Further References To Vaisesika Sutra In Patanjala Yogasastra Vivarana

SR No.: 269472
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: A Wezler
Publisher: A Wezler
Total Pages: 9
Language: English
Classification: Article
File Size: 2 MB

Page 3

460
R. N. Dandekar Felicitation Volume
WEZLER : Further references to V8 in Py8V
461
lingam /. Of course, the formulation of the relevant passage in the PYSV differs to such a degree that it cannot by any means be regarded as a quotation in the strict sense of the word: The attributo sāsnāvān is absent, drstam is likewise left out, etc.; on the other hand, it is, I think, equally patent that what we have to do with is not simply another reading i.e. a variant to VS 2. 1. 8. The manner in which the author of the PYSV takes recourse to this sūtra has rather to be called a complex mixture of a partial quotation and a reference which at the same time contains elements of an explanation of VS 2. 1. 8, which latter, as it stands, is not easily intelligible; the explanatory aspect is, however, confined to what really matters to the author of the PYSV in the context of his commentary on the YBh; hence the attribute of the key word lingam in the VS, viz. drstam, which is of particular importance in the context of this ähnika of the 2. adhyāya of the VS, 14 is simply left out, and the sutra is reformulated in such a way as to derive two sentences, viz. a question and its answer and by this a specific peculiarity of the sutra is brought out into distinct relief, namely, that in it dharmin-expressions are used instead of expressions denoting properties (dharmas) though this is what one actually expects.
It is noteworthy that Candrananda on his part likewise does not even look this peculiarity of the wording of VS 2.1. 8; for he concludes his commen tary on it by stating : visānyādibhih sabdais taduatpralipädakair apy arthavyāparād dharmā eud ipadisyante). "What is indicated by the words
characterized by peculiar horns, etc., are, although these words literally) convey the meaning of that which is characterized by it', nothing but the
corresponding properties, because they are employed here precisely) for [ this ) purpose /[ to denote this meaning."
Inspite of the fact that Candrananda's introductory remark dratantartham sitrum refers to the contextual importance of VS 2. 1. 8 in so far as it illustrates a basic element of the VS's epistemology, i. e. although he is fully aware that this sütra was introduced as an example of something quite different, he does not fail to point out also a linguistic peculiarity though this forms but a side issue for him.
Therefore, one wonders whether what the author of the PYSV had in mind was this sutra alone or whether he, in this case too, was acquainted with an older commentary on the VS in which this linguistic peculiarity had already been explained in a similar manner and which was drawn upon by Candrananda also in
his turn. The similarities between the latter's Vrtti and the passage of the PYSV, quoted above, are in any case remarkable, and, to be sure to such an extent that one may even reckon with the possibility that the Vivaranakära know also, albeit probably from another source, the explanation of the word golve as given by Candrananda, viz. : gatve' iti goluautechinna taktih). For in the context of the YBh passage under discussion as well as of the PYSV on it, it is Likewise not a jāli that is spoken of, but a vyakli, i.e. the mind-stuff as an individual, so that one would in fact expect the question lim lingam similarly to refer to an individual of the bovine species, and not to the species itself - if the examplo adduced by the author of the PYSV is really intended to fully correspond to the upameya / dārstāntika.
2.3. At first sight it might seem a deviation when in addition to what has been said in paragraph 2,2 attention is now drawn to another and, to be sure, diverging interpretation of VS 2.1. 8. However, it will become clear that in view of the close similarity between the interpretation common to both, Candra. nanda and the author of the PYSV, and in view of the above assumption based on this close similarity, it is, no doubt, useful to take into account other interpretations also.
What I mean is that the anonymous author of the Vyakhyal gives a significantly different interpretation of the expressions vişāņi etc., in that he takes them to stand for the corresponding abstract nouns: serve caile bhāvapradhana nirdedah / tenāyam gaur visānavisesavaltvāt kakudmattrād ityādi ll. That is to say, according to him it is not the properties that are intended, but the fact of something being characterized by them. This interpretation was, however, evidently suggested to the author of the Vyakhya by the epistemological context of VS 2. 1. 8, viz. that of inference, and a particular, more exact manner of formulating an anumāna, which had become usual in his times, the standard example of such a prayoga being paralo vahnimär dhimavattral (and not any longer : dhulmät). In its substance, his interpretation is hence most probably later than that offered both by Candrananda and the author of the PYSV; both these interpretations, though different, have, on the other hand, equally the advantage of grouping rather well in a widely known picture, i.e. that the authors of
certain) Sūtra works and other ancient writers sometimes tend to express them. selves in a way which definitely lacks precision.
These shortcomings were evidently not observed for the first time by Western philologists, but already much earlier by Indian commentators who
13. On this term cf. my article "A Note on the Concept adrs. As used in the Vallesikasutra", to be published in the Felicitation Volume for Professor A. N. LANI.
14. CE, the article mentioned in fn. 13. 15. The quotation is from the edition (cf. fa, 3), p. 12 1. 10-11,
16. C. Vaisen kadarśana of Kanada with an Anonymous Commentary, ed. by Anantalal THAKUR, Darbhanga 1957.
17. The quotation is from p. 201. 9-10.