________________
INTRODUCTION
drop out of Group I. Besides culottamsita [1], the only possible maigalācarana for Bartrhari, we have only one ckāki nihsprhah = 185 which places faith in Sivir.. Neither is particularly heavy Vedānta, and such casual mention shows merely that there wits a peg upon which Vedantic garments could be hung for Bharthari by later redactors. On the other hand, the mere existence of Saiva stanzits in versions copied and commented upon by Jains show that the Vedantic accretions come carly enough to be well established. Changes like sajjananām or punyabhüjām for brāhmaṇānām in 66", jano for jino in 224", turhati for śülini in 43°, and an occasional addition like stanza 219 is all that can be assigned to Jain intluence, which does not tamper with the Saiva verses.
Thc cvidence for a single defective copy being the source of half vur minuscripts rests upon the extraordinary phenomenon of two different second lialves for the stanza asārāḥ [83]. Which reading it has depends upon whether it is followed by the stanza bhavanto vedänta-[ 287*] or not; if not, the second half is that which normally goes with 287*. This is immediately explained as a case of haplography, for both second halves Begin with tathury. I maintain that this could not have happened in more than one manuscript, and even then only at that remote epoch when copies of Bhartrlari were rare, with very few interested in reading or comparing the version with others--if any others then existed. One should note that Krsnaśāstri Mahabala's NSP edition omits 83 altogether, BU 114/7 has both 83 and 287 with the same ending; Mysore 582 has, (like Bik 3277, almost unique among YTGM MSS) both of these in the A succession, though it otherwise follows M4.5. Occasional MSS like Bikaner 3280, PU 496, HU 2145 have the proper suocession of these two stanzas, but with the second in order cal. Finally, the haplography has actually begun in HIU 196 but is corrected on the margin. A similar double ending for 234 cannot be explained; but the stanza is not of Group I.
There is secondary confirmation for this grouping in that the clearly northern H version gives on occasion southern readings while the southern W agrees with extreme northern MSS against others of its recension.
3.2. Omissions and inclusions. Just how and when the satakatraya idea started is hard to determine, but it must have been fairly early. Recension S is more logically arranged than N, whence it should be the later; at best we may see in Na slight tendency to group two or three similar stanzas, as for example 68, 59, 60 on kinghoud, 109, 229*; 110 on meretrices. On the other hand, S is decidedly shorter than N, which should place it varlier. Therefore, we have to adopt the explanation that s was rearranged fruan an N which continued to expand and develop. Both make up their three centuries in different ways, though with a substantial common nucleus. It is our main critical task to see how far this common and therefore presumably original portion could be restored.
Every scribe who has left us a complete MS of the satakatraya manifests his anxiety to include every possible stanza which he believed to Bhartřhari's. This would be attested by the numerous verses
Jain Education International
www.jainelibrary.org
For Private & Personal Use Only
