2023-02-16 14:49:03 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
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
modern 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
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 Rāṇā
Pratap'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 tatparya, 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. Cloarly, 296 and 297 can be confused
because of the identical beginning, though the contents differ; the former
is much the commouer, 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 97 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 phalan karmayattam might have given rise to 228
out of 22; srajo hrdyämodāḥ is the common factor between the probably
genuine 134 and the probably spurious 319, though it is not so easy to explain
the inclusion of one or omission of the other on grounds of similarity alone,
as C omits 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 Vijuanatman, possibly the commentator on the
Śvetāśvatara Upanișad, 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 Bhartṛhari 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 linos. 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
9 भ. सु.
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
modern 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
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 Rāṇā
Pratap'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 tatparya, 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. Cloarly, 296 and 297 can be confused
because of the identical beginning, though the contents differ; the former
is much the commouer, 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 97 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 phalan karmayattam might have given rise to 228
out of 22; srajo hrdyämodāḥ is the common factor between the probably
genuine 134 and the probably spurious 319, though it is not so easy to explain
the inclusion of one or omission of the other on grounds of similarity alone,
as C omits 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 Vijuanatman, possibly the commentator on the
Śvetāśvatara Upanișad, 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 Bhartṛhari 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 linos. 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
9 भ. सु.