2023-02-16 14:47:28 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
62
INTRODUCTION
We now proceed to discuss the evidence for this line of descent
though it must be kept in mind that anything like a true representation
of the possible interrelationship between these versions would cover the
chart with an unprintable network of tangled lines.
3. 3. Evidence for the grouping. There is no way of knowing
what form the original Bhartrhari collection took, but it could never have
been a śatakatraya, nor could the author himself have promulgated any
edition comparable to what we possess today. The immense variation in
order as well as content proves the latter point, for no one could possibly
take such liberties with a generally accepted text. Moreover, the uniform
tendency to add extra slokas as Bhartrhari's shows that the work was, in
all probability, started as a collection of Bhartrhari slokas by much later
admirers. For neglect during the poet's own lifetime, the stanzas themselves
offer ample testimony.
The common factor to the two main recensions, on the most generous
level of inclusion, is below 250 stanzas. Another point that indicates later
arrangement into three centuries is that there are not three mangalācaraņas,
except in the clearly artificial southern arrangement. N relegates śambhu-
svayambhu- to the middle of the śṛngära, thus leaving at most two benedictory
stanzas, cudottumsita-[1] and dikkälädy-[256]. The real beginning of niti
is ajñaḥ sukham, for this the earliest stanza common to N and S. Many N
MSS begin the niti without any benediction at all; some repeat one or the
other [generally 256] as a beginning. Besides, the tendency to ascribe the
same stanza to different centuries persists from the very beginning to the end
of the tradition. We have seven stanzas of unquestionable authenticity [on
the MS evidence] which are so displaced in the two recensions; the lack of
fixity continues right through the second and third groups, the quite spurious
tyaja durjana-[519] occuring in all three centuries. Some of this variation,
however, is not fundamental because the extra stanzas, perhaps added after
the colohpon or so indicated on the margin, appear to have fallen at the
beginning of the next century by some later copyist's inaptitude.
The
lack of the third mangalācaraṇa has on occasion been supplied by invention,
as in Wai 2 which has 411 and RASB 9510 with 662, both as N1, while the
Telgu 10 K7207 joins Mysore 1642 to put 768 as $1.
The Vedantic recension must have been fairly early, because its exact
position is hard to settle. Its existence is shown by a fact that supports the
proceding paragraph, namely that the stanza dikkūludy-[ 256 ] is also spurious,
a later addition as seen from numerous omissions. In the first place,
this is the very quintossence of Vedantic doctrine. Secondly, we can see it
grow in Vedantic documents. The Yogaväsistha has Ramazafia: patrru-
प्रकाशकृत् । चिन्मात्रमूर्तिरमलो देव इत्युच्यते मुने ॥ ( VI-a, 30.12). This is followed by the
6000 sloka Laghuyogavāsistha, written by Gauda Abhinanda, a 9th century
Kasmirian, which gives [ 6 1] दिक्कालाद्यनवच्छिन्नमदृष्टभयकोटिकम् । चिन्मात्रमक्षयं शान्तमेकं
ब्रह्मास्मि नेतरत् ॥ The exact form of our sloka occurs as the opening of the
Laghuyogavāsisthasara, which gives a still further condensed presentation of
the Vedic doctrine in 223 stanzas. Tn Bhartrhari proper, the stanza is decidedly
out of place, as the more ardent Saiva stanzas that might have supported it all
INTRODUCTION
We now proceed to discuss the evidence for this line of descent
though it must be kept in mind that anything like a true representation
of the possible interrelationship between these versions would cover the
chart with an unprintable network of tangled lines.
3. 3. Evidence for the grouping. There is no way of knowing
what form the original Bhartrhari collection took, but it could never have
been a śatakatraya, nor could the author himself have promulgated any
edition comparable to what we possess today. The immense variation in
order as well as content proves the latter point, for no one could possibly
take such liberties with a generally accepted text. Moreover, the uniform
tendency to add extra slokas as Bhartrhari's shows that the work was, in
all probability, started as a collection of Bhartrhari slokas by much later
admirers. For neglect during the poet's own lifetime, the stanzas themselves
offer ample testimony.
The common factor to the two main recensions, on the most generous
level of inclusion, is below 250 stanzas. Another point that indicates later
arrangement into three centuries is that there are not three mangalācaraņas,
except in the clearly artificial southern arrangement. N relegates śambhu-
svayambhu- to the middle of the śṛngära, thus leaving at most two benedictory
stanzas, cudottumsita-[1] and dikkälädy-[256]. The real beginning of niti
is ajñaḥ sukham, for this the earliest stanza common to N and S. Many N
MSS begin the niti without any benediction at all; some repeat one or the
other [generally 256] as a beginning. Besides, the tendency to ascribe the
same stanza to different centuries persists from the very beginning to the end
of the tradition. We have seven stanzas of unquestionable authenticity [on
the MS evidence] which are so displaced in the two recensions; the lack of
fixity continues right through the second and third groups, the quite spurious
tyaja durjana-[519] occuring in all three centuries. Some of this variation,
however, is not fundamental because the extra stanzas, perhaps added after
the colohpon or so indicated on the margin, appear to have fallen at the
beginning of the next century by some later copyist's inaptitude.
The
lack of the third mangalācaraṇa has on occasion been supplied by invention,
as in Wai 2 which has 411 and RASB 9510 with 662, both as N1, while the
Telgu 10 K7207 joins Mysore 1642 to put 768 as $1.
The Vedantic recension must have been fairly early, because its exact
position is hard to settle. Its existence is shown by a fact that supports the
proceding paragraph, namely that the stanza dikkūludy-[ 256 ] is also spurious,
a later addition as seen from numerous omissions. In the first place,
this is the very quintossence of Vedantic doctrine. Secondly, we can see it
grow in Vedantic documents. The Yogaväsistha has Ramazafia: patrru-
प्रकाशकृत् । चिन्मात्रमूर्तिरमलो देव इत्युच्यते मुने ॥ ( VI-a, 30.12). This is followed by the
6000 sloka Laghuyogavāsistha, written by Gauda Abhinanda, a 9th century
Kasmirian, which gives [ 6 1] दिक्कालाद्यनवच्छिन्नमदृष्टभयकोटिकम् । चिन्मात्रमक्षयं शान्तमेकं
ब्रह्मास्मि नेतरत् ॥ The exact form of our sloka occurs as the opening of the
Laghuyogavāsisthasara, which gives a still further condensed presentation of
the Vedic doctrine in 223 stanzas. Tn Bhartrhari proper, the stanza is decidedly
out of place, as the more ardent Saiva stanzas that might have supported it all