________________
118
Asbok Aklujkar
(14)
(15)
Prologue and Epilogue Verses of Vacaspati-misra!
119
based on the samudra-mathana or 'churning of the ocean' myth utilized in the verse.
samacaisan mabat punyari tal-pbalan puşkalan maya / Samarpitam, atbaitena priyatan parameswarah//4// nrpantardnare manasāpy agamyām bbra-kesepa.mdtrena cakra kirtim / kartaswardsdra-smpäritärtbi-sartha svayarit fästra-vicaksanas ca //5// narefvard yac caritanukāram icchanti kartunit, na ca părayanti / tasmin mahipe mahaniya-kirtau friman-nege 'kari maya nibandhah //6/8
$2.76 In the first verse of the epilogue here, a wrong reading (originally probably a misprint), waya.path, has been printed in the Bhimati edns for a long time. It has been a case of one editor blindly following another. Amalananda's Kalpa-taru presupposes the reading adopted here and clarifies it: fruti-lingadi-rydya-rapa-mantbatbl. tena. Lakşmi-nr-sinha's Abhoga introduces this clarification with naya-rūpam mantānam eva darśayati. Reference to a churn. ing rod, matbin, is what we expect in the context of the extended metaphor
$2.7c Another wrong reading, which has behind it the respectability that time bestows, is current in the case of verse 5. It is tartha-são. Having come across the alliterative expression artbi-sartha in some Sanskrit verse which I cannot recall now, I read fartha-são as "tartbi-sd and translated arthi-sartha as "hosts of supplicants' instinctively. Subsequently, I encountered the following comment of Amalānanda (13th century) and had second thoughts about my understanding: kārtasvaram suvarnan. tasyāsāro 'navarata-varşanam. tena supürito 'rthah kanksito (any qualificand? read kankşito'rtbahor kankşitar as a noun?) yasya sārthasya jana-samūhasya (?) sa tatbety eko babu-vribih. tatbavidhah sārtho yasya praktatvena [?] varlate sa nrgas tatbety aparah. A careful consideration of Amalānanda's comment, however, convinced me that what he was doing was to give the best possible explanation he could, on the strength of the context, of a bad reading. He was following the 'sthitasya gatis cintaniya' principle of Sanskrit commentators. He takes kartasvardsdra-suparildtbah as a bahu-vrīhi embedded in a larger bahu-vrīhi ending in tartba-särtbah. This is possible as far as the word forms go, but it forces him to assign to särtba 'host, caravan' the unattested general meaning jana-samūha 'subjects, citizenry' and to connect the action of filling conveyed by supürita with artba understood in an abstract sense, rather than with the physical entity that särtha signifies. On the other hand, kārtasvarāsārena supüritah arthi-särtbah yena gives us a contextually appropriate meaning (by whom the multitude of supplicants is wellfilled with a shower / showers of gold') in a straightforward way. This reaction
ted. It seems more appropriate than Tattoofaradi and fats the pentamorale pattern seen in the second parts of Tartu-samilesã and Tartu-estudi (and perhaps Bhamalt, as the title of a prakaraa, Tartw bindu could be an exception). However, a decision regarding whether Saradt should be preferred to di fáradt can be made only after a critical consultation of manuscripts.
**(a) In addition, we have the following verses at the beginning of the Bhämation the fourth adhyaya: näbbyarbyd iba santab swayant prasyitd, na celare sakyab/ matsara pitta Nibandhanawacikisyan erocabante ed //1// Larke samprari mirilankan adund suddy-soukhyan abant Hendrab sandra-tapab stbites karbant spy udvegam abbyepati/ Yad daarbitrarmata mid-webra-mara-spoutad. vedanidba-wiveka- cita-bhavab sparge 'py and abspphab 1/2//
Of these, the second verse is known for a long time as the composition of Santana added to the Bhimad text. Santana is said to be a disciple of Vicaspati; cf. Amalānanda: acårdsyd fisyah sanitare ndmed tat-kertainer stutin tal-priyarban prabandhan dropayari
Appaya-diksita, the earlier commentator of Amalinanda, does not indicate awareness of either verse. Laksmi-ng-simha, author of the later Abhoga, indicates awareness only of the first verse. These facts, however, cannot be taken as indications of inauthenticity. Appaya-díksita does not comment on incidental verses and simple parts of the Bhamat. Laksmi-nc-sithha too might not have seen any need to add to Amalananda's words. It could also have been his policy to restrict himself to writings that had a direct or indirect bearing on Vacaspaci's own words.
However, one problem in interpreting Amalananda's statement does not so far seem to have been noticed. If he had written www.krdwestutim, we would have unambiguously understood Santana to be the author of the culogy verse. As it is, the sentence can mean that Vacaspati wrote aboustful verse (but decided not to include it in his work himself) and Sanātana, to please him, inserted it into the text. This would present Vacaspati either as a man of low moral standards the did not mind if someone else did the dishonorable thing for him) or as a man too easy to please. It is unlikely that Amalananda would want his readers to understand things this way, especially after he has referred to Vicaspati as icya and when his respect for Vacaspati is evident. The likely intention of his remark, therefore, seems to be this: Sanatana wrote a verse in praise of his teacher. He put it in the Bhamar ma to please his teacher (maybe, while he was making the final draft, the press copy of those days). The teacher, not to hurt the student's feelings, decided to let it stand.
(b) The employment of both samprati and adbund in Santana's verse can be accounted for by to king samprati with Andra-tapab sitesi (us Amalānanda does) or lonke and adbund with wahan, but it would have been better if he had employed only one of the two words meaning 'now'
(c) See $3.5b, d-e below for possible implications of the two verses.
I wonder if the original reading here was krtice, with prakrti referring to a ruler's subjects or to his kośa prakti, the treasury that figures in the Antha-Sastra enumeration of seven praktis. Sankaranarayanan's (1985:35) translation of Vicaspati's expression kärsuantida - seems to presuppose such an emendation in Amalananda's commentary. It runs thus the desires of whose subjects are fulfilled by the incessant rain of goldbe.
w This, I think, is a very sensible principle to follow when an interpreter cannot collect manu scripts belonging to different regions and representing various versions or recensions. We should be gra teful to Sanskrit commentators that they generally did not take liberties with the inherited readings in problematic situations and thus obliterate the historical evidence. To avail oneself of such liberties would not only have been a display of overconfidence in one's knowledge and abilities, it would have been ultimately less beneficial to the generations to come. The commentators' strategy of interpreting
around the reading on the strength of the context was modest and safer and, in many cases, It offered the same results as methodologically sound emendations of texts would have. It had scope for giving the contextually expected meaning, based on the thinking of an informed and expert reader, without causing damage to the lines of text transmission. All that the commentator had to do was to add a few words of his own and provide a bridge linking the actual words of the commentandum to the contextually anticipated meaning
(b) I owe the expression stbitasya garif cintanyl to my pandit teachers. I do not know if it occurs exactly in that form in any commentary. Alternative expressions like sbite tvelar for sthitespetat) samar baraw are possible. They refer to problematic situations created by readings as well as ideas.
