyah). Srīkantha thus clearly presupposes that the word adhigantavyah is not present in the NBh, but
131 NVTP 72,9-10 = EM 125,25-126,1 = NVTP(BI) 238,7-8 = LDI(2) f. 26v 67: atraca heyam ityädy" anuvādavārttikam nästy evets nāśarkaniyam, tīkākrtā siddhavad utthapitatvät, kvacil lipyabhāvasya lekhakadosesiapy upapatteh. ("heyam ityady LDI(2); heyatvädy NVTP, EM; heyetyädy NVTP(BI). eveti näsarkaniyam LDI(2); evety anāśarkaniyam NVTP, EM, NVTP(BI).) The variants of LDI(2) are not reported in Thakur's two editions of the NVTP. Although Thakur did not specify the ms. "Ahmedabad (A)" (cf. his Preface to NVTP: vii) and the "Ahmedabad Palm-leaf MS" (cf. Abbreviations in EM) utilized for his editions of the NVTP, I currently assume that LDI(2) is identical with his exemplar that is assigned the siglum "A".
132 All three editions of the NVTP read anyatha bhāsyatātparyārthānuvádakatvat with no variants recorded (cf. NVTP 72,10 = EM 126,1 = NVTP (BI) 238,3-4); this reading is also supported by the ms. (ms. no. PM 1491: f. 49r 1-2) preserved at the Adyar Library, Chennai, which is assigned the siglum "M" in Thakur's editions. I owe this information about the reading as found in the Adyar Library ms. to Prof. Preisendanz. Against the text adopted in the printed editions and recorded in the Adyar Library ms., I read ayathābhāsyata tu arthānuvädatvät, based upon the reading of LDI(2) (f. 26v 7), which is supported by some secondary testimonia: SȚ 39,11-12: ayathabhasyetyadi; NA 31,23: ayathābhāsyatā tv ityādi. As an indirect reference to the phrase in Vardhamāna's commentary on the NVTP, cf. NNP 238,7-8: atra bhāsyanuvadatāyam ayathābhāsyatā na yujyata iti varttikam evaitan nastīty asarikyaha - atra ceti. Vardhamana's (fictive) opponent appears to argue in favour of the absence of the corresponding passage in the NV. This argument implies that the opponent justifies the absence of the passage on the ground of Uddyotakara's nonconformity to the NBh, inasmuch as he does not "restate" and confirm the NBh (cf. bhäsyänuvadatā). It could also imply that there was a (historically preceding?) editorial movement toward, or a controversy relating to, intentionally adapting the text of the NV to that of the NBh lacking adhigantavyah, namely, removing the relevant phrases, inclusive of adhigantavyah, from the NV. This presumable movement might have been reflected in the lacuna in some manuscript(s) of the NV reported in the NVTP. Furthermore, Udayana's argument that Uddyotakara "restates" the intention of the NBh (cf. arthānuvädatva), not the NBh itself, might have been effective in invalidating the opponent's argument and securing the presence of the phrase in the NV as it is.