You are on page 1of 21

The S¯ utrap¯ at a´ supatas¯ utra .

ha of the P¯
Peter Bisschop∗ In 1943 Chintaharan Chakravarti published a short notice about variant readings of the P¯ a´ supatas¯ utra in a manuscript of the Pa˜ nc¯ arthabh¯ as . ya in the collection of the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal, Calcutta. The edition of the P¯ a´ supatas¯ utra with Kaun nc¯ arthabh¯ as .d . inya’s Pa˜ . ya had been published three years earlier in the Trivandrum Sanskrit Series (No. CXLIII) on the basis of a single manuscript discovered in Benares — now in the collection of the University of Kerala Library (Trivandrum) —, with a missing portion supplied from the Calcutta manuscript.1 Chakravarti fails to mention that the variants he lists are not the readings of the P¯ a´ supatas¯ utra as they are quoted in the text of the Bh¯ as ya, but the readings of the S¯ utrap¯ at . . ha preceding the text of the Bh¯ as utrap¯ at . ya proper. In fact this S¯ . ha is also preserved in the manuscript on which the Trivandrum edition is based, and a number of the variants recorded by Chakravarti are found in this manuscript’s S¯ utrap¯ at utrap¯ at . ha as well. A closer look at the S¯ . ha suggests a relatively separate transmission alongside the Bh¯ as ya. In the present paper . an edition of this S¯ utrap¯ at a´ supatas¯ utra is presented on the basis . ha of the P¯ of the two mentioned manuscripts and a newly identified manuscript from the Sarasvat¯ ıbhavana Library in Benares.2 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. This consistency also concerns the placement of dan d a s, which I regard as an in.. trinsic feature of the transmission of the S¯ utrap¯ at . ha. It will be observed that in 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 Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO). I would like to thank Arlo Griffiths and Harunaga Isaacson for their comments upon an earlier version of this paper. 1 Cf. Sastri’s remark on p. 19 of the introduction to the edition: “When this discovery was announced as usual to scholars, Dr. T.R. Chintamani m, a., ph. d., of the Madras University who was then in Calcutta saw an independent manuscript with 1 to 13 pages only 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 substituting pages 8 to 13 from the above by copying I found that pages 27 and 28 are still wanting. The missing pages might contain some important portion, say about Vidyesvara etc., which go to make the system a perfect one.” The text of the missing pages 27 and 28 in the Trivandrum MS is preserved in a so far unnoticed manuscript from Benares (on which see below). For an edition and translation of this previously unavailable passage, see Bisschop forthc. b. 2 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 as .d . inya’s Bh¯ . ya, makes good sense. A striking difference with Kaun d inya’s text of the S¯ u tra concerns the five Brahma.. mantras which conclude each of the five Adhy¯ ayas into which the S¯ utra and Bh¯ as . ya are divided. On the whole it is conspicuous that Kaun .d . inya’s version of the Brahma-mantras shows more metrical features,3 while the S¯ utrap¯ at . ha’s version tends to be closer to the version of these Mantras in Taittir¯ ıy¯ aran an¯ ar¯ ayan . yaka 10 (= Mah¯ . a-Upanis . ad ). This may be due to later rewriting of the S¯ utras by transmitters who were familiar with these Brahma-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 extracted . 4 from the Bh¯ as . ya (cf. e.g. the annotation on 1.30 and 5.24 below). On the other hand the present study also shows the arbitrary division of the S¯ utras as we now have them. It seems likely that Kaun d inya had before him a .. 5 string of originally larger S¯ utras, which he broke up into smaller segments in order to comment upon them. It is these quotations of segments which we have come to refer to as the S¯ utras.6 At the outset a peculiarity in the presentation of the S¯ utrap¯ at . ha in the Benares manuscript should be noted. While the two other manuscripts quote the entire S¯ utrap¯ at . ha at the beginning of the text — with a division into five parts indicated by short spaces — the Benares manuscript integrates the S¯ utrap¯ at aya of the Bh¯ as . ha into the text of each Adhy¯ . ya. Thus at the spot where Kaun utra of an .d . inya would quote the first S¯ Adhy¯ aya in the other two manuscripts, the Benares manuscript quotes the relevant S¯ utrap¯ at aya. . ha of that Adhy¯ The following abbreviations are used in the apparatus and notes to the edition of the S¯ utrap¯ at . ha:
3 I am not sure what to make of this. Does this indicate that Kaun .d . inya’s version is more original or is it the result of a ‘normalizing tendency,’ as Goudriaan and Hooykaas argue with respect to the likewise more metrical version of these Brahma-mantras in Stuti and Stava 360, Brahma-stava (Goudriaan & Hooykaas 1971: 225–227)? The Balinese version 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. 4 Cf., however, also 5.11, which suggests a different scenario. 5 For indications that Kaun utras, .d . inya had access to more than one version of the S¯ cf. Hara 2002: 271. 6 In a number of cases the division as we now have it is actually not that of the manuscripts but Sastri’s: cf. the annotation on 1.22, 2.5, 2.9, 4.14, 5.1, 5.20, 5.24 and 5.26 below. From these and other silent changes made to the text by Sastri, some of which are noted 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.


this is reported in the notes and the siglum K is in general avoided. 1. 8–11 lines a page. apataye namah .A. The above variants are shared by all three MSS. In general one Cf.S. 27. 1 above). part II. 9–10 lines a page. k¯ K S¯ utra as quoted by Kaun as .9 Folios 1–87 (nos. 7 3 . A few common variants are: 1) m utra. C with om . Varanasi 1991. 8 I am grateful to Dr Abhijit Ghosh for providing me with a copy of the Calcutta manuscript. University of Kerala Library. 84. because they are full of scribal errors and they do not help in reconstructing the reading of the S¯ utrap¯ at . In any case I consider these eleven folios to be an apograph of part of the Calcutta MS. Orthographical variants in the MSS are not reported. MS IM-5474. ha. Note that the numbering does not correspond with the S¯ utra numbering in the existing edition of Kaun as . Asiatic Society. ya readings in B. MS 2018. Alternatively someone else may have copied it for Sastri from the Calcutta MS. A Descriptive Catalogue of the Sanskrit Manuscripts. 8–13. 12–15 lines a page. . Tantra Manuscripts. double sided. for m at the end of a S¯ 3) doubling of t after a preceding r. In case there is a difference between Sastri’s edition of the Bh¯ as . e´ .d . ya. Paper.B Benares. reading of the S¯ utrap¯ at . inya’s numbering in the notes are preceded by a K. Sarma. double-sided. T Trivandrum. 2) absence of avagraha . Sarasvat¯ ı Bhavana Library. 13 folios. 9 A copy of this manuscript was provided to me by Dr Dominic Goodall and Dr S. ´ . . The edition and apparatus below only refer to the . Devan¯ agar¯ ı script. 28 missing). MS 86112.d . Devan¯ agar¯ ı script. who copied this part of the MS from the Calcutta MS (cf. Folios 1–76. VI.d . Comes with four folios from an unidentified Alam ara´ s¯ astra work. References to Kaun . ya. I have refrained from recording all the variants of the Bh¯ as . inya’s Bh¯ . B starts with ´ sr¯ ıgan s¯ aya namah sr¯ ı mah¯ agan . Paper. and T with harih gan apataye namah .7 C Calcutta. . ha. p. The text for the missing folios 1 and 8–13 is preserved on folios numbered 1–11 in a different hand and written on more recent paper. Acquired for and Deposited in the Sampurnanand Sanskrit University (Sarasvati-Bhavana) Library Varanasi during the years 1951–1981. Devan¯ agar¯ ı script. which may indicate their close relationship. In such cases ‘Sastri’ refers to the reading of the S¯ utra in Sastri’s edition. inya in the Bh¯ . ya and what T or the other manuscripts actually have. If not stated otherwise K has the adopted reading. ya. . . n. Vol.8 . incomplete. Paper. double sided. complete. This may be the handwriting of the editor of the Pa˜ nc¯ arthabh¯ as .

Chakravarti erronously transcribes C as reading ◦ huhum ara ◦ . external evidence suggests that B and C’s hud ara ◦ reflects the original reading. 1.9. K agrees with the reading of Tpc . het | ◦ nr aranamask¯ ara◦ ] B C. . tyasya mukhav¯ . yutah . p. l. am . yogavidhim . um .1 ath¯ atah supateh a´ supatam akhy¯ asy¯ amah . a ). ] Bpc C T. Edition 1. sn¯ tris sis ay¯ ıta ] C T. k¯ . 1.d . ] sa cottamah .t . 1. dhy¯ ◦ ¯ ı´ sam ıtanr aranamask¯ arajapyaih sad ˙ aram sv¯ asamukha . . avan . a[h . n.3 bhasmani ´ say¯ ıta | ´ say¯ ıta ] C T. C Tac . with B and Tpc . 21. ll. Ni´ f. caiva kurv¯ . K reads p¯ a´ supatam The variant reading of .8 and 1.d . ´ say¯ ıt B. also Ratnat hud ık¯ a p. . tta◦ d um d um k¯ a ra T . tyanamask¯ . . k¯ . am .8 hasitag¯ ıtanr aranamask¯ arajapyopah¯ aren . . opatis . 5v . pa´ .4 anusn¯ anam | T connects this S¯ utra with the next one (i.2 bhasman¯ a tris ay¯ ıta | . um . tyahud . ´ . 17r . . . l. ukk¯ .o bhaved gan sv¯ asamukha f. p¯ . nirvartyopah¯ . . ya in B (f. k¯ .gets the impression that the text of the S¯ utrap¯ at . graha (p. 5–6) and in the Sarvadar´ sanasam adis¯ utram—ath¯ atah supateh . yogavidhim . ac . and Ni´ v¯ aso hud ˙ arastavais tath¯ a | g¯ ıtanr arair brahmabhir japasam . 3 lingasy¯ ˙ ayatane . ll. p¯ a´ supatayogavidhim akhy¯ asy¯ ama iti | . cf. l.d .¯ . tyahud . the annotation to 1. . um . Bac • sn¯ Chakravarti erronously transcribes C as reading sn¯ ay¯ at. ◦ nr aranamask¯ ara◦ Tpc . ll.e. C and Tac also occurs in the Bh¯ as . vy¯ Note in this connection also the compound p¯ a´ supatayogavidh¯ anam in RT . ◦ nr . ukk¯ . | tris . 162. vy¯ .6 lingadh¯ ˙ ar¯ ı| 1. ] B Tpc . 1–2): tatredam ¯ . by omitting the dan . um . hasitag¯ . .7 ¯ ayatanav¯ as¯ ı| 1. t. am . 19. 19. ha is better preserved in this manuscript than the text of the Bh¯ as ya’s S¯ u tras. un . pa´ .| p¯ a´ supatam a´ supatayogavidhim . . . angopah¯ . avan . 2r. However.5 nirm¯ alyam | For testimonia for this and/or the following S¯ utras. 32) has argued that the intended vocalization must be ˙ . unk¯ . 1. sn¯ ay¯ ıt B. um . 1. p¯ . ttad . k¯ Sanderson (2002: 30. k¯ S¯ utra with the following one. tah¯ asayoh alam an . avan . k¯ . 4–6 tad evam aram ayann .d . 4 . tyahud . C connects this . Cf. 4 hud arasya nr ady¯ a. yogavidhim .

. l. ya. . tv¯ 1. . ekav¯ K agrees with T.. | and Ni´ .¯ . ] T. 1. e n¯ . 1) and C (f. 11) and at the end of the commentary on this S¯ utra in B (f. ha and Bh¯ . seta m¯ utrapur¯ ıs aveks . 3 ekav¯ aso hy av¯ aso v¯ a daks am¯ urtim ¯ a´ sritah .¯ . 6v.¯ . 23v. a upatis . 1. 10v. ed yady abhibh¯ . 5). The accusative daks am¯ urtim also occurs in the Bh¯ as . tyahud .´ C reads this S¯ utra together with 1.¯ .d . n.¯ . (T f.16. 327. a p. T. 61) — the accusative is supported by two external sources: T¯ ırthavivecanak¯ an ˙ alyadh¯ ar¯ ı ca yatih ayatane vaset | . in . g¯ . 1. ll. 1. the reading of this S¯ utra in the S¯ utrap¯ at as .12 m¯ utrapur¯ ıs aveks . Although this may be considered to be the lectio facilior — as has been argued in Bisschop & Griffiths 2003 (p.10 ekav¯ as¯ ah ..8. while the final reference to this S¯ utra at the end of the commentary on K 1. B wrongly reads ◦ namask¯ aram aren thet there. for which the original Trivandrum MS is available again. in . while B takes 1.◦ nr ara ◦ is also the reading of B (f. n. 11v. Instead of namask¯ . tathopah¯ . 1. in . opatis . in . A second hand appears . 14) in the . Sastri agrees with T.15–17 together. 23r. am . n¯ . kr . 3–4.9 mah¯ adevasya daks am¯ urtim | . in . l. . l. 2) and C (f. et | For parallels to this S¯ utra.15 upaspr sya | . l. k¯ ◦ quotation of the S¯ utra in the Bh¯ as arajapyopah¯ aren thet . Moreover. 11v. 8). et | 1. l. um . 1.11 av¯ as¯ a v¯ a| 1. ya in T may very well be the editor’s own handwriting (see introduction above). m¯ asthitah ¯ sv¯ asamukha f. sv¯ upag¯ ıtahud um k¯ a rastutikr tyaparah sad¯ a | bh¯ a van¯ a d devadevasya daks am urtim .| ekav¯ as¯ ah as¯ a B C. in fact has daks am¯ urt[t]im as well. 17r .14 yady aveks as . ya’s quotation of this S¯ utra in B (f.13 str¯ ı´ su ¯dram abhibh¯ as . . in . see Bisschop & Griffiths 2003: 338. The evidence for the reading adopted by Sastri is thus rather weak indeed. l. l.17 raudr¯ ım ayatr¯ ım up¯ ım a japet | .¯ . daks am¯ urteh .. ll.) and C (f. 15–17 linganirm¯ . n¯ .17 str¯ ı´ su ¯drair n¯ abhibh¯ a. in . 6r. et | This and the following S¯ utra are reminiscent of BaudhDhS 3.¯ to have tried to correct it to daks am¯ urtteh . . v¯ 5 . in . bahur¯ . 106.¯ . eta .9.16 pr¯ an ay¯ amam a| .¯ daks am¯ urtim ] B C. 121.

18–20). . (in agreement with K). pravartate | tato ’sya ] B Cpc T.48 has a different list: tato manojavitvam avah anajaya´ s ca.5). ˙ Tri´ sakti na: ˙ yugapat manojavitvam. 46. Yogas¯ utra 3. and Yogabh¯ as utra . 22v . pravartate | (K 1. this S¯ utra is absent in T in the Bh¯ as . 4 d¯ ur¯ ac chravan n¯ anam a. tath¯ . However. The preceding and following commentary are Sastri’s own reconstruction. 1. with vikaran . amananavij˜ Instead of d¯ ur¯ ad dar´ sana ◦ K has d¯ uradar´ sana ◦ . ah . T punctuates after k¯ amar¯ upitvam . cf. indicating that Kaun d inya commented upon the first member of a compound? The compound . pradh¯ 1. l. vikaran . l.¯ . This S¯ utrap¯ at . Ni´ sv¯ asam¯ ula f. 1. 4–5. yugapat mananam. 10. The commentary is also lacking in B. ll. amate´ . ca | Sastri has k¯ amar¯ upitvam | vikaran .1. adar´ able for the text of the Bh¯ as .23 sarve c¯ asya va´ sy¯ a bhavanti | 1. ya ad Yogas¯ 2.21–22 are also found in a verse transmitted in the Old Javanese J˜ n¯ anasiddh¯ anta (J˜ n¯ aSi 9. vikaran . avij˜ .25–26). adharmitvam . p. After this S¯ utra C is not avail.18 akalus s caratas tato ’sya yogah . cf.21 manojavitvam | 1. 10 and l. ll. As can be deduced from Sastri’s note on p. c¯ c¯ ava´ syo ] Bpc C T. amateh .22 k¯ amar¯ upitvam . k¯ avik¯ aradharmitvam sakty etad ucyate (hypometr. 1. yugapat vij˜ n¯ anam. Nahan ta n ˙ tri´ sakti na ˙ . 8–12): Pa˜ nca´ sakti naranya: ˙ yugapat dar´ sana. K divides akalus . tasyato Cac (‘2’ above ‘sya’. 6 . 3–4) in fact reads yasm¯ ad ¯ aha vikaran as . ya anymore. For the ablative construction. vikaran . abh¯ . | caratah . yugapat ´ sravanam. 50. adharmitva changed to avik¯ aradharmitva : yugapad manojavitvam amar¯ upitvam eva ca | . yugapat k¯ amar¯ upitvam. and RT . ca | (K 1. yugapat avik¯ aradharmitvan. ‘1’ above ‘to’). tu tri´ of five j˜ n¯ ana´ sakti s and three kriy¯ a´ sakti s at the end of chapter 9 of the same work (p. also the enumeration . ll.). also Schultz 1958: 133 and Hara 2002: 256.19 d¯ ur¯ ad dar´ sana´ sravan n¯ an¯ ani c¯ asya pravartante | .20 sarvaj˜ nat¯ a| B connects this S¯ utra with the following.24 sarves am ava´ syo bhavati | . eti in the Bh¯ . | dharmitvam . T (f. mah¯ asarvaj˜ nat¯ a. ha variant is not reported by Sastri or Chakravarti. cf. The three kriy¯ a´ sakti s listed in 1. | tato ’sya yogah . adharmitva is supported by PBh p.. mananam . Nahan ta n ˙ pa˜ nca´ sakti na. ya. ya. 17v. 134.43 tathendriyasiddhir d¯ ur¯ ac chravan san¯ adyeti. 18. c¯ ava dhyo ´ syo B.11.

namo namah . : etair ebhir ity anukr¯ antaih urvoktair d¯ uradar´ san¯ adyair vikaran antaih . air asarvaj˜ natv¯ adibhir ity arthah (f.| sadyoj¯ atam atam . pratihata sadyoj¯ .¯ .30 ity etair †ebhir† gun adevasya mah¯ agan . (em.25 sarv¯ am s c¯ avi´ sati | . brahma japet | This S¯ utra reads slightly differently in the Bh¯ as . sarvatra c¯ Sastri divides this into five separate S¯ utras: abh¯ ıtah . 34v. o mahe´ scribing the goal of yogimahe´ svar¯ ah ahe´ svarayoginah . | (K 1. K agrees with B and C.31) was previously unavailable .1. ca n¯ ave´ syo T. na dos .34. air yukto bhagavato mah¯ . bhagavat¯ . | ajarah . c¯ c¯ an¯ ave´ syo ] B C. C T. ◦ *sab¯ ahy¯ abhyantarakriy¯ asamuccay¯ artho (em. preserved in the Benares manuscript (see n. cf. . for Kaun sabdah .40–41). de. yaka 10.´ 1. (f. is Kaun .32–1. inya’s gloss of etaih .26 sarves am an¯ ave´ syo bhavati | .33–37). 10). ya only preserved in B: ity etair gun . brahma japet. apatir bhavati | Sastri omits the redundant ebhir in the edition. l. B • namah .. sab¯ ahyo bhyam tavyah .¯ . ya preserved in B: atra cedam . ad 277–278). ] B. 1). ebhir is absent in the Bh¯ as . The Bh¯ as . 1.27 sarve c¯ asya vadhy¯ a bhavanti | 1.38) is quoted and commented upon in four segments in the Bh¯ as .28 sarves am avadhyo bhavati | . 1 above). inya comments upon it: ca´ . who divides . 34r. in fact ebhih . This S¯ utra (= K 1.43 (≈ Mah¯ ..32 sadyoj¯ atam ami sadyoj¯ at¯ aya vai namah . c¯ 1.. It seems to be referred to in Paramoks asak¯ arik¯ a 3a (mah¯ agan sasya ). apatir bhavati | . p¯ . Thus also Stuti and Stava 360 (Goudriaan & Hooykaas 1971: 225–227). however. 1. The ca is original. ayah . 1.| amarah apratihatagatir bhavati | (K 1. ] Bpc C T. ?). l. anir¯ .29 abh¯ ıto ’ks apratihatagatir bhavati | . 7 . | *bhagavatah . | aks . prapady¯ . ya’s quotation of the S¯ utra in B. | sarvatra c¯ . 1. (metrical!) in B is also the reading of the S¯ sadyoj¯ atam ami | sadyoj¯ at¯ aya vai namah .d .d . For the Brahma-mantra in 1. This suggests that the S¯ u trap¯ a t ha was at . air yuktah ıh adevasya | mah¯ agan . The single namah utra in K. B) | mah¯ .31 atredam . ayo ’jaro ’marah . ya upon the words sarvatra up to atredam brahma japet (1. one time extracted from the commentary. . a-Upanis . tara B) dras .¯ . prapady¯ . (= m¯ . due to loss of two folios (33–34) in T: it is. Taittir¯ ıy¯ aran an¯ ar¯ ayan .

sas th¯ ı ) that the genitive is original. l.4 apasavyam . (n¯ a)tibhave T. in the edition on p. 36r. The text of the Bh¯ .43). but these words are inserted at the wrong place in the text in the manuscript. ya quotation. avyo devavat pitr . l. Instead of rudrasya (PBh p. ca pradaks . hasya ´ . 2. 2. B (f. c¯ . in . . 2.. 10) and T (f. ] B C. 17: atr¯ api taddharmitve . The S¯ . Sastri reads differently: v¯ amah thasya | rudrasya | kalit¯ asanam | (K . v¯ amadeva ˘ T • kalit¯ asanam ] B Cpc T. 2.t . except that it has a vocative bhavodbhava.14). 3) and T (f. ha reading bhavasva agrees with the Taittir¯ ıy¯ aran . B (f. hasya rudrasya kalit¯ v¯ amadevasya ] B C..1 is not secure: in T v¯ amadeveti is written in the margin in a different hand. ha. 56. Cac .43 agrees with the reading of the S¯ utrap¯ at . although it is clear from the commentary (PBh p. n¯ atibhave | bhajasva m¯ am | (K 1. 56.1. 2). 7.9–10). Consequently. 2.t .1 v¯ amadevasya jyes sres asanam | .t . the MS adds v¯ amah .. B connects this S¯ utra with the following. bhavati | 2. vac ca | Sastri divides tasm¯ ad ubhayath¯ a yas tavyah . for the next S¯ utras I have given more weight to the readings of T. ha is not original. l. kalit¯ as¯ anam .3 amangalam ˙ atra mangalam ˙ . This is 8 . l. The reading of K constitutes a metrical hemistich of a Sloka.42–44).1–4). 57. | devavat pitr . ad (MN¯ ¯ 10.6). yaka version of this Brahma-mantra ¯ 10. l. after iti. a-Upanis . ˘ ˘ savyam .34 bhavodbhav¯ aya namah . 1. . ya for K 2. namely after the vo in bhavodbhava (PBh p. Stuti and Stava 360 (Goudriaan & Hooykaas 1971: 225–227) corresponds to K’s version. Sastri reads bhave bhave However. At the end of the commentary on this S¯ utra. After the first bhave 278) and is recorded as a variant reading to TA T starts on a new folio in the original hand. (not reported by Sastri). am | apasavyam . l. 57. TA 10. This may indicate that ´ sres thasya in the S¯ utrap¯ at .33 bhave bhave n¯ atibhave bhavasva m¯ am | n¯ atibhave ] B C. | (K 1. T. . ate | Instead of sarvak¯ amika Sastri has s¯ arvak¯ amika (K 2. but this is the editor’s silent emendation. 11). 37r. yaka Brahma-mantra (cf. ´ 2.5 tasm¯ ad ubhayath¯ a yas . vac ca | (K 2.. 5) in fact omit n¯ atibhave in the Bh¯ as utrap¯ at . while K’s bhajasva is found in the Mah¯ (TA an¯ ar¯ ayan aUp . | devasya | jyes . 5) have rudra. but influenced by the Taittir¯ ıy¯ aran as . 36r.32– . l.2 sarvak¯ amika ity ¯ acaks .44) instead and thus constitutes a regular ´ ¯ 34).| K has bhavodbhavah sloka (1. 37v. l.43 as well.

h¯ . gamayate | Na-vipul¯ a. T . .¯ 2. ´ the underlying Sloka in 2.. k¯ al¯ aya namah kalavikaran a ¯ ya namo balavikaran a ¯ ya namo bal¯ a ya . cary¯ .. l. .15). Instead of the short i in atig¯ ud ı (as transmitted in at¯ ıs tam ) to retrieve .9 atidattam atig¯ ud .t . namo balapramathan¯ aya namah utadaman¯ aya namo manon. instead of the more common atigatim . kare | 2. | sarvabh¯ . ham | Instead of atig¯ ud ıs tam (K 2. 44v. (and B) read this S¯ utra together with the next one (T f. atitapta B • tapas ] B C. +na+(mo) manonma[. ham — the lectio facilior — is not original. . 7–8) are commented upon separately in T as well. ´ sres aya namo . ] T. ham K has at¯ .7 hars apram¯ ad¯ ı| . ] B C.18–19). the annotation 9 . h¯ balapramathan¯ aya nama B • kalavikaran aya ] B C. sarvabh¯ man¯ aya namah .12 n¯ anyabhaktis tu ´ sam . T f.t . h¯ .9–12.the editor’s divison: tasm¯ ad (B f.. tapas tath¯ ◦ atitaptam . . pitara´ Instead of ubhaye K has ubhayam . h¯ . Probably atig¯ ud . (B f. ll. 2–3. 38v. 41r.¯ ..12 tasm¯ ad bh¯ uyas tapa´ s caret | K divides tasm¯ at | bh¯ uyas tapa´ s caret | (K 2. 49r. | (K 2.t . | balapramathan¯ namah utadaman¯ aya namah aya namah . is presumably metri causa. 2. 2. Sastri reads and separates quite differently: v¯ amadev¯ aya namo jyes th¯ aya . . ham we need a long ¯ . kala ˘ (ka)ran aya T • namo . 10. ] C T. 2.¯ manonman¯ aya namah . . ´ . m¯ K starts a new S¯ utra after the second cary¯ ay¯ am (K 2.| v¯ amadev¯ aya ] B C. 41r.10 atitaptam a| .13 atredam . 2.6 ubhaye tu rudre dev¯ ah s ca | . aty¯ agatim . It seems more likely that a relative yat after K’s at¯ ıs tam has dropped out.22–27). Contrary to what Sastri suggests. ll. v¯ a(ma)dev¯ aya T • ´ sres aya namo ] C T. | mano’man¯ . ll. l. 3–4). | k¯ . 2. namo rudr¯ aya namah al¯ aya namah aya namah aya . 2. (ta)pas T.8 cary¯ ay¯ am ay¯ am ah¯ atmyam av¯ apnoti | .. T f.11 aty¯ agatim .t . 2. brahma japet | 2.. . 4) and ubhayath¯ a yas tavyah . | kalavikaran .14 v¯ amadev¯ aya namo jyes aya namah sres aya namo rudr¯ aya namah . Note that this is the second time that K omits the word ´ sres t .13–14).¯ . ha (cf.

.” The last S¯ utra .19). however. T (f. 47r. ta C (anusv¯ 10 . . ] B T.4 apahatap¯ apm¯ a pares am ad¯ at | . . Kaun . ad (quoted in Oberlies 2000: 175): avyaktaling¯ ˙ a avyakt¯ ac¯ ar¯ a anunmatt¯ a unmattavad ¯ acarantah . According to Goudriaan & Hooykaas (1971: 225) “[t]he ´ words ´ sres th¯ aya namah manuals.2 avamatah utes . 51v. 77. Note also the next line of the same text: anunmatta unmattaves .| vyakt¯ ac¯ arah ac¯ arah . finally. Instead of avyaktaling¯ ˙ ı iti (PBh p. l.¯ . apa(ha)ta [. . is again closer . . Taittir¯ ıy¯ aran sres th¯ aya namah aya namah . . The reading of B is also the reading of K: avyaktaling¯ ˙ ı | vyakt¯ ac¯ arah .44 has ´ .d .18 (avyaktalingo ˙ . yaka 10. . 3. this in agreement with K. where Kaun .¯ . ca tebhyo dad¯ 3. cf. . and balavikaran . are omitted also in Indian Sivaite (K 2.¯ sukr ara possibly lost due to damage). inya refers to this mantra. 4) and B (f. l. ah . l. inya comments upon two separate S¯ utras (K 3.. also on f. 3. l. ] B. in that it omits both ´ sres th¯ aya namah aya namah .6 sukr am ¯ adatte | . but reads the latter invocation before balavikaran aya namah aUp 280). hadharma´ ’vyakt¯ ac¯ arah . ). . (MN¯ to K. suggesting that K comments upon a compound avyaktalingavyakt¯ ˙ ac¯ arah . l. | (K 3. pariv¯ apahatap¯ apm¯ a pares am ad¯ at ] B C. avyakt¯ .1 avyaktaling¯ ˙ ı vyakt¯ ac¯ arah .u | B reads this together with the following S¯ utra.¯ . 3. ´ 10.. has . 7 (= p. 1–2). 8). . 1) reads pariv¯ ad¯ asta (sic).. sarvabh¯ . 113. sukr .3 paribh¯ uyam¯ ana´ s caret | 3. Kaun . ll.27) is a silent conjecture by the editor: T (and B) reads yan manonman¯ aya namah . ca tes . l. .t . l. 43v. ya quotation of this S¯ while B (f. 3. 5–6). . ] riv¯ ad¯ at T. C T. 66r. 6). however. 19). 78. 68r.on 2. although it includes bal¯ aya namah . 109. 8) in fact have avyaktalingeti ˙ . Stuti and Stava 360. V¯ asis s¯ astra 10. tam . but lacks bal¯ .¯ . ´ sres th¯ aya namah aya namah . l.3–4). 10. ..1–2). On the other hand.d . l. l. This is related to a passage in the J¯ (V¯ asDhS ab¯ ala-Upanis . 2 = T 47v. ll. For the significant variant in C and T. The Mah¯ an¯ ar¯ ayan a-Upanis ad recension. T reads manonmana and not mano’mana as Sastri has it (p.1).. (f. pariv¯ T drops the t (in pariv¯ ad¯ at ) in the Bh¯ as utra (f. 15).. . On f. 50r. tam . 47r. as well as bal¯ .5 p¯ apam ati | . inya indeed seems to comment upon mano’man¯ aya in the commentary (PBh p.d . .

paribhavam . madeta B. eta v¯ man ara above ‘ma’ possibly .10–11).16 atredam . |´ . eta Cpc (anusv¯ lost due to damage). . et | 3. gacchet | K omits parebhyah .9.14 yena parebhyah . ut´ 3.12 apitatkury¯ at | 3. but it is present in Maitr¯ . | ghoraghoratarebhya´ s ca | (K 3.9 spandeta v¯ a| spandeta v¯ a ] B C. .8 kr¯ atheta v¯ a| kr¯ atheta v¯ a ] B C T. presumably because Kaun . eta ] em.13 apitadbh¯ as . 3. Oberlies (2000: 178) has pointed out the parallel to this and the following S¯ utras in Taittir¯ ıyabr¯ ahman asm¯ ad ev´ am . ´ yeteva | ut´ ´ nam ´ ´ iva ´ sr ˙ ¯ a a m´ opavadeyuh a p¯ apm ¯ a apahanyur ¯ ı ti. sarva´ . which is closer to the reading of TA 11 . brahma japet | 3.3. . ] ´ sarvebhyo T. tyet | pr´ . .1–2.9: t´ .t .45. B. heta Cac . ca is a silent addition by the editor. sarva´ Sastri reads and divides differently: sarvebhyah sarva sarvebhyah .t . 3. . . .10:130. ] T. K has man teta.¯ . mat . inya comments upon it. ghoratarebhyah .. | atha ghorebhyah . ] T. . 3. As noted by Bisschop & Griffiths (2003: 332. ng¯ 3. .. Sastri reads and divides differently: aghorebhyah . ] C T. . spam . paribh¯ uya [.11 ´ sr ˙ areta v¯ a| . last two syllables damaged in T. yaka 10.| sarvebhyah sarvebhyo ] B C.9.21–23).. Note that K alone shows metrical features. 89) there is considerable variation of reading and accentuation of this mantra in Vedic and other sources. ill. n. ´ n v´ vidv ¯ a ¯ ı va nr eva calet | vy´ asyev¯ aks au bh¯ a. 3. (K 3.d .17 aghorebhyo ’tha ghorebhyo ghoraghoratarebhyah . sa [. [.24–26). a II 3. mat . hit¯ 3. T. ca is absent in the version of this mantra in Taittir¯ ıy¯ aran ayan ısam a 2.| ghoraghoratarebhyah . except rudrar¯ upebhyah . tsnatap¯ paribh¯ uyam¯ ano hi vidv¯ an ] B C.10 man a| . seta | man t´ ayed iva kr¯ ath´ ayed .15 paribh¯ uyam¯ ano hi vidv¯ an kr a bhavati | . However.18 sarvebhyah sarvebhyo namas te astu rudrar¯ upebhyah .45.18). | namas te astu ¯ 10. ng .7 tasm¯ at pretavac caret | K divides after tasm¯ at (K 3. y` . | (K 3. 3.

i pidh¯ have a parallel in pr¯ an ¯y¯ ama descriptions. instead of the first sarvebhyah .2 g¯ ud ud an . However. t¯ .s . hapavitrav¯ . smr .d . | (K 4. ih . . ] B C. havidy¯ . 56v. ´ 4.g. . | g¯ .| g¯ ud an ud . Note that Kaun . ha ity evam . Sastri does not report K 3. l. 59v. i dv¯ .3 together constitute a hemistich of an Indravajr¯ a.a . 57r. . 4–5) and rudrar¯ upebhya [h . 4. 10). e.45 has sarvatah that TA . K has yantr¯ . l.4c (≈ M¯ . ya’s quotation of the S¯ instead of prak¯ a´ sate both MSS have prak¯ a´ syate. havratah . which is probably original (cf.7 asam ano hi jant¯ un¯ am am uttamah . This is an Upendravajr¯ a p¯ ada. l.22a) and Wr n¯ anasiddh¯ anta . pidh¯ . ll.20c). l. .2–3).d .¯ 10. a 17. pidh¯ aya buddhy¯ a dv¯ ar¯ an . = Agnipur¯ an . 92. havrato g¯ . up¯ ada ˘ ta T.¯ .i in V¯ ayupur¯ an arkan an aya sarvadv¯ ar¯ an .d . i in S¯ ardhatri´ satik¯ alottara 11. a 41. ih . ] h . haspatitattwa 56a (= Gan . 9): the editor has silently emended the S¯ utra.4–5). 4. The words of this S¯ utra . up¯ adad¯ ıt B. eyapur¯ . avam . K divides 4. 6–7): the editor has left out rudrar¯ upebhyah . g¯ ud ud an .5 kr annam utsr adad¯ ıta | . inya comments separately upon namas te ’stu (T f.214.26 correctly either: Kaun .¯ . but B (f.1 (p.¯ 4. 91. hapavi [. ih . 4. apatitattwa 6a. l. Cf. but it seems likely that this S¯ utra goes back to an original unmatta eko vicareta loke (a regular Indravajr¯ a p¯ ada ). 16). dayak¯ the annotation on 5. 4) and T (f. 50v. m¯ . is actually the reading of B (f. before Kaun . PBh ad 12 . 4.4 unmattavad eko vicareta loke | This is also the reading of K. see . havidy¯ g¯ ud a taponanty¯ aya ] B Cpc T. ll. tah .7 together constitute a Sloka. 4.3 sarv¯ an ar¯ an aya buddhy¯ a| . Moreover. sarves . 56v.6 unmatto m¯ ud ah . ] B Cpc T. i pidh¯ K divides sarv¯ an ar¯ an aya | buddhy¯ a | (K 4.] (T f. T. manyante itare jan¯ . hapavitrav¯ . i dv¯ .| Instead of jant¯ un¯ am an am . sarvatah . For a possible allusion to this S¯ utra in the Madhyamakahr arik¯ a.6 and 4. 4.t .d . ityes .13a (= Sarvaj˜ n¯ anottara Yogap¯ ada 19a. Cac .| ity evam . . havidy¯ Sastri transcribes tapa ¯ ananty¯ aya instead of taponanty¯ aya. hapavitrav¯ .a 2.17. ≈ J˜ 15. 6) read taponanty¯ aya in the Bh¯ as utra.1 g¯ ud a taponanty¯ aya prak¯ a´ sate | . g¯ . 5) and T (f. l. g¯ ud aya taponity¯ aya Cac . . . am up¯ up¯ adad¯ ıta ] C. inya’s remark atra rudra iti k¯ aran apade´ se | (PBh p. 56r.4a).2 and 4. inya considers tapo ’nanty¯ aya as a variant reading in his commentary on K 4.

while in the S¯ utrap¯ at . tasm¯ at sarvaprah¯ an artham acaret . 4. ah .9). instead of K 4. tay¯ adatta ] B C Tpc . ha it is part of the following S¯ utra.83cd–84ab). . 55v. but this is not done in B (f. sarvak¯ am¯ ıyam . 1): in the place of K 4.¯ .13). gatv¯ br¯ ahman avartate | (K 4. 56v.8 indro v¯ a agre asures a´ supatam acarat | . 2). 13 .¯ S¯ utrap¯ at ha has not been recorded by Chakravarti. this S¯ utra and the corresponding commentary are missing in the Bh¯ as . ya tasm¯ at belongs to this S¯ utra. sarvalokanamaskr .12.¯ K reads differently: nind¯ a hy es anind¯ a tasm¯ at (K 4. paramam . Additional support comes from two verses in the original Skandapur¯ an . punar avartate | ¯ Sastri divides this into two S¯ utras: anena vidhin¯ a rudrasam¯ ıpam a | na ka´ scid . tay¯ 4. ate | (p. satpathah . 63r. | satpathah . sad¯ 4.14 anena vidhin¯ a rudrasam¯ ıpam a na ka´ scid br¯ ahman . inya’s remark: atra tasm¯ acchabdah urvottaram .13 kupath¯ as tv anye | 4. asam a . brahma japet | As Sastri remarks. 64v. ya. 4. l. l. 2). However. c¯ apeks . gatv¯ .t .¯ .12 sarvavi´ sis ah . The variant in the . which contain a reference to this S¯ utra.11 tasm¯ an nindyam¯ ana´ s caret | As mentioned above. however Kaun . angam . K omits tasm¯ an.| K divides sarvavi´ sis to ’yam ah . p¯ . except that it has p¯ ayay¯ a (sic) instead . T (f.16–17).9 sa tes am is ap¯ urttam ¯ adatta m¯ ayay¯ a sukr a samavindata | . panth¯ .19–20).PS 4. . l. Sastri divides sa tes am is t¯ ap¯ urttam ¯ adatta | m¯ ayay¯ a sukr a samavindata | (K . ah . 5) actually reads m¯ ayay¯ a sukr a|¯ adatta | . yantram etat sam¯ loke yena j¯ ıryen na karhicit | (SPBh 122. ¯ ¯ adatte Tac .. which is not in the S¯ utrap¯ at . punar ¯ T (f. matah .19 both MSS have the entire line.15 atredam . sixth century AD). After this S¯ utra K adds an additional S¯ utra aninditakarm¯ a | (K 4.81).¯ . 4. connecting it with the preceding S¯ utra. ha. yantram anyad yasm¯ an na vidyate | . Note that in the Bh¯ as . 4. o ’yam . B has the same reading.a ´ (ca. Cf. sad ˙ . Siva is teaching the gods the P¯ a´ supata observance (vrata ): yantr¯ an am . panth¯ . tam (SPBh 122.15). 4.10 nind¯ a hy es am anind¯ a| .d .11–12). 2) or . | (K 4.¯ . I can add that this is also the case in B. l.t . tay¯ of m¯ ayay¯ a (f.. l.¯ . 104. . u p¯ 4.

Cf. yam . l. n. 5.3 rudrah aca t¯ avat | .1. m¯ . 14 . sampravartate | (K 5. but in fact B (f. | jitendriyah .30cd (. yam | p¯ . who observes that K 5. in his commentary ad K 5.4 ´ su ¯ny¯ ag¯ araguh¯ av¯ as¯ ı| ´ 5. gadharm¯ ´ 5.d . nity¯ a ˘ ˘ ˘ jo T. Oberlies (2000: 181.22–23). K divides bhaiks atr¯ agatam | m¯ am .7 bhaiks atr¯ agatam am a| .38 (ity etair gun air yuktah ).1–3. cf.t .10–11).9 godharm¯ a mr a v¯ a| .232.7 and 5. an . san as¯ an nityayuktasya | bh¯ uyis tham . Sastri divides this into six S¯ utras and reads differently: asangah ˙ . prov¯ 5. . 58v. 8) have asam gayog¯ ı in place of K 5. sam adus a | (K 5. san as¯ an nityayuktasya . . ena v¯ ´ 5. and K 1. 5.. yam .4–6 together constitute a Sloka.16 tatpurus aya vidmahe mah¯ adev¯ aya dh¯ ımahi | . p¯ pravartate ). lavan . 5. For the 4. l. m¯ ´ sabdabrahm¯ ativartate ) and 14.8 ¯ apo v¯ api yath¯ ak¯ alam a´ sn¯ ıy¯ ad anup¯ urva´ sah . 5. inya argues for a ‘remote connection’ (d¯ urasthah sambandhah ) with K 1.16–17. . .| 5.19. 66v. sam adus .9–12 together constitute a Sloka.14–16).17 tan no rudrah at | . lavan .12 Kaun . but who does not mention the metrical problem in K 5. With this S¯ utra compare Mah¯ abh¯ arata 12.46. .12–13).5 devanityo jitendriyah . .60cd (. m¯ . m¯ .4. p¯ . 29). Note that in contrast to these two Epic passages the present S¯ utra has no subject.4–6 constitute a p¯ ada if one dissolves the sandhi. . | yog¯ ı | nit- y¯ atm¯ a | ajah ayate | (K 5. | (K 5. sampravartate | K divides . | maitrah . ha reading constitutes a metrically correct hemistich of a ma-vipul¯ a (syncopation in the first half and caesura after the 5th syllable).2 indriy¯ an am abhijay¯ at | . ena v¯ 5.¯ Brahma-mantra in 4.8 together constitute a Sloka. Note that the S¯ utrap¯ at . yam .¯ 5. 8) and T .1 asangayog¯ ˙ ı nity¯ atm¯ a ajo maitro ’bhij¯ ayate | nity¯ atm¯ a ajo ] B C.1–6). m¯ . pracoday¯ 5. san as¯ an nityayuktasya yogah artha .21 ( vij˜ n¯ an¯ ani c¯ asya pravartante ) . Taittir¯ ıy¯ aran yaka 10. ham .| K divides devanityah . | abhij¯ (f.¯ K divides tatpurus aya vidmahe | mah¯ adev¯ aya dh¯ ımahi | (K 4. .6 s as¯ an nityayuktasya bh¯ uyis .

. dayak¯ arik¯ a (MHK 9.11 siddhayog¯ ı na lipyeta | K connects this with the following S¯ utra (= K 5. s¯ . cam is . hr . sanm¯ arg¯ an nas tair anye ’pi n¯ a´ sit¯ ah . phrased in As has been observed by Sanderson (*1998). k¯ abhidhy¯ ay¯ ıta ] T.114–115: [sam a ]rah . yamakabuddhidv¯ . ) of Bhavya/Bh¯ .¯ . in his edition of the ninth chapter of the MHK. Kawasaki. kh¯ . sth¯ apayitv¯ a ´ sive manah aram abhidhy¯ ayan dh¯ arayan dh¯ aran am . That lipyate is not just a scribal error in K is suggested by Kaun . while lipyate is not. the syllables up to rah . the doors of his mind’) is Lindtner’s reconstruction.13 r am adh¯ ıy¯ ıta | . ity¯ . Note that lipyeta is metrical. k¯ . 5.¯ the shared reading of the MHK and the S¯ utrap¯ at . The S¯ utrap¯ at .: na lipyate na sam .t .¯ 5. abhidhy¯ a¯ ıta C.14–5. It may therefore very well represent the original reading. ay¯ . di ks adidh¯ aran abhy¯ as¯ at pr¯ aksam¯ ahitam¯ anasah ı´ se prasanne duh antam .d .20). .| B omits 5. 5. a. | tathom . pravartate | 5. The compound sam yamitamatidv¯ a rah (‘having restrained . inya’s commentary ad loc.13–16 together constitute a ´ Sloka.d .16 ato yogah . are lost in the unique Sanskrit manuscript of the MHK. . 5.5. reconstructs [sam a ]rah . . v¯ C omits the dan . this and the following S¯ utra.24 and 5. ha goes back to an older tradition.| ¯ . v¯ . 5. This would seem to suggest that . unless it is assumed that both sources independently changed lipyate to lipyeta for metrical reasons.26.62): siddhiyogo [sic] na lipyeta karman a ¯ p¯ a takena v¯ a | iti bruv¯ an .17 om aram abhidhy¯ ay¯ ıta | .15 raudr¯ ım a bahur¯ up¯ ım a| . Instead of lipyeta K has lipyate.14 g¯ ayatr¯ ım ¯ atmayantritah .17–19 together constitute a Sloka.| ¯ .¯ .. ´ 5.17. a conclusion which is confirmed by a quotation — identified by Sanderson (*1998) — of this and the following S¯ utra in the 9th chapter (M¯ ım¯ am atattvanirn avat¯ arah a(va)viveka’s Madhyamakahr .10 adbhir eva ´ sucir bhavet | 5. 5. on the 15 . are paraMadhyamakahr arik¯ a 9. yujyata ity arthah aha: kena lipyate | tad ucyate karman a | . aih . dayak¯ . yamitamatidv¯ . ha variant is not reported by Sastri or Chakravarti.21). gacchat¯ ıty etad apy asat .¯ K connects this with the following S¯ utra (= K 5. along with 5.12 karman a p¯ atakena v¯ a| .

the Sanskrit could be reconstructed to buddhy¯ a sam arah . Considering that the legs would normally suggest an adverbial prefix such as su . For an exposition of the mantra om . which makes confusion with the instrumental less likely. 1–2) and T (f. 7) could be glossing buddhidv¯ ara (-¯ an an .18 tat sad iti hr ıta dh¯ aran am | .30–32). e. Harunaga Isaacson has provided me with the following information concerning the Tibetan rendering. Sastri separates three S¯ utras: ´ sma´ s¯ anav¯ as¯ ı | dharm¯ atm¯ a | yath¯ alabdhopaj¯ ıvakah .. | (K 5. and so yi (genitive particle) may be a corruption of yis (instrumental particle).or sam -. referred to in the S¯ utrap¯ at ha. ll. cf. 67v. Mah¯ a bh¯ a rata 6. tat sat.¯ .23–28. First of all yi and yis are often exchanged in Tibetan. There is no parallel for the hemistich MHK 9.21 labhate rudras¯ ayujyam | 5. 16 . The latter reconstruction would take us close to the probable P¯ a´ supatas¯ utra source of this verse. i ?) with sarvendriy¯ . 5–6).¯ dh¯ aran am aran .22) was sad¯ a r¯ udram anusmaran. i. B (f.’ ‘bind. but in addition to ‘restrain. If we read blo yis. 5. |. However.may also be considered. ll. 5. Both reconstructions suggest a paraphrase of 4. .19 r an es agvi´ suddho mahe´ svarah . a v¯ .| K separates three S¯ utras: r sir vipro mah¯ an es agvi´ suddhah svarah . The reading of the S¯ utrap¯ at . 303r . ya in B (f. 5..3 (sarv¯ an ar¯ an aya buddhy¯ a ) above. 5.s . K omits the words tat sad iti.39. .| ´ 5. 9–10) in fact read ´ sma´ s¯ anav¯ as¯ ı dharm¯ atm¯ a yath¯ alabdhopaj¯ ıvakah . The view refuted ´ ´ in MHK 9. (‘having restrained the doors with the buddhi ’). possible.30 (´ sma´ s¯ anav¯ as¯ ı ). ll. ir vipro mah¯ . In addition. | v¯ . l. i pidh¯ from the metrical defect that the second and third syllables are both short.’ the meaning ‘close’ is also.114–115 is ascribed to the Siva or Saiva tantra (´ si ba’i rgyud ) in the Tarkajv¯ al¯ a (Derge f. a reconstruction supihita . di kurv¯ .g.115ab in the P¯ a´ supatas¯ utra. | mahe´ . the commentary’s blo’i sgo dban ˙ po thams cad (Derge f.20 ´ sma´ s¯ anav¯ as¯ ı dharm¯ atm¯ a yath¯ alabdhopaj¯ ıvakah . l. ah .basis of Tibetan blo yi sgo rnams legs bsdams la. 76r. ha is hypermetrical. only K is metrically correct. On the other hand. As to what root lies behind the rendering bsdams there is no certainty. Bpc . but they suffer .20–22 together constitute a Sloka (ma-vipul¯ a).22 sad¯ a rudram anusmaret | ´ Probably the original reading of this last p¯ ada of a Sloka (5. am .20–5. 5). As such it is transmitted in the Bh¯ as . in place of K 5. ] Bpc C T. depending on context. 66v. 303r . the Tarkajv¯ al¯ a commentary in the Derge (sDe dge) edition of the Buddhist canon has the shorter form of the genitive blo’i. yamitadv¯ . dh¯ . i dv¯ .

ll. citam .T reads anusmarat there (f. T f. l. sad¯ rudram anusmaran . 5. sud¯ . hyate. . *sam . ll. . sth¯ . ha indicates a contaminated tradition. sth¯ ants. Sanderson (*2004: 1) has suggested to emend the hapax sam . kar¯ . 9–11: yo vidy¯ anugr ıtay¯ a buddhy¯ a svam . For an allusion to this S¯ utra in the Madhyamakahr arik¯ a. 11. → sam . atvena parigr ık¯ a p. l. 107. 20. hetuj¯ 5. . ahetuj¯ . 4–5): dos alebhya´ s chinnasya m¯ ul¯ akhy¯ anivr . m¯ . In the Lingapur¯ ˙ an a the verse has been rewritten to form a S¯ ı. Actually B and T divide K 5. tay¯ . which probably goes back to a passage from the Ratnat ık¯ a (p. . ha. ´ buddhy¯ a sam apayitv¯ a tu rudre (ASiUp p. T f.37 (sam . kar¯ version with Sam ananda’s commentary: tr s n a ¯ m chittv¯ a hetuj¯ alasya m¯ ulam . 4– 5): ´ sma´ s¯ anav¯ as¯ ı dharm¯ atm¯ a yath¯ alabdhena vartate | labheta rudras¯ ayujyam a .) iti dos a ¯ divi´ s lis t am svayam eva svagun . 17. cf. Cf. 77v. is closer in this respect to . Cf. . 4–5). buddhy¯ a cintyam apayitv¯ a ca rudre ). There are other vari. The tu of the S¯ utrap¯ at . ll. cittam apitam ırghak¯ alam . with some interesting variants. cittam alambanam ud a dh¯ aran a nirmal¯ ıkr . the parallel in the ‘Lingapur¯ ˙ an ıdhara (T¯ ırthavivecanak¯ an . 17 . l. a 2. h¯ .. l.24.23 chittv¯ a dos an am alasya m¯ ulam | . 16. karoti so ’m¯ . cittam to svam . cintya sth¯ . . 4) and cittam (B f.. Hara 2002: 151–152. ll. repaired in different ways.23–5.. l.36–38). For parallels. cittam ) into sam . vapus tyaj¯ am¯ ıti tasya buddhir bhavet sad¯ a | .¯ . na cyavate. nir¯ . cittam (K) corresponds more closely with N¯ ar¯ ayan a’s version: tr s n a ¯ m hitv¯ a hetuj¯ a lasya m¯ ulam . 9. . see the annotation on 5. bud´ dhy¯ a sam apayitv¯ a tu rudre (ASiUp p. PBh ad K 5. cittam . 1–2). 70v. . dayak¯ on 5.26 together constitute a Vai´ svadev¯ ı. cf.¯ . cintya sth¯ Sastri reads and divides differently: buddhy¯ a | sam apayitv¯ a ca rudre | (K . 145): tasm¯ ad asmin svakam .24 buddhy¯ a sam apayitv¯ a tu rudre | . a’ quoted by Laks . Additional support comes from Pamp¯ am¯ ah¯ atmya 11.61cd–62ab (Filliozat 2001. cintya of the S¯ .d . The variant sam utrap¯ at . 81v. (B f.17. 5.¯ . ay¯ . 37. 70v. a p. on the other hand. 9). 81v. variation suggests that the passage from the Atharva´ siras-Upanis . susth¯ apy¯ a ◦ Ed.¯ . The presence of sam . . 6). cintya — the reading of ´ Sam ananda’s version — in the S¯ utrap¯ at . chittv¯ .40cd (tr . cittam | sth¯ 5. which has been silently emended to anusmaret by Sastri. ha corresponds with the ´ . .) idam . In the process of repairing the original metre was lost. . sth¯ ´alin¯ K. The present passage has a parallel in the Atharva´ siras-Upanis .¯ .. Lingapur¯ ˙ an sn am a hetuj¯ alasya m¯ ulam . This wide .. p. ad. sth¯ .37: atra *svam (em. sam Ed. . . tam . ad may go back to an early corruption of svam . ha ity ucyate. see the annotation . while sam . ttau cittasya rudre ’vasth¯ anam atyantani´ scalatvam sthitir ucyate . also Ratnat . rudratattve sth¯ . ll.. cittam apy¯ atyantani´ scalam (sam apy¯ a ◦ conj.18. presumably on the basis of the S¯ utrap¯ at . ha (instead of ca ) is present in both versions.

|.a ¯ arya Baladeva Up¯ (AgnP) Agnipur¯ an asa.40. . dayak¯ S¯ utra. ha. but apram¯ ad¯ a (w. for apram¯ ad¯ ı ). . 1–2) and T (f. l. sarvabh¯ .17 above. kriyah . The S¯ utra bears a partial resemblance to Svet¯ svatara-Upanis . l. ll. ] tir T • sad¯ a´ sivom a´ sivo B. ya: K p.. presumably be. . 18 . on the other hand. A second hand . by Ach¯ adhy¯ aya. em¯ (f. but Tac (f. emy¯ . 72v. is iti p¯ a´ supatas¯ utr¯ an urn ani | . a after sarvabh¯ ut¯ an¯ am. In order to retrieve the Vai´ svadev¯ ı metre underlying 5. 73r. 4–5 / T f. and apram¯ ad¯ ı must be applied. | (5. 10) actually only have apram¯ ad¯ ı. l. sarvavidy¯ .47. 1) have ks emy¯ a san in the Bh¯ a s ya’s quotation of this S¯ utra. 14–15). emy¯ . Varanasi 1966.o ’dhipatir brahm¯ a ´ sivo me ’stu sad¯ a ´ sivah . p¯ .| Instead of ks am ı san. B (f. which is identical with this S¯ utra.23–5.¯ . ll. sarvabh¯ . bra [.r. For the Madhyamakahr arik¯ a testimonium of this . an .14d: ekah artho bhavate v¯ ıta´ sokah . The reading of the S¯ utrap¯ at . where T does not read apram¯ ad¯ ad. see the annotation on 5. 1. ll. 5. . a of Mahars . an . C omits the dan . 82r. 7) and B . 139.29 brahm¯ adipatir brahman a´ sivo me astu sad¯ a´ sivom | . . o ’dhipatir brahm¯ ´ Note that K alone constitutes a regular Sloka The latter reading is also that of ¯ ı´ s¯ anah an¯ am ¯ ı´ svarah ut¯ an¯ am | brahman . avilaks asu kriy¯ asu vinivr asu rudre sthitacitto nis ıyate (PBh . ] C T. kh¯ gacched duh an¯ am ] B Cpc . gacche [. ll. sarvavidy¯ . sarvabh¯ K divides ¯ ı´ s¯ anah an¯ am | ¯ ı´ svarah ut¯ an¯ am | . sad¯ K reads and divides differently: astu | sad¯ a |´ sivah . .d . 73r. l. san ity abhidh¯ ´ a´ p. .28 ¯ ı´ s¯ anah an¯ am ¯ ı´ svarah ut¯ an¯ am | .5. (applying Sandhi): brahman a |´ sivo me . 2–3. 83. 82.25 ekah am ıta´ sokah . kh¯ .26 apram¯ ad¯ ı gacched duh an¯ am antam ¯ ı´ sapras¯ ad¯ at | . sarvavidy¯ . .26.27 atredam . ad 2. t¯ . brahma japet | 5. †ks . 3 = B f.44–47).¯ Bibliography Agnipur¯ an . Ed. tt¯ . (Sastri?) seems to have tried to correct this to ks ı san in Tpc . i Vedavy¯ The Kashi Sanskrit Series 174. (?) Sastri has ks . 141. sam . The entire S¯ utra is quoted later in the Bh¯ as . sandhi between v¯ ıta´ sokah . † v¯ . kh¯ Instead of Sastri’s K 5. 5. i sam . sam . Ni´ sv¯ asaguhya f. o ’dhipatir brahm¯ brahm¯ adipatir ] B C.. . yaka 10. identical with Taittir¯ ıy¯ aran . gacche duh an¯ am Cac . kr . . em¯ cause of Kaun d inya’s interpretation: tath¯ a s¯ u ks masth¯ ulasab¯ ahy¯ abhyantaralaks . as Sastri has it. ] -¯ an¯ am T. 5. 109v . l.

Samuccayah . Critically edited and translated by Sudarshana Devi Singhal. b ‘Pa˜ nc¯ arthabh¯ as a´ supatas¯ utra 1. Publications of the De Nobili Research Library XXX. Recovered from a newly . Delhi 2000. Bh¯ asarvaj˜ na ¯ arya Bh¯ (RT Gan arik¯ a [with Ratnat ık¯ a] of Ac¯ asarvaj˜ na (With four . Bisschop. Trivandrum Sanskrit Series CXLIII. Peter forthc. Gaekwad’s Oriental Series 15. by R. 1987. . D.d . ya on P¯ identified manuscript. Sanskrit . Chennai. .¯ appendices including the K¯ aravan a-M¯ a h¯ a tmya ). forthc. Olivelle. Vienna 2002. From Studies 1976. Laks ıdhara . The University of Tsukuba. by Chimanlal . New Delhi 1958. Nieuwe Reeks 76.n .. pp. Vienna. Dv¯ ıp¯ antara-Pit .’ In: Indian Historical Quarterly 19.37–39. 29. t¯ . Edited by Jun Takashima.t .’ In: Indo-Iranian Journal 46. a Review of ‘Minoru Hara. . Annotated Text and Translation [by] Patrick . Chintaharan 1943 ‘P¯ a´ supatas¯ utra. s¯ . aka 3. T. 1988. P¯ a´ supata Studies. Kawasaki. Ananthakrishna Sastri. Vasundhara 2001 K¯ al¯ amukha and P¯ a´ supata Temples in Dharwar. Gautama. J˜ n¯ anasiddh¯ anta (J˜ n¯ aSi) J˜ n¯ anasiddh¯ anta. An Old Javanese philosophic text. Gan . skr . Bibliotheca Indonesica 7. afd. and C. ava) of Balinese Brahman priests. ak¯ . . Dalal. Bisschop. Goudriaan. Edited and translated by Haryati Soubadio. pp. Verhandelingen der KNAW. Edited by Jun Takashima.’ To appear in the Journal of Indian Philosophy. Peter & Arlo Griffiths 2003 ‘The P¯ a´ supata Observance (Atharvavedapari´ sis . m¯ 19 . Chakravarti. Publications of the De Nobili Research Library XXX. Baudh¯ ayanadharmas¯ utra ¯ (BaudhDhS) [Published in] Dharmas¯ utras.’ To appear in the Indo-Iranian Journal. [Poona] 1895. a 40). Baudh¯ ayana. apatitattwa (GT) Gan . . Letterkunde. Institute of Philosophy.) . Edit. 315–348. Baroda 1920. ¯ Upanis am a´ sramasam avalih . The Law Codes of Apastamba. daya-k¯ and Tibetan Texts. The Hague 1971. 270–271. inya (PBh) Pasupata Sutras with Pancharthabhashya of Kaundinya. Minoru 2002 P¯ a´ supata Studies. ad¯ . Filliozat. Edit. Shinjo 1988 The M¯ ım¯ am a Chapter of Bhavya’s Madhyamaka-hr arik¯ a. a-Sam Atharva´ sikh¯ ady¯ an¯ a[m ] Ham sopanis adant¯ a n¯ a m Dv¯ a trim ´ s anmit¯ a n¯ a m . apati-Tattwa. Hooykaas 1971 Stuti and Stava (Bauddha and Vais . ad ´ ´ ı-N¯ ´ . Amsterdam. and Vasis t ha. Anand¯ . kar¯ (ASiUp) [Published in] Sr¯ ar¯ ayan ananda-viracitad¯ ıpik¯ asamet¯ an¯ am .Atharva´ siras-Upanis . Hara. Kaun . London. Trivandrum 1940.

Includes the Ni´ sv¯ asamukha. ya See Kaun . Osnabr¨ uck 1988. Oberlies. am.V. Lindtner. Volume in Honour of Professor Minoru Hara on his Seventieth Birthday (Reinbek). am . Bibliotheca Indica 29. pp. Aspects of Buddhism. u (son of Kr s n ad¯ a sa). dayak¯ (MHK) See Kawasaki 1988 and Lindtner 1997. Sanderson. a-Upanis . .¯ . [Edit. Paramoks asak¯ arik¯ a . Calcutta 1855–62.] (TVK) 20 .Bhat sr¯ ı-Laks ıdhara-viracite Kr agah . Mah¯ abh¯ arata (MBh) The Mah¯ abh¯ arata. For the first time critically edited by V. hitˆ . 91–123.d . Varanasi 1998. Pa˜ nc¯ arthabh¯ as . la Pr¯ an agnihotra Upanis .d .d . Poona 1927–59. Christian 1997 ‘Bhavya on M¯ ım¯ am a.. Venkatesvara Press. eya Pur´ . avec une traduction fran¸ caise. ´ anukraman [Reprinted. Thomas 2000 ‘Kriegslisten und ungeziemendes Benehmen: Die Askesepraktiken der P¯ a´ supatas. amo bh¯ . e´ . with a Slok¯ ı by N¯ aga´ saran . Delhi 1989 (2nd ed.’ [Unpublished lecture handout. Electronic transcription of the codex of the Ni´ sv¯ asatattvasam a in the . by K. Ni´ sv¯ asam¯ ula. m¯ .¯ . Bombay V.ˆ Leopold von Schroeder.d . a Sim . ad (MN¯ aUp) La Mah¯ a N¯ ar¯ ayan . Ni´ sv¯ asottara. a Upanis . [Edit. pp. Lingapur¯ ˙ an .t . Liw 25 June 1994. 1981 [= AD 1924]. 1996)] Madhyamakahr arik¯ a . hit¯ (MaiS) Mˆ aitrˆ ayan ı Sam a.’ In: Ryutaro Tsuchida and Albrecht Wezler (eds. Baroda 1942. inya. Leipzig 1881–1886. une ´ etude.. tyakalpatarau As . 4 vols. aprakaran .t . a in the original Sanscrit edited by K. Rangaswami Aiyangar. . Har¯ anandalahar¯ ı. 19 vols. Edit. by] Gang¯ ˙ avis . Banerjea. Handout 5. Ni´ sv¯ asanaya and Ni´ sv¯ asaguhya. Kathmandu. Edit. MS 1–227 (= A 41/4) supplemented with readings from its Kathmandu apograph MS (NGMPP 159/18).t . ad.ˆ . Edition critique. by Vrajavallabha Dvived¯ Yogatantra-grantham¯ al¯ a vol. by Dominic Goodall. Hilary Term 1998.a ´ ı-Vy¯ ´ ı-Lingamah¯ (LiP) Sr¯ asa-mahars ˙ apur¯ an . Gaekwad’s Oriental Series XCVIII. 2 tomes. by] . ad. Warsaw. . 12. par Jean Varenne. Mah¯ an¯ ar¯ ayan . hit¯ National Archives.S.). T¯ ırthavivecanak¯ an .n . Sr¯ . by Nag Publishers. [Reprinted by Biblio Verlag. ha. iproktam . M. anir¯ [Published in] As ı. . S. 175–191. a-´ . hitˆ . eyapur¯ .¯ .a (MkP) The M´ arcan an .’ in: Studia Indologiczne 4. Alexis *1998 ‘L¯ akulas and Somasiddh¯ antins. Sukthankar and others. s¯ Proceedings of the International Seminar on Buddhist Studies. am. with the Sanskrit ´ commentary Sivatos in ¯ ı by Gan sa N¯ atu. en annexe. M¯ arkan an . Maitr¯ ayan ısam a . Die Sam a der Mˆ aitrˆ ayan ıya-C ¸ˆ akhˆ a. .] Ni´ sv¯ asatattvasam hit¯ a . Paris 1960. des notes et. . .

yaka ¯ ´ ´astr¯ (TA) Taittir¯ ıy¯ aran B¯ ab¯ a S¯ ı ‘Phad . . Annotated Text and Translation [by] Patrick Olivelle. Sarvadar´ sanasam . Delhi 1983. Gandhi Memorial Edition. Gautama. [Poona] 1904.t . hadharma´ ´ [Published in] Dharmas¯ ¯ (V¯ asDhS) utras. and Vasis . yakam.n . 1–47. ¯ Anand¯ a´ sramasam skr tagranth¯ a valih 36 [2 Vols. Limaye & R.’ In: Fran¸ cois Grimal (ed. . ads. Upanis . .¯ . apras¯ . ah . i. Yogas¯ utra (YS) V¯ acaspatimi´ sraviracitat ık¯ asameta´ sr¯ ıvy¯ asabh¯ as ani . Schultz. Anand¯ .t . New Delhi 1957. . ar¯ Mahendraratnagrantham¯ al¯ a 2.]. graha (SDS) Sarva-Dar´ sana-Samgraha ˙ of S¯ ayan adhava. Wr haspatitattwa .). 37 [3 Vols.d . D. 47.und . The Saiva Atim¯ arga. .a R¯ amakan t ha. Edited with an original . ´ a´ Svet¯ svatara-Upanis . Poona 1898. the Pa˜ ncar¯ atra and the Buddhist Yogin¯ ıtantras.R.t . Friedrich August 1958 Die philosophisch-theologischen Lehren des P¯ a´ supata-Systems nach dem Pa˜ nc¯ arthabh¯ as ık¯ a. Taittir¯ ıy¯ aran .R. by N. tagranth¯ . Skandapur¯ an . Publications de l’Institut Fran¸ cais . Kathmandu 1988. .s . [Edit. V¯ ayupur¯ an . skr . T) . Dv¯ ıp¯ antara-Pit .2002 *2004 ´ ‘History through Textual Criticism in the study of Saivism. by] V. Week 5: Handout. The Law Codes of Apastamba. Government Oriental (Hindu) Series Vol. tagranth¯ . I. ya und der Ratnat . Les Sources et le Temps.S. Poona 1958. Critically edited and translated by Sudarshana Devi.t .a ´ ımad-S¯ (TBr) Taittir¯ ıyabr¯ ahman ayan ac¯ arya-viracita-Bh¯ as . Taittir¯ ıyabr¯ ahman . ¯ Anand¯ a´ sramasam avalih . . ya-sametam. I. tti ) of Bhat . 2004. adic Text with Parallels from extant Vedic Literature.a (V¯ aP) The V¯ ayumah¯ apur¯ an aja. . ´ ´ [Edit. pp.¯ Kulturgeschichte des Orientes 10. Vadekar. haspati-Tattwa.]. Poona 1924. Exegetical and Grammatical Notes by V. ha. A Colloquium. aka 1. ad ´ (SvUp) [Published in] Eighteen Principal Upanis .R. Nag Publishers. sam . Delhi 2000. Vol. am. a=M¯ commentary in Sanskrit by Mahamahopadhyaya Vasudev Shastri Abhyankar. yasamet¯ ¯ P¯ ata˜ njalayogas¯ utr¯ an a´ sramasam avalih . Pondicherry 11–13 January 1997 (Pondicherry). am. asya Ambik¯ . 21 . by] V.P. ake’. Walldorf-Hessen. Poona 1897. Beitr¨ age zur Sprach.a (SPBh ) Skandapur¯ an akhan adakah ada Bhat a¯ ı.’ [Unpublished lecture handout. Pondicherry 1979. . An Old Javanese philosophical text. Sources and Time. Edit.] S¯ ardhatri´ satik¯ alottara (STK) S¯ ardhatri´ satik¯ alottar¯ agama with commentary (-vr . Bhatt.R. (Wr Wr . d’Indologie 61. Kr . Baudh¯ ayana. Sr¯ .. Edit. skr . p¯ .¯ .S. 9 November. ´ ‘The Yoga of Dying. by Khemar¯ [Reprint of the Venkate´ ˙ svara edition of AD 1895] V¯ asis s¯ astra . N¯ ar¯ ayan a S¯ a stri ‘God bole’.