Notes On Manuscript Transmission Of Vaisesika Sutra And Its Earliest Commentaries

Author(s): Harunaga Issacson
Publisher: Harunaga Issacson

Page 13

A collation of these two manuscripts with Jambūvijaya's edition revealed a very considerable number of cases where the manuscripts have been misread, wrongly reported or not reported at all. In several of these cases a misreading appears to have led to errors entering the edited text. I shall briefly illustrate this by an example which is particularly suitable because it can be checked by anyone who has access to the edition, simply by examining for himself the plates contained in it which reproduce the beginning of the commentary as it is found in the two manuscripts.
According to Candrānanda, the VS was taught by the sage Kaņāda to an unnamed brahmin who came to him with questions. The first word of the first sūtra, atha, conveys according to the commentary the sense of anantaryam; immediately after he has been questioned as to the dharma, Kanāda announces his intention to expound on dharma. The second word of the sūtra is atah, and on this the commentary as edited by Jambūvijaya reads 'atah 'sabdo 'pi vairāgyaprajñākathāparipākādikām śişyagunasampadam hetutvenāpadisati, yasmăd ayam sisyo gunasampada yuktas tato 'smai praśnebhyo 'nantaram dharmam vyākhyāsyāmaḥ. The only variant reading given by the editor is P (the siglum for the Jaina Devanāgari manuscript) 'nopadio for onāpadio.
Now it is not clear to me what kathāparipāka as a virtue of a student would mean, and I should think that any reader would consider the possibility of textual corruption here. So let us have a look at the manuscripts as reproduced in the edition. First the Sāradā manuscript, the opening leaf of which is to be found as Plate I. I transcribe the manuscript's reading of this sentence, starting in the middle of line 9, introducing word-division but making no other alterations to the text. atahsabdo pi vairāgyaprajñākaşayaparipūkādikām śişyagatasampadam hetutvenāpadisati27 yasmād ayam sisyo gumasampada yuktaḥ tato smai praśnebhyo nantaram dharmam vyākhyāsyaman.
This is rather alarming; in a single sentence we find two substantive differences from the edition, neither of which is reported in the critical apparatus. One of these, śisyagatasampadam for sişyagunasampadam, may be rejected as an error, particularly in view of the subsequent gunasampadā yuktah. The other, however, provides us with the solution for our difficulty, for the reading kaşāyaparipākādikām for kathāparipākādikām yields good sense and is indeed immediately convincing.
But let us see what Jambūvijaya's other manuscript reads here before 27 After this there is a small mark which should probably be interpreted as a half-danda.
13