Further References To Vaisesika Sutra In Patanjala Yogasastra Vivarana

Author(s): A Wezler
Publisher: A Wezler

Page 4

R. N. Dandelar Felicitation Volume
WEZLER : Further references to V8 in Py8V
463
this is not by any means a unique case, but that this peculiar manner of expres. sing oneself is, on the contrary, attested elsewhere also.
not only tried their very best to solve individual cases of such inaccuracies, but also seem to have gathered the impression that the Sutrakāras took quite somo liberties in expressing themselves and in ordering their material. At least, one cannot but recall in this connection the dictum of the author of the Kasikivitti on Pan. 1.2.35: vicitra hi sütrasya krish Panineh, or the remark found in the Yuktidlpikä on Samkhyakärikā 3 : 18 vicitrah sutrakārānām abhiprāyagatayah, or similar statements, although they do not exactly refer to this lack of precision.
The modern philologist, on the other hand, will, of course, start with no more than noticing the unevenness of the construction of VS 2.1.8 as it stands formulated, and in terms of its syntactical analysis he will then arrive at the con clusion that it forms an anacoluthon in that an answer to refer now to the Vivaranakära's rewording for the sake of clarity - is given not to the question
What are the characteristic properties of an animal of the bovine species?', but as it were to the question, What does an animal of the bovine species look like as regards its characteristic properties?'. In addition the modern philologist will most probably recall a relevant passage from the Paspakāhnika of the Mahabhâsya, viz. I. 1. 6-7: atha gaur ity atra kah sabdah/ kim yat tat sandlanglakakudakhuravişany artharūpam s sabdah/ nety aha/ draryam nāma tat II, and contemplate the likelihood that the peculiar construction of VS 2.1.8 is due to the fact that there existed from of old a question and answer pattern, viz. . What is an animal of the bovine species?', . It is an animal characterized by a dew lap, etc.'; and that this pattern was more or less stereo typically used whenever the problem of the characteristic sign(s) of something was discussed.
Candrananda and the Vivaranakära, not to mention the author of the Vyakhya, however, clearly go a step further : Obviously unable or, at least, unwilling to accept the anacoluthon, both of them do away with it by contending that the expressions visani etc., though literally denoting the charmin, are in the context of VS 2.1. 8, nevertheless, used to convey the meaning of the corresponding dharmas.
2.4. There cannot, hence, be the least doubt that it is precisely this interpretation which made the Vivaranakära adduce VS 2.1.8 as an example which by its syntactical and semantic parallelism at the same time illustrates and justifies the peculiar construction of the YB observed by him. His motive is, therefore, perfectly clear: Evidently he thought it necessary or, in any case, advisable to safeguard against any criticism with which one might come up against his interpretation of this passage of the YBh by explicitly stating that
Yet, there remains one question still to be answered, viz. why the author of the PYSV did opt precisely in favour of VS 2.1. 8. Were there no parallels to be found in everyday speech? And, if he thought it preferable to adduce an example from a Sastra, why did he select of all others this sutra of the basic -text of the Vaisesikas? Of course, one might raise the following counter objection : Since it is evidently not the doctrinary content of VS 2.1.8 which the Vivaranakära is interested in, but only its linguistic form, i.e. since philosophical theoremata of the Vaisosika are of no importance at all to him here, why should he have hesitated to refer his readers to just this parallel? But as there is apparently no circumstantial evidence whatsoever to warrant the assumption that VS 2.1.8 functioned as a well-known mürdhābhişiktam udāharanam for dharmin-terms being used to denote the corresponding dharmas, this objection, if it is justified, would only mean that the problem boils down to asking why it was precisely VS 2.1. 8 that came first to the author's mind when about to account for the peculiar mode of expression of the YBh. One possible answer that suggests itself is that he thought first of the VS since he intended to deal shortly afterwards (viz. p. 6 1.8 ff) with the definition of Yoga as given there. Yet, I think, this solution is not absolutely convincing: it is by far more likely that this sutra came (first) to his mind simply because he was generally quite familiar with the VS as such and most probably also with a commentary or commentaries thereon: at least, this familiarity is a fact which can be demon strated also with the help of other passages of the PYSV, among them the second example referred to at the beginning of the present paper and to be discussed in what now follows.
3. This second instance is from the long utsitra portion of the PYSV to which as such attention has already been drawn by P. HACKER and which, starting from YS 1.25 and the Bhasya on it, is wholly devoted to the topic of the isvaravoda, i.e. to adducing an extensive list of proofs for the existence of Isvara, to refuting the inferences brought forward by an opponent against this view, and to maintaining the position of theistic Yoga. It is in this latter part that the discussion centres around the (Yoga ) concept of Isvara being (even) simultaneously sa sarira and asarin. For the opponent both these ideas seem to imply many and serious difficulties, particularly as regards the central Yoga tenet
18. In the edition by R, C, PANDEY, Delhi 1967, p. 281. 15-16. 19. The reference is to F. KIEL HORN's edition, Poona 19628.
20. Cl. his article "Sankara der Yogin und Sankara der Advaitin. Einige Beobachtungen" in: Beiträge zur Geistesgeschichte Indiens, Festschrift for Erich Frauwallner, ... Wien 1968 ( WZKSO 12-13. 1968-59 ). p. 124 - Kleine Schriften, hrsg. von, L., SCHMITHAUSEN, Wiesbaden 1978, p. 218,