Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
The Sutrapath of the Pashupata Sutras - Peter Bisschop

The Sutrapath of the Pashupata Sutras - Peter Bisschop

Ratings: (0)|Views: 752|Likes:
Published by tantrabooks
The Sutrapath of the Pashupata Sutras - Peter Bisschop
The Sutrapath of the Pashupata Sutras - Peter Bisschop

More info:

Published by: tantrabooks on Jan 23, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





The S¯utrap¯at.ha of the P¯supatas¯utra
Peter Bisschop
In 1943 Chintaharan Chakravarti published a short notice about variantreadings of the
P¯ supatas¯ utra 
in a manuscript of the
Pa˜ nc¯ arthabh¯ as  . ya 
in thecollection of the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal, Calcutta. The edition of the
P¯ supatas¯ utra 
with Kaun.d.inya’s
Pa˜ nc¯ arthabh¯ as  . ya 
had been publishedthree years earlier in the Trivandrum Sanskrit Series (No. CXLIII) on thebasis of a single manuscript discovered in Benares — now in the collectionof the University of Kerala Library (Trivandrum) —, with a missing por-tion supplied from the Calcutta manuscript.
Chakravarti fails to mentionthat the variants he lists are not the readings of the
P¯ supatas¯ utra 
as theyare quoted in the text of the Bh¯as.ya, but the readings of the S¯utrap¯at.hapreceding the text of the Bh¯as.ya proper. In fact this S¯utrap¯at.ha is alsopreserved in the manuscript on which the Trivandrum edition is based,and a number of the variants recorded by Chakravarti are found in thismanuscript’s S¯utrap¯at.ha as well. A closer look at the S¯utrap¯at.ha suggests arelatively separate transmission alongside the Bh¯as.ya. In the present paperan edition of this S¯utrap¯at.ha of the
P¯ supatas¯ utra 
is presented on the basisof the two mentioned manuscripts and a newly identified manuscript fromthe Sarasvat¯ıbhavana Library in Benares.
The text of the S¯utrap¯at.ha is fairly consistent in all three manuscripts,with a number of noteworthy readings not present in Kaun.d.inya’s text. Thisconsistency also concerns the placement of 
dan ..
s, which I regard as an in-trinsic feature of the transmission of the S¯utrap¯at.ha. It will be observed thatin a number of cases the division of the S¯utras in the S¯utrap¯at .ha, which is
Research for this article was made possible by a TALENT-grant from the NetherlandsOrganization for Scientific Research (NWO). I would like to thank Arlo Griffiths andHarunaga Isaacson for their comments upon an earlier version of this paper.
Cf. Sastri’s remark on p. 19 of the introduction to the edition: “When this discoverywas announced as usual to scholars, Dr. T.R. Chintamani
m, a., ph. d.
, of the MadrasUniversity who was then in Calcutta saw an independent manuscript with 1 to 13 pagesonly containing 21 S¯utras of the first adhy¯aya and Bh¯ashya which covers in this printed edition 42 pages last but one line, in the Asiatic Society of Bengal Library. On substitutingpages 8 to 13 from the above by copying I found that pages 27 and 28 are still wanting. Themissing pages might contain some important portion, say about Vidyesvara etc., whichgo to make the system a perfect one.” The text of the missing pages 27 and 28 in theTrivandrum MS is preserved in a so far unnoticed manuscript from Benares (on which seebelow). For an edition and translation of this previously unavailable passage, see Bisschopforthc. b.
This manuscript (MS 86122) was first brought to my attention by Dominic Goodall.Dr S.A.S. Sarma (EFEO, Pondicherry) kindly provided me with a copy of this manuscript.
different from that given in Kaun.d.inya’s Bh¯as.ya, makes good sense. A strik-ing difference with Kaun.d.inya’s text of the S¯utra concerns the five Brahma-mantras which conclude each of the five Adhy¯ayas into which the S¯utraand Bh¯as.ya are divided. On the whole it is conspicuous that Kaun.d.inya’sversion of the Brahma-mantras shows more metrical features,
while theutrap¯at.ha’s version tends to be closer to the version of these Mantras in
Taittir¯ıy¯ aran. yaka 
10 (=
Mah¯ an¯ ar¯ ayan .a-Upanis .ad
). This may be due tolater rewriting of the S¯utras by transmitters who were familiar with theseBrahma-mantras. It need not necessarily reflect the original S¯utra reading.It is my general impression that the S¯utrap¯at.ha was at one time extractedfrom the Bh¯as.ya (cf. e.g. the annotation on 1.30 and 5.24 below).
On theother hand the present study also shows the arbitrary division of the S¯utrasas we now have them. It seems likely that Kaun.d.inya had before him astring of originally larger S¯utras,
which he broke up into smaller segmentsin order to comment upon them. It is these quotations of segments whichwe have come to refer to as the S¯utras.
At the outset a peculiarity in the presentation of the S¯utrap¯at.ha in theBenares manuscript should be noted. While the two other manuscriptsquote the entire S¯utrap¯at.ha at the beginning of the text — with a divisioninto five parts indicated by short spaces the Benares manuscriptintegrates the utrap¯at.ha into the text of each Adhy¯aya of the Bh¯as.ya.Thus at the spot where Kaun.d.inya would quote the first utra of anAdhy¯aya in the other two manuscripts, the Benares manuscript quotes therelevant S¯utrap¯at.ha of that Adhy¯aya.The following abbreviations are used in the apparatus and notes to theedition of the S¯utrap¯at.ha:
I am not sure what to make of this. Does this indicate that Kaun.d.inya’s version ismore original or is it the result of a ‘normalizing tendency,’ as Goudriaan and Hooykaasargue with respect to the likewise more metrical version of these Brahma-mantras in Stutiand Stava 360, Brahma-stava (Goudriaan & Hooykaas 1971: 225–227)? The Balineseversion of these five Brahma-mantras is closer to Kaun.d.inya’s version in several respects:cf. the annotation on 1.34 and 2.14 below.
Cf., however, also 5.11, which suggests a different scenario.
For indications that Kaun.d.inya had access to more than one version of the S¯utras,cf. Hara 2002: 271.
In a number of cases the division as we now have it is actually not that of themanuscripts but Sastri’s: cf. the annotation on 1.22, 2.5, 2.9, 4.14, 5.1, 5.20, 5.24 and 5.26below. From these and other silent changes made to the text by Sastri, some of which arenoted in the present paper, it will be clear that a critical edition of the
Pa˜ nc¯ arthabh¯ as . ya 
is called for. Cf. also Bisschop forthc. a and b.
B Benares, Sarasvat¯ı Bhavana Library, MS 86112. Paper, Devan¯agaıscript. Folios 1–76; complete; double sided; 8–11 lines a page.
C Calcutta, Asiatic Society, MS IM-5474. Paper, Devan¯agar¯ı script. 13folios; incomplete; double sided; 12–15 lines a page. Comes with fourfolios from an unidentified Alam.ars¯astra work.
K utra as quoted by Kaun.d.inya in the Bh¯as.ya.T Trivandrum, University of Kerala Library, MS 2018. Paper,Devan¯agar¯ı script.
Folios 1–87 (nos. 1, 8–13, 27, 28 missing);double-sided; 9–10 lines a page. The text for the missing folios 1 and8–13 is preserved on folios numbered 1–11 in a different hand andwritten on more recent paper. This may be the handwriting of theeditor of the
Pa˜ nc¯ arthabh¯ as  . ya 
, who copied this part of the MS fromthe Calcutta MS (cf. n. 1 above). Alternatively someone else mayhave copied it for Sastri from the Calcutta MS. In any case I considerthese eleven folios to be an apograph of part of the Calcutta MS.Orthographical variants in the MSS are not reported. A few commonvariants are: 1)
at the end of a S¯utra; 2) absence of 
;3) doubling of 
after a preceding
. The above variants are shared byall three MSS, which may indicate their close relationship. B starts with
´sıga.e´s¯ aya namah .
, C with
om .´sı mah¯ agan .apataye namah .
, and T with
harih .gan .apataye namah .
. The edition and apparatus below only refer to thereading of the S¯utrap¯at.ha. Note that the numbering does not correspondwith the S¯utra numbering in the existing edition of Kaun.d.inya’s Bh¯as.ya.References to Kaun.d.inya’s numbering in the notes are preceded by a K.If not stated otherwise K has the adopted reading. In case there is adifference between Sastri’s edition of the Bh¯as.ya and what T or the othermanuscripts actually have, this is reported in the notes and the siglum K isin general avoided. In such cases ‘Sastri’ refers to the reading of the utrain Sastri’s edition. I have refrained from recording all the variants of theBh¯as.ya readings in B, because they are full of scribal errors and they donot help in reconstructing the reading of the S¯utrap¯at.ha. In general one
Cf. A Descriptive Catalogue of the Sanskrit Manuscripts. Acquired for and Depositedin the Sampurnanand Sanskrit University (Sarasvati-Bhavana) Library Varanasi duringthe years 1951–1981. Vol. VI, part II. Tantra Manuscripts. Varanasi 1991, p. 84.
I am grateful to Dr Abhijit Ghosh for providing me with a copy of the Calcuttamanuscript.
A copy of this manuscript was provided to me by Dr Dominic Goodall and DrS.A.S. Sarma.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->