________________
Some Observations on the Manuscript Transmission of the NBh (Y. Muroya) 33
such as attachment (rāga), aversion (dveṣa) and delusion (moha), he refers to the previous discussion, stating evam ca kṛtva tattvajñānād duḥkhajanmapravṛttidoṣamithyajñānānām uttarottaräpäye tadanantarapayad apavarga iti vyākhyātam iti.33 As Thakur typographically marked the text duḥkhajanma ... pāyād apavargaḥ by inserting a new paragraph for it, one might consider that NS 1.1.2 is directly quoted by the oldest commentator. However, attention should be paid to the words iti vyākhyātam: in a commentarial text, the verb vya-khyā normally designates the commentator's own activity, and does not refer to the basic text upon which commentary is provided.34 Under this assumption it is conceivable that Vatsyāyana does not directly refer to 1.1.2, but to his own previous commentary on it. In this connection, there would be at least two possibilities to be considered. (1) If Vatsyāyana would have supplied niḥśreyasadhigamaḥ after bhāvāt in his commentary on 1.1.2, he would have given a reformulated text in his commentary on 4.2.1; (2) if he would have read the commonly accepted text in 1.1.2, he would merely have repeated the passage in 4.2.1. The resolving of this issue depends, to some extent, upon a stylistic analysis of his technique of composition. I would like to leave the issue open to question in the present article.
This second sutra has repeatedly attracted the attention of scholars and has been the focus of recurrent discussions with regard to its philosophical and soteriological implications, the literal understanding of the sutra, and its relation to the first and ninth sutra-s, the so-called prameyasutra, or to other sections of the NS.35 Amongst scholars who have discussed the sutra, Slaje (1986) points out the unique occurrence of the expression niḥśreyasa in the NS as well as the remarkable terminological inconsistence ("auffällige terminologische Inkonsequenz") and the alleged synonymity of nihśreyasa in 1.1.1 and apavarga in 1.1.2.36 Under the supposition that the T version of 1.1.2 and the supplementation with niḥśreyasadhigamaḥ in the NBh are original,37 such an apparent terminological inconsistency would have to be considered irrelevant because there is no immediate connection of apavargaḥ to 1.1.2. The T version suggests, furthermore, a possible inter
33 Cf. ED 221,12-15. Further alleged references to 1.1.2 in the NBh that need to be carefully examined are ED 248,17-21 on 4.1.59 (Ruben) 4.1.55, and ED 259,7-10 on
4.2.1.
34 The vya-khyā and its derivatives do not occur in the NS, as opposed to the VS(C), e.g., 1.1: athato dharmam vyäkhyasyamaḥ. The style of Vätsyäyana's references to sūtra-s requires a comprehensive study.
35 Cf. Strauss 1930; Biardeau 1964: 101-102; Oberhammer 1964; Slaje 1986: 164; Akamatsu 1989; Perry 1995: 29-81; Akamatsu 2000.
36 Cf. Slaje (1986: 164-165): "[W]arum denn nur hier in den ersten beiden Sütren verschiedene Termini verwendet wurden." Perry (1995: 70-81) critically reviews Slaje (1986).
37 It remains unclear how the iti appearing after niḥśreyasadhigamaḥ in T functions, especially in relation to the sutra.
