________________
187
186
Dr. Sharma felicitaion Vol.
Wezler -... Patanjalayogaśāstravivarana
nuşadaivatanim and no ca at all. Note also that he construes sarvepim with th: preceding.
upakaryopatarokatvadvirepa in explaining the first sentence. Io aby case, my Interpretation would be affected only partially, the main correction necessary being that no such distinction is drawn and that plants too are cause of sustentation of all padarthas.
17 This is printed in the edition in bold type. Yet, there is not sufficient
evidence to permit the assumption that this is not already the vigraha vakya of the Vivara pakaia's, or to preclude the possibility that the text has to be emcoded here to dhrtikara pam.
23. The use of the particle api is by itself not sufficient evidence.
18. This is an emendation of the editor which is indeed necessary, unless
one wants to go even a step further and coasider the possibility that bere some words have dropped out e.g. due to aberratio oculi,
24. Cf c.g. Vivarana 66.22, where in the context of proving the existence
of Isvara among others the following pratijai is met with: anekakartbhoktkriyasadhanapbalasambandhaviesaj kanavadupadispani varpiframidyausthanani.
19. Most probably the term indriya is used here to cover both the
buddhindriyas as well as the karmendriyas. Nevertheless, to make things easier I render it, following Woods, by "sense-organs".
25. As it was done e.g. by certain Buddhist authors.
20. The fact that the bodies are here said to be arabdha by the elements
does not, of course imply that the author adopted the asambhavada.
26. As is to be expected, the various commentators seem not to be of one
opinion about the general purpose of these two verses. Yet, RaghavaDioda explicitly states: grhasthasramam prakara pikatyst stauti, and Nandana and Mapirima clearly agree with him.
21. I am far from being convinced that the term tairyagyona, as far as
its use in Sakbya - Yoga texts is concerned, does not also include plaats; aod e. g. Yuktidepika (ed. Pandey) 137. 26 f.: tairyagyonas ca parcadha bhavati-Pasu drapaks isarts pasthavarib will definitely lead one to the view that it certainly does. But in view of what the Vivara pakara subsequently states with reference to the tairyagyona bodies, viz. và hapadohanahaviridibhir, one cannot but gather the impression that at this point he did not have plants in mind.
27. Cf. e. g. Medhatithi's explanation of jainena by vedarthavyakhyana
janyena or Sarvajanraya pa's remark: grhasthasyaividhyapansdhikarit trayo'pi jnanena.
22. It should be noticed here that I start from the assumption that the
Vivara pakara for onc trok the sentence sarvesam tairya Ryona minus daivatani etc. of the Bhagya to be, not an explication of the prece ding one, viz. täni ca parasparam, but a specification with regard to certain, i.e. the most important bodily beings. Should this interpretation be wrong in itself and also not meet the intention of the Bbssyakira, one would have to assume that by tair yagyobaminusadaivatani the whole range of 'bodily beings' is covered (cf. also fa 21) and that the second of the two sentences of the Bhagya under discussion is added in order to point out that the bodily beings' in their totality are not only each the sustaining cluse of the others, but also the dhrtikaTapa of all the remaining things of the manifest world Unfortunately the author of the Vivaraga confines himself to the rather vague
28. That by the expression traye 'py asramico in the present context the
Vi uprasthes are included cannot be disputed. Hence, one is confronted with the problem in which sease they too, "are sustained by the householder with knowledge and food". Among the different commentators it seems to bave been only Raghavanaoda who was aware of this problem; for, in commenting on verse 77 he states: taddattabhiksopaji vitvid brahmacarisamay sinam Vinaprasthasyviraktasya porvam grhasthavidyadyupa yogitvat/viraktasya tu 'grhamedbiņu ca' (Manu 6. 27 edityadivakayamaçarity grhasthopajivitvic call. The reference to Manu 6. 27 and 28 (which latter is evid ently meant by adi) is admittedly useful; yet can we be sure that Manu 3.77 and 78 were formulated by an author who had in fact in View the very practice prescribed in the two verses of the 6. Adhyaya?
29. The edition used by me in quating from the commentaries is always:
Maou-Smpiti with Nine Commentaries .... ed. by J.H. Dave (Bharatiya Vidya Series), Bumbay 1972 ff.