Book Title: Notes On Manuscript Transmission Of Vaisesika Sutra And Its Earliest Commentaries
Author(s): Harunaga Issacson
Publisher: Harunaga Issacson
________________
Once more, I refrain from attempting to give a thorough description of the manuscript, in view especially of the fact that I have access only to photocopies of the folios which contain the text of the VS. The VS covers folios 20"-34". The script is Malayalam. The manuscript bears no date but is in good condition; from its general appearance as well as on the basis (admittedly uncertain) of palaeography I should hazard that it is no older than the nineteenth century. Punctuation marks, usually small dots between the akṣaras, are occasionally found, but by no means between all the sutras. Similar considerations as set out in regard to A above lead me to believe that the examplar from which the manuscript was copied also contained the sutrapatha with no commentary.
Unfortunately, the number of scribal errors and corruptions in T is far greater than in A, so that in many cases it is not possible to be certain of the intended reading. None the less, the following are some of the interesting readings which feature in this manuscript, which seem to me to justify speaking of yet another recension.
1 T too does not contain ŚM's 1.1.4, but instead reads a different sutra, found in no other source known to me, after 1.1.3: sadhanany asya dravyaguṇakarmmāņi. This sūtra, which no doubt should not be regarded as 'original,' seems to serve a purpose somewhat similar to that of ŚM's 1.1.4. That is to say, its inclusion may be motivated by the desire to have the sutras state their subject matter (abhidheya) at their outset more clearly than is done in 1.1.1 (athato dharmam vyākhyāsyāmaḥ; thus all recensions, supported by numerous testimonia), as well as to indicate the connection (sambandha) between the subject matter of the VS and the ultimate goal (prayojana), which is understood from 1.1.2 (yato 'bhyudayaniḥśreyasasiddhiḥ sa dharmaḥ; thus, bar orthographical variants and obvious slips, all recensions, again supported by several testimonia) to be both worldly and supreme good. Frauwallner apparently found it inconceivable that the 'original' text of the VS should fail to name the categories of the Vaiseṣika; 20 those responsible
20 Frauwallner's keen philological instinct may perhaps have erred for once when he wrote 'In den Vaiseṣika-Sūtren mit dem Kommentar des Candrānanda (VSu1) und mit dem anonymen, von Anantalal Thakur veröffentlichten Kommentar (VSü2) [i.e. V] fehlt das vierte Sütram. Doch ist am Anfang des Textes eine Nennung der sechs padarthäḥ unerläßlich' (Frauwallner 1984, 36-37 n. 5). It is precisely the absence of the expected enumeration of categories which is likely to be original here. Indeed an enumeration of siz categories would be suspect, for I think it very likely that in the earliest period of composition of sūtras the classical list of padarthas had not yet been settled on..
9
