Book Title: Notes On Manuscript Transmission Of Vaisesika Sutra And Its Earliest Commentaries
Author(s): Harunaga Issacson
Publisher: Harunaga Issacson
________________
6 The eighth adhyāya is divided into two āhnikas, with the sūtra artha
iti dravyagunakarmasu (= 8.14) the last one in the first āhnika and the sūtra dravyeşu pañcātmakam pratyuktam the first of the second. In this A differs from the other recensions: C does not divide this adhyāya into āhnikas, 14 V starts the second āhnika one sutra earlier, with artha iti gunadravyakarmasu and SM starts it earlier yet, with (C's) 8.12, ayam esa tvayā kttam bhojayainam iti buddhyapeksam. Note by the way that in this sūtra, for ŚM's tvayā kȚtam C reads kȚtam tvayā and
V as well as A simply tvayā. 7 A does not divide the ninth adhyāya into āhnikas. In this it agrees with C and (probably) S;15 V unfortunately is lost after [9.7 = C's] 9.8, but the commentary on this sūtra is followed by a colophon of the first āhnika of the adhyāya. SM divides into āhnikas, taking 9.18, asyedam kāryam karanam samyogi virodhi samavāyi ceti laingikam as
the opening sutra of the second ähnika. 8 9.1 in A reads kriyāgunavyapadeśčbhāvād asat, as also found in C and
V. SM and S read kriyāgunavyapadeśābhāvāt prāgasat.
9 The tenth adhyāya is again divided into two āhnikas in A. The sūtra
laingike pramanam vyākhyātam is the final one of the first āhnika; this corresponds to C's 10.19, which has laingikam for laingike. S however reads as does A; V is again not available. The sūtra has no counterpart in SM, where the second āhnika begins with C's 10.12, kāraṇam iti dravye kāryasamavāyāt. Note that with the āhnika division found in
A. the second ähnika is reduced to a mere two sūtras; and, perhaps *And in this, as has often been remarked, agrees with the brief description of the VS given in Madhava's Sarvadarśanasamgraha.
15 One cannot perhaps be completely certain about S, for one folio, folio 31, appears to be lost in the unique manuscript. The last sūtra on folio 300 is 9.10; the first on folio 32" is 9.15. It can therefore not be determined which of the intervening sūtras were actually known to the commentator (note that C's 9.11 and 9.12 are not in SM's text), nor can it be completely excluded that the missing folio contained a colophon for a first ähnika of 9. The fact that ŚM divides the adhyāya elsewhere, after (C's) 9.17, does not rule out this possibility, for we already saw with regard to the eighth adhyāya that the recensions which do divide into āhnikas do so at different places. The fact that the final colophon of 9 in S does not mention āhnikas is also inconclusive; the same may be said of most of the adhyāya colophons in the manuscripts of Candrānanda's commentary on the VS, even in the adhyāyas which do consist of two āhnikas. None the less, I think it likely that S indeed did not accept such a division; note that none is found in the manuscript of the tenth āhnika of S.
