2023-02-16 14:49:03 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
68
the verses seem poor stuff indeod, halting, patched up, without the sting or
compression that characterizes the best of Bhartrhari. The similarity of
phrase which seemed conclusive to the first editors are to my jaundiced eye
such trivial borrowing as anyone might have picked up. Indeed, far better
stanzas in the style and spirit of Bhartrhari have actually been writen, follow-
ing a jocular remark of mine, by Pt. Kṛṣṇamūrti Sarmā.
INTRODUCTION
The matter is clinched by a bit of negetive evidence: not one of the
Vitavrtta or the Vijnanašataka stanzas is found in the bulky third group, so
that no one in the general tradition could ever have heard of either of these
two works as Bhartrhari's. I particularly recommend my group III to enter-
prising forgers who have designs upon Bhartrhari, in the hope that they, at
least, will patronize this volume.
3. 6. Discussion of the groups. The first question that will arise
after examination of such detailed criticism would be: how reliable is the
critical method! Has the grouping any real sense? It may be said at once
that the basic portion of version B, particularly in its omissions, was fairly
well outlined by the procedure I have adopted, and that the discovery of an
ancient survival in version J confirmed a good many of the omissions. The
question, however, can only be settled by new discoveries of decidedly older MSS
though this is by no means certain. The oldest reference to any specific work
of Bhartrhari is in the final section of Merutunga's Prabandhacintamani [1304
A. D.], "tena Bhartṛhariņā vairāyyaśatakādi prabandhāni bhūyāmś cakrire".
Nevertheless, the V comes off very badly by the present method, inasmuch as
barely 53 stanzas survive, though N and leave 69 and 71 respectively.
Moreovor, while the other two "satakas" have five slokas each with starred
numbers, the V has no less than 14; comparing it against the other two by the
modern statistician's chi-square test, the probability of the the V being formed
and transmitted by the same mechanism as the other two is negligible.
A certain amount of supplementary information is available from MSS
received after printing off the major portion of the text. Nagpur 1087 omits
16, probably in its haste to include kṣudrāḥ santi [471]; with Nagpur 421, it
substitutes 451 for 184*. HU 1387 omits, among others, nos. 50-52, 91-96,
108, 111, 117, 196–199, 224, 233, 300, 332 348; no attention can be paid to this
as the original from which the scribe copied the specimen clearly had missing
folios. Similarly for the omissions of Bikar 3279: nos. 15-18, [21 shifted to
V 157 (47)],22, 26, 38*, 51, 53*, 265, 285, 328, 331. Bikaner 3281 is
obviously of the same version as Bikaner 3278, so that the omission of 10 stanzas
after $ 10, along with their numbers, means nothing. HU 2144 omits 82,
149, 161, 179*, 187, 319, 349. HU 2145 omits 74* while substituting 291 for
190*. This substitution also takes place in PU 496 [which omits 132*
and 301], and Bikaner 3280 which joins HU 2145 in also substituting
mālatīkusuma- [650] for 34. These are all N MSS. Among those of type
Y we find HU 2133 omitting 120 and 328 while it repeats 77 as S 19 and S
71(77); but its S is disturbed so that no attention need be paid to this
aberration. Bikaner 3277, supported by fragments from the same locality,
omits 165, 209, 226*, 273, 274, 278, 230*, 318, 322, 324*. The Nepal MS,
supported for N and V by Jodhpur 6, omits 239, 230*, and 278. Among the
the verses seem poor stuff indeod, halting, patched up, without the sting or
compression that characterizes the best of Bhartrhari. The similarity of
phrase which seemed conclusive to the first editors are to my jaundiced eye
such trivial borrowing as anyone might have picked up. Indeed, far better
stanzas in the style and spirit of Bhartrhari have actually been writen, follow-
ing a jocular remark of mine, by Pt. Kṛṣṇamūrti Sarmā.
INTRODUCTION
The matter is clinched by a bit of negetive evidence: not one of the
Vitavrtta or the Vijnanašataka stanzas is found in the bulky third group, so
that no one in the general tradition could ever have heard of either of these
two works as Bhartrhari's. I particularly recommend my group III to enter-
prising forgers who have designs upon Bhartrhari, in the hope that they, at
least, will patronize this volume.
3. 6. Discussion of the groups. The first question that will arise
after examination of such detailed criticism would be: how reliable is the
critical method! Has the grouping any real sense? It may be said at once
that the basic portion of version B, particularly in its omissions, was fairly
well outlined by the procedure I have adopted, and that the discovery of an
ancient survival in version J confirmed a good many of the omissions. The
question, however, can only be settled by new discoveries of decidedly older MSS
though this is by no means certain. The oldest reference to any specific work
of Bhartrhari is in the final section of Merutunga's Prabandhacintamani [1304
A. D.], "tena Bhartṛhariņā vairāyyaśatakādi prabandhāni bhūyāmś cakrire".
Nevertheless, the V comes off very badly by the present method, inasmuch as
barely 53 stanzas survive, though N and leave 69 and 71 respectively.
Moreovor, while the other two "satakas" have five slokas each with starred
numbers, the V has no less than 14; comparing it against the other two by the
modern statistician's chi-square test, the probability of the the V being formed
and transmitted by the same mechanism as the other two is negligible.
A certain amount of supplementary information is available from MSS
received after printing off the major portion of the text. Nagpur 1087 omits
16, probably in its haste to include kṣudrāḥ santi [471]; with Nagpur 421, it
substitutes 451 for 184*. HU 1387 omits, among others, nos. 50-52, 91-96,
108, 111, 117, 196–199, 224, 233, 300, 332 348; no attention can be paid to this
as the original from which the scribe copied the specimen clearly had missing
folios. Similarly for the omissions of Bikar 3279: nos. 15-18, [21 shifted to
V 157 (47)],22, 26, 38*, 51, 53*, 265, 285, 328, 331. Bikaner 3281 is
obviously of the same version as Bikaner 3278, so that the omission of 10 stanzas
after $ 10, along with their numbers, means nothing. HU 2144 omits 82,
149, 161, 179*, 187, 319, 349. HU 2145 omits 74* while substituting 291 for
190*. This substitution also takes place in PU 496 [which omits 132*
and 301], and Bikaner 3280 which joins HU 2145 in also substituting
mālatīkusuma- [650] for 34. These are all N MSS. Among those of type
Y we find HU 2133 omitting 120 and 328 while it repeats 77 as S 19 and S
71(77); but its S is disturbed so that no attention need be paid to this
aberration. Bikaner 3277, supported by fragments from the same locality,
omits 165, 209, 226*, 273, 274, 278, 230*, 318, 322, 324*. The Nepal MS,
supported for N and V by Jodhpur 6, omits 239, 230*, and 278. Among the