________________
Philological Remarks on Śákyamati's Pramanavårttikatika
285
the PV together with its commentary. GNOLI has already pointed out, that the word explanations"? of Karnakagomin are identical with those of Sākyamati". But his conclusion, that Sākyamati had taken these parts from Karņakagomin's text, is wrong. The relationship of the two is just the reverse: Karņakagomin has simply used Sākyamati's word explanation for his own word-explanation, and has expand ed these by smaller glosses, by paying attention to and introducing other word explanations, but above all by adding large digressions, polemics and systematical explanations, the latter of which must be considered as Karnakagomin's original contribution.
Another kind of utilization of the PVT is to be found in the textual material gathered in the appendix to the edition of Manorathanandin's PVV: a re-writing of word explanations by using Sākyamati's commentary, thus creating a new commentary into which Sākyamati's words and often long passages have been incorporated. Instances of this kind of secondary utilization of the Sākyamati-text are naturally difficult to trace. I can offer only a few examples for the commentary on chapters II-IV of the PV, but I would expect that material of this kind can be enlarged in time.
There are two reasons that make it desirable to prepare a reconstruction of Sākyamati's commentary, which on the basis of the extant materials in Sanskrit would be possible for almost the whole of the first chapter and some interesting parts of the other chapters. In the first place an observation of his commentary's secondary utilization would allow for an easy delimitation of the creative sections in the new commentaries and, thus, the determination of the development of the Dharmakirti-exegesis. And in the second place, by regaining the original this commentary which is still very near to Dharmakirti would be re-established in its authoritative value with respect to the forms and peculiarities of its language, too, since the Tibetan translation in spite of its general accuracy often remains ambiguous as to details of expression.
Considering the fact, however, that many important texts of the school still remain untreated, it would not be expedient at this time to attempt a reconstruction of Sākyamati's commentary as a whole. Yet it seems appropriate to point to the fact, that we are already in possession - if only in crude form -- of the original text of this authoritative explanation at least for the first chapter. And it is also evident, that on the other hand the Tibetan translation of the PVT provides us with an instance of control for large parts of Karnakagomin's commentary which has not been translated into Tibetan itself, but stands in need of such control considering its occasional gross corruption. In the following I would like to show, using a few examples, the prospects for regaining this important commentary as they present themselves on the basis of the material known so far.
12 I use the term word-explanation" for such explanations that are concerned only with the
direct meaning, grammatical analyses etc. of a text, as opposed to systematical explanations
that are mainly concerned with the philosophical meaning. 13 Gnoli 1960, XXI.
