________________ 148 REVIEWS Simhasuri's commentary on the sixth and seventh ara-s is of very great interest for the study of the older Vaisesika literature and of the text of the Vaisesika sutras. The text of the Sutrapatha quoted by Simhasuri is different from the one in Sankaramisra's Upaskara but agrees with the Sutrapatha which has been transmitted together with a commentary by Candrananda. When the text of the first five ara-s of the Nayacakra had already been printed, the editor obtained a manuscript containing both a separate text of the Vaisesikasutras and the Sutras together with Candrananda's vrtti (MS. PS/P, cf. GOS, No. 136, Baroda, 1961, Introduction, p. 1). This manuscript has been used by him for reproducing the complete text of the Sutras and the commentary in the notes of this edition (see p. 141: "Vaisesikasutrasambandhi parisistam" for a list of the relevant notes). Subsequently, the editor obtained a copy of another manuscript, written in Sarada script (MS. O).15 On the basis of these two manuscripts (PS/P and O) he has edited the Vaisesikasutra of Kanada with the Commentary of Candrananda (GOS, No. 136, Baroda, 1961).16 This edition contains appendices comparing the Sutrapatha with those found in the Upaskara and in an anonymous commentary, edited by Anantalal Thakur.17 Another appendix examines in detail the readings of the Sutrapatha according to the two manuscripts and quotations from the Sutras in other texts (pp. 227234: Vyddhipatrakam). Simhasuri quotes several Vaisesika works which have not been handed down to us. These quotations have been brought together by the editor in an appendix to his edition of the Vaisesikasutras (pp. 146-152). The problems relating to these works have been dealt with by him in his prastavana (pp. 6-8) to the same edition. Simhasuri gives several references to Aryadeva's Catuhsataka and to Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakosa but his main contribution to the study of Buddhist philosophy is to be found in his discussion of Dignaga's philosophy in the first and eighth ara-s. In order to enable the reader to understand better Dignaga's doctrines, the editor has translated into Sanskrit large sections from the Pramanasamuccaya, Dignaga's vstti and Jinendrabuddhi's tika (cf. Bhotaparisistam, pp. 95-140). Other sections of these works have been translated in notes to the eighth ara (cf. prakkathana, p. 39 n. 8 for a list of references). The editor had already used the same works for the study of Vaisesika and Nyaya doctrines (cf. GOS, nr. 136, pp. 153-219). 18 The editor points out that in the eighth ara Mallavadin discusses the apohavada, but does not seem to refer to the fifth chapter of the Pramanasamuccaya. He advances the hypothesis that Mallavadin has taken the purvapaksa from Dignaga's Samanyapariksa mentioned on pages 627-628 of the text. I-ching has translated a short work by Dignaga (T, nr. 1623), of wich the Sanskrit title has been reconstructed as Samanyalaksanapariksa by Frauwallner (WZKSO, III, 1959, p. 139). In a letter to Muni Jambuviyajaji, Frauwallner gives some information about this text (cf. GOS, No. 136, p. 153, n. 2). It is possible that Dignaga had written a commentary upon this text which consists of WZKSO, II (1958), pp. 84-139; G. Oberhammer, "The Authorship of the Sastitantram", WZKSO, IV (1960), pp. 71-91. Important for the date of Varsaganya is the discovery of a reference to him in Asanga's Yogacarabhumi, cf. D. Seyfort Ruegg, "Note on Varsaganya and the Yogacarabhumi", IIJ, VI (1962), pp. 137-140. 15 As this manuscript was not at the disposal of the editor for the establishment of the text of the Sutras and the vrtti in the notes of his edition of the Nayacakra, a list of better readings to be found in MS. O is given in a special appendix (pp. 158-161). 16 Cf. E. Frauwallner's review, WZKSO, VI (1962), pp. 184-185. 17 Vaisesikadarsana of Kanada with an anonymous commentary, ed. by Anantalal Thakur (Darbhanga, 1957). 18 GOS, No. 136 reproduces the Tibetan text in Tibetan characters (cf. pp. I-LI). In the Bhotaparisista Tibetan texts are transliterated in devanagari. Would it not have been possible to use romanization?
