________________
INTRODUCTION
65
that only the occurrence of both in W is a reason for taking them as separate stanzas. This same criterion applies to the case of 254 and 286 which most mogen editors take as variants of the same stanza, but which are reported separately in NS3, and in which the amount of variation seems to me to preclude the possibility of indentification, though not perhaps of à common original. This raises the question as to whether such stanzas are attracted by similitude in memory transmission, and whether the opposite process might not have resulted in the omission of one, perhaps the wrong one, of such a pair in some of the versions. The primary reason for suspecting 319 is its omission in A, though BU also omits it and HU 1376 relegates it to V3 as an afterthought; but we must note that the fourth quarter, embodying the moral, is identical with that of 9, and that Rāņā Pratip's translation seems to combine both stanzas into one, perhaps for this reason. The question then is whether there were originally two separate couplets with the same tätparya, or whether memory transmission, or perhaps imitation, introduced a spurious addition, Precisely equivalent is the case of stanzas 18 and 275, both with the same final quarter, with the latter omitted in X and one additional MS. Clearly, 296 and 297 can be confused because of the identical beginning, though the contents differ; the former is much the commoner, but many versions report both, and A omits 296 altogether, for reasons we cannot now discover. Nos. 270 and 276 say much the same thing in the same way, but are often both reported, and each is omitted in many Mss. On the other hand, 88 and 37 have not been confused by the scribes because of the identical pratikas [ changed in S], and both have to be taken as genuine.
The single phrase phalam karmāyattam might have given rise to 228 out of 22; srajo hrdyämodāḥ is the common factor between the probably genuine 134 and the probably spurious 349, though it is not so easy to explain the inclusion of one or omission of the other on grounds of similarity alone, as Comits both. Similitude both of sentiment and beginning seem to have caused s to group 193 and 315 consecutively, but the latter is omitted often enough to be relegated to Group II. The citations for 315 seem to indicate that it might belong to Vijñānātman, possibly the commentator on the Svetaśyatıra Upanişad, circa 1100 [cf. S. Srikantha Sastri in Annals BORI XXIII, 1942, p. 421].
3.5. The groups. The most that can be done under these circumstances is to make broad groups in decreasing order of probability, i. e. to measure the strength of the Bhartrhari tradition by the actual MS evidence before us. To this end, some reasonable criteria that can be applied by anyone with substantially the same results are necessary, though it must be admitted at once that, no matter what method of grouping be adopted, there will always be indeterminate cases near the borderline. For convenience, I have taken four major groups as follows:
Group I: This includes all stanzas generally found, or whose omission is unequivocally to be explained on the foregoing lines. However, omission in a single established version is held to disqualify a sloka for this group. Inexplicable omission in a single MS is condoned as fortuitous, omission in two shows a
93.9.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
