Albrecht Wezler and Shujun Motegi

YuktidTpik

Alt- und Neu-Indische Studien

herausgegeben vomInstitut fr Kultur und Geschichte Indiens und Tibets

an der Universitt Hamburg

44

Franz Steiner Verlag Stuttgart1998

Y U K T I D I P I K

The Most Significant Commentaryon the Smkhyakrik

Critically edited by

A L B R E C H T W E Z L E Rand

SHUJUN M O T E G I

Vol. I

Franz Steiner Verlag Stuttgart

Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-EinheitsaufnahmeYuktidlpik : the most significant commentary on theSmkhyakrik / critically ed. by Albrecht Wezler and ShujunMotegi. - Stuttgart: Steiner, 1998

(Alt- und neu-indische Studien ; 44)ISBN 3-515-06132-0

ISO 9706

Jede Verwertung des Werkes auerhalb der Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes istunzulssig und strafbar. Dies gilt insbesondere fr bersetzung, Nachdruck, Mikro-verfilmung oder vergleichbare Verfahren sowie fr die Speicherung in Datenverar-beitungsanlagen. Gedruckt auf surefreiem, alterungsbestndigem Papier. Gedrucktmit Untersttzung der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft. 1998 by Franz SteinerVerlag Wiesbaden GmbH, Sitz Stuttgart. Druck: Druckerei Peter Proff, Eurasburg.Printed in Germany

T a b l e o f C o n t e n t s

1. Preface by Shujun Motegi VI2. Preface by Albrecht Wezler VII

3. Introduction IX-XXIX

4. Signs and Abbreviations XXX-XXXII

5. Facsimile of K..., XXXIII

6. Facsimile of D XXXIV-XXXVI

7. Facsimile of B XXXVII

8. The Text of the Yuktidipik

(a) Prathamam hnikam 1-56(b) Dvitiyam hnikam 57-108(c) Trtiyam hnikam 109-142(d) Caturtham hnikam 143-166(e) Pancamam Ahnikam 167-186(f) Sastamam hnikam 187-200(g) Saptamam hnikam 201-220(h) Astamam hnikam 221-238(i) Navamam hnikam 239-254(j) Dasamam-Ekdasam hnikam 255-270

9. Appendix I: Bibliography 271-277

10. Appendix II: The Text of the Smkhyakrik as attested in the Yuk-tidipik within the commentary to the corresponding verse 278-285

11. Appendix III: The Text of the Smkhyakrik as found in contexts otherthan those of Appendix II 286-290

12. Appendix IV: Index of Words of the Smkhyakrik as attested in theYuktidipik and the Marginal Notes of the Kashmir and Delhi Mss

291-307

13. Appendix V: Index of the verses quoted or at any rate found in the Yuk-tidipik 308-320

14. Appendix VI: Pda Index of the verses quoted or at any rate found in theYuktidipik 321-333

IV YUKTIDIPIKA

15. Appendix VII: Index of the prose passages quoted or referred to in theYuktidipik and in the Marginal Notes of the Kashmir and Delhi Mss.according to the sources 334-342

16. Appendix VIII: Index of the prose passages quoted or referred to in theYuktidipik and in the Marginal Notes of Kashmir and Delhi Mss. inalphabetical order 343-346

F o r M a s a a k i H a t t o r i ,

t h e g r e a t a u t h o r i t y o n

I n d i a n P h i l o s o p h y

P r e f a c e

The first time I encountered the text of the Yuktidipika edited by R.C. Pandeyawas in the spring of 1971 in the office of Prof. Masaaki Hattori at Kyoto Univer-sity. As a beginner in Sanskrit, I found its Devangari script so mysterious thatI was convinced that the text contained yet unknown truths of the world, andeven of life itself. Wanting to unravel its secrets, I decided, a few years laterwhen I was an M.A student studying, thanks to a grant of the General CulturalScholarship Scheme of the Government of India, for two years at Benares HinduUniversity, to go through the text under the guidance of Prof. K.D.Tripathi.Following my return to Japan I continued despite the fact that I had notdiscovered the truth which might have led me to the highest goal of life towork on the Yuktidipika, and after some time I came to realize the necessity for anew edition of the text. As I knew that Prof. A.Wezler had already announcedin his 1975 article "Some Observations on the Yuktidipika" his intention toprepare a critical edition of the text based on the newly discovered manuscripts,I contacted him and offered to work with him on the new edition. I must admitthat I did so with some hesitation, for I was not sure that I had the requisiteexperience in collating manuscripts, and I had also, due to other demands, beenaway from Indological research for some time. Nevertheless, he was generousenough to accept my offer, and we decided to undertake a joint project.

Five years ago, with the financial help of the Japan Society for the Pro-motion of Science (Nihon Gakujutsu Shinkkai) and the cooperation of my col-leagues at Shinshu University, I was able to stay in Hamburg for an entire year.This year proved to be most pleasant and fruitful. Prof. Wezler's wide-rangedand deep knowledge of the Indian classics was a constant help and inspiration,and I gained much from his expertise, although, I am afraid, I took too much ofhis time. And now, much later, we have come to the final stage of our project(as regards the first volume of the edition). It will be my real pleasure and prideif this joint work is able to contribute even a little to the splendid history ofIndian Studies.

Space being limited, I am not able to thank all the unforgettable peoplewho helped my wife and me in various ways in Hamburg. Nevertheless, we wouldlike to express our heartfelt gratitude to Mrs. Monika Rieger and Mr. GntherKahl who kindly provided us with a calm, comfortable and well-equipped flat atJungfrauenthal. Without their help our life in Hamburg would have been quitedifferent and certainly much more difficult.

Last but not least, I would like to thank Mr. T.Tomabechi, assistant at theUniversity of Lausanne. I owe much to him for the layout of the present edition.He was so cordial as to give much of his time to adapt the computer softwareto the needs of this edition, with the result that he was able to mysteriouslycall into existence all the elements we came to need. Without his invaluableassistance this edition would not have attained its present form.

Nagano, September 1997 Shujun Motegi

P r e f a c e

It was long ago that I realized the need for a new and fully critical edition ofthe Yuktidlpik, took the decision to prepare it myself, started to microfilm theavailable manuscripts and announced my intention publicly! Nevertheless thepublication of the present edition does not give me an opportunity to quotethe German saying "Gut Ding will Weile haben" (= "good things take time").Rather I do very much feel that an apology is due for the unusually long delay, forkeeping in suspense fellow scholars and all those interested in Smkya philosophyfor so long a time. I realized quite early, in fact immediately after the publicationof my first article on the YD in 1975 (cf. "Bibliography"), that I had gone onestep too far in my "Observations", viz. by drawing the conclusion that the"Vrttika" and the "Bhsya" go back to two different authors; and this did not,frankly speaking, really fill me with enthusiasm for a work demanding no littleself-denial.

In passing only I should like to mention here that I told Shinkan Murakamiabout this revision of my opinion about the authorship of the "Vrttika" andthe "Bhsya" when I met him in Japan in 1983, and that he was kind enough toreport this in his article "Yuktidlpik Yakuch (I) ( "Yuktidlpik Translatedinto Japanese with Critical Notes", published in the Annual Reports of theFaculty of Arts and Letters, Tohoku University 33, 1983, p.42 (cf. "Summary",p.251)) just as Johannes Bronkhorst a little later (cf. his article "Vrttika",WZKS XXXIV, 1990, p. 123 n.l) .

The main reason for the delay, however, is that I simply did not have thenecessary staying power, even though I was once granted a special sabbaticalterm by the "German Research Council" (DFG) for this purpose. I was tooshort-winded, and almost exhausted my strength in writing articles: It wasthus much easier to give my self-esteem what it direly needed, viz. regularconfirmation by work finished within a relatively short period of time. Therewas perhaps also a deceptive idea of being thereby able to clear the wayfor the more demanding work of the critical edition.

In any case, it was an extraordinary piece of luck that I finally cameinto contact with Shujun Motegi who had himself already started working ona critical edition of the YD, and we got along with each other so well that itwas but natural to decide to join hands and to prepare the edition jointly. Ido not want to describe our cooperation in any detail, but should like to stateat least that Shujun Motegi did by far not only take on the tremendous job ofputting all that is printed here into the computer overcoming too the variousand partly very intricate difficulties of the software used (which was in factchanged two times; cf. "Introduction", fn.12). Suffice to say that had he notcome to my assistance I would still not have been able to finish this work. I amdeeply grateful to him also for the composure with which he took my occasionaloutbursts of temper and his sympathetic approach when I was going through adifficult period and it looked as though I was down and out. We have certainlytaken the seven steps of Pnini 5.2.22!

Hamburg, September 1997 A. Wezler

I n t r o d u c t i o n

1 T h e N e e d f o r a N e w E d i t i o n '

When in 1967 Ram Chandra PANDEYA published his edition of the "Yuktidipika.An ancient Commentary of the Smkhya-Krik of Isvarakrsna"1 it was nosmall step forward: in contradistinction to the editio princeps by PulinbehariCHAKRAVARTI in 1938,2 based on just a single manuscript from Poona, viz. ourP, PANDEYA was able to use a second manuscript from Ahmedabad, viz. our A.To be sure, the number of passages, i.e. parts of sentences or whole sentencesor even consecutive sentences, left out because of aberratio oculi etc. in eitherof these two manuscripts, is amazingly large; however they are also, fortunately,distributed in such a way that the two manuscripts supplement each other, atleast in most cases, so that a much more complete text could be constitutedby PANDEYA. But his edition stands out for other reasons, too; not a fewquotations from or references to other texts have been identified, an attempthas been made to further the intelligibility of the text by dividing it properly

* A critical edition as such clearly calls for no justification, and by no means only in a disciplinelike Indology. A. AKLUJKAR'S statement (in his review of W. RAU, Die handschriftliche ber-lieferung des Vkyapadyaund seiner Kommentare, Mnchen 1971, OLZ 71 (1976), p.286): "Ifmisinterpretations and wrong leads are to be avoided, studies of ancient and medieval worksmust, as far as possible, be based on critically presented texts" is only too true, although thisis equally true of "modern works", a very instructive example being many of the various textswritten by L. WITTGENSTEIN (cf.e.g. Wittgenstein ber die Seele. Herausgegeben von EikeVON SAVIGNY und Oliver R. SCHOLZ, Frankfurt 1995 (Suhrkamp Taschenbuch Wissenschaft1173)).

1 Yuktidtpik, An Ancient Commentary on the Smkhya Krik of varakrsna, edited byR.C.Pandeya, Delhi-Varanasi-Patna, 1967.

2 Yuktidpika, edited by P.Chakravarti, Calcutta Sanskrit Series No.23, Calcutta, 1938. Notethat editions which are not directly based on (the) MSS like e.g. Rmasankar TRIPTH,Ivarakrsnaviracit Smkhyakrik Rmasankara-Tripthiviracitay Tattvaprabhkhyayvykhyay ajntakartrkay YuktidTpikvykhyay vivrty ca vibhsit ..., VrnasT 1970 have been ignored by us.

X YUKTIDIPIKA

into paragraphs, by means of an improved punctuation, by many emendations3and last but not least by various "Appendixes" and "Indexes", the most usefulno doubt being the "General Index" (though it is by far not complete, not evenas regards the references given under the entries included).4

Nevertheless PANDEYA'S edition did not come up entirely to the expecta-tions which nowadays are justly placed on a critical edition, even in Indology:his edition is not based on all the available manuscript material,5 his informa-tion about the actual readings6 is not always reliable, the text as constituted byhim is at places clearly wrong for various reasons reaching from simple printingmistakes up to misinterpretations or failure to understand a passage. Thereforea new and fully critical edition of the Yuktidpik is clearly a desideratum, espe-cially in view of the extraordinary significance this text has, and by far not onlyfor the history of Smkhya philosophy.7 Characteristically for Indian studies, itmay be noted at this point that we have already a summary of the contents ofour text8 and at least one complete translation, so-called.9

With all due deference to our predecessor(s) our critical apparatus bears

3It is not, however, always possible to determine whether a particular reading is an emendationproposed by PANDEYA or else actually found in one of the two MSS used by him. His maininterest seems to have been to state time and again that CHAKRAVARTI reads x "against Pn"(our MS P).

4It should be noted that this is just a brief characterization of PANDEYA'S edition, and notintended to be a comprehensive appraisal of his achievement.

5Even if the number of MSS of a particular text like e.g. the Mahbhrata or the Manusmrtiis very large indeed, a selection can be made only on the basis of criteria which have at leastto be made explicit and after checking the critical value of each and every MS.

6 As should be well-known in the meantime, already the mere act of reading a MS is at times inti-mately bound up with interpretation, i.e. implies decisions which, even if all of them are takenconsciously, cannot, at least not always, be expressly stated. Unfortunately, manuscriptology,and the corresponding branch of palaeography, are rather undeveloped in Indian studies; noteven the knowledge accumulated so far has been gathered and made easily accessible in apublication. See, however, K.L.Janert, Bibliographie mit den Berichten ber die mndlicheund schriftliche Textweitergabe sowie die Schreibmaterialien in Indien (Berichtszeit bis 1955),Bonn 1995.

7The significance has already been recognized by E. FRAUWALLNER; cf. Geschichte der indi-schen Philosophie, l.Bd., Salzburg 1953, p.287 and 475.

8 Viz. by RaghunathaSHARMA, Dayanand BHARGAVA, and Shiv Kumar SHARMA in : Smkhya.A Dualist Tradition of Indian Philosophy. Ed. by Gerald James LARSON and Ram ShankarBHATTACHARYA (Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies IV), Princeton 1987, pp.227-269.

9Shiv KUMAR and D. N. BHARGAVA, Yuktidpik, vol.1 Delhi 1990, vol.11 Delhi 1992. MU-RAKAMI'S translation (for which see "Bibliography"), appearing in installments and not yetcomplete, is of quite different a quality. Edeltraud HARZER in the USA is presently workingon an English translation.

INTRODUCTION XI

ample evidence to this10 we feel justified to claim that we have brought mat-ters further to a considerable degree, and in many regards at that:

1. we have been able to use three more manuscripts, though one of them(B) covers only a small portion of the text and another (D) is a moderntranscript (cf. 2 and 3 below);

2. thanks to this additional material we are able to offer a slightly morecomplete text, though as regards the longest 'new' portion, viz. pp.150.22-154.5 of our edition, we disagree with each other, M. being rather inclinedto regard it as secondary while W. thinks it is genuine;

3. with the help of this additional manuscript material we can edit also aTippan (aThe Marginal Notes..."), a kind of subcommentary, though itcovers only approximately the first third of the Yuktidpik (cf. 5 below);

4. many more emendations are proposed by us, and our text is certainly moreintelligible than that printed by CHAKRAVARTI and PANDEYA;

5. we have succeeded in identifying quite some more passages as quotationsand references, although we have not always been able also to discovertheir sources;

6. for the first time an attempt has been made at marking off the vrttikas(cf. "Preface" by W. and below 4) from the rest of the text;

7. we have tried to verify the cross-references within the Yuktidpik as faras possible and for the readers' convenience we have added the referencein each case;

8. the layout, the typographical features, and the critical apparatus11 havebeen given a shape that should facilitate reading the text and ensureprecise and full information, in spite of the fact that we had to put upwith certain constraints due to the software used;12

9. the various indices forming the "Appendix" are, we trust, a further im-provement (it should however be noted that the present edition will besupplemented by a second volume containing a word index to the wholeof the Yuktidpik) ;

In not a few cases we simply state that "we follow Pandeya", or "Chakravarti", or "Raghavan"(for whom see "Bibliography").

When we finally realized that a positive apparatus criticus is to be preferred, it was too lateto change our edition accordingly.

2 The software used by us was "Techno Mate" in the beginning, then we changed it to "AMSIfejX" and this in its turn, finally, to "WT&L2

".

XII YUKTIDIPIKA

10. last but not least we are able to offer some new arguments of palpablesignificance for dating the Yuktidpik.

Notwithstanding, we are, of course, fully aware that our edition is also farfrom being perfect. We do not, in this connection, mean the fact, highly de-plorable though it is, that we, too, were not able to discover a single manuscriptcontaining the whole of the text, and hence to fill the gaps already there inPANDEYA'S edition, viz. the commentary on roughly SK11-12, 60-63, 65-66;what we have in view is rather the possibility, nay, probability, that sometimeswe, too, have overlooked a lacuna not marked as such in the manuscripts (one ofthe most intricate problems one is confronted with when editing a text), or havenot recognized a quotation or reference as such, not to mention other mistakes,e.g. choosing the wrong reading, misunderstanding what the author actuallyintends, etc. Even simple printing mistakes were still there when going throughthe penultimate and even the final proofs a work we were most kindly as-sisted in by Dr. Harunaga ISAACSON, whom we should like to thank very muchindeed also for drawing our attention to other mistakes and problems. Hencethere are reasons which would speak in favour of postponing publication. Butwe think that we should not make our fellow scholars wait any longer for thisedition which after all was announced quite some time ago. In addition, afterworking on this edition for a number of years now, both of us have gatheredthe impression that we run the risk of moving round in circles, i.e. of discussingfor the third or fourth time a problem, be it a real or an alleged one, simplybecause we don't remember that, and why, a particular decision had alreadybeen taken by us earlier of which we could not, of course, always keep afull record or even keep minutes. That is to say, we very much need the de-tachment to be gained only by publishing away, as it were, our joint work inorder then to be able to take a fresh and critical look at it which our readerswill certainly also take, whose criticism, suggestions and remarks will be mostwelcome: as in the case of other philosophical texts, too, colleagues specializedin other strands of the rich Indian tradition can solve problems, and sometimesquite easily, with which the editor(s) has/have tackled in vain: non omnia pos-sumus omnes, to quote the apposite Latin proverb, or to say it with Udayana,13bhrnteh purusadharmatvt.

2 D e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e M a n u s c r i p t s 1 4

As the descriptions of the two MSS of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Insti-tute, Poona our P and of the LlbhT Dalpatbh Institute of Indology,

13 Viz. Nyayakusumnjali 3, 13/14.

14 Note that the descriptions are by and large based on prints made from microfilms, not on themanuscripts themselves; cf.fn.17.

INTRODUCTION XIII

Ahmedabad our A respectively as given by PANDEYA15 are very brief in-deed, more detailed ones are being given here. Yet we don't deem it necessaryto publish again facsimiles of these two MSS, but confine ourselves in this regardto the new material.

PThe manuscript forms part of the collection of the Bhandarkar Oriental

Research Institute, Poona, Maharashtra. (For the catslpgue(s) concerned seebelow p.XVIII). A paper manuscript written in Dev&ngar, it has 118 foliosand measures 34x 15.3cm. It is paged on the verso, on the left margin, belowthe indication of the title, viz. sm. yu. dt, also on the right margin at thebottom, but the page number is lacking in some cases (e.g. folios 1, 12, 19, 70,99, 100-103); upon folio 53 follows a single one carrying the numbers 54, 55, 56,57. The text is written in a rectangular area with margins of appr. 4 cm tothe left and right and appr. 3 cm at the top and bottom. There are 12 linesto a side, except for folio 74 verso which has 13 lines, folio 97 verso which hasonly one and a half lines, folio 98 which is entirely blank, folio 119 the recto ofwhich has just 4 lines and a few words at the beginning of the 5th line, while itsverso has only a few words, and folio 122 verso which contains only the colophon(cf.p.270). The number of aksaras per line is on the average 50. The manuscriptcontains no date; it covers the text of the YD from the beginning up to the end,but it is not complete. Lacunae in the text are indicated by blanks, with orwithout dots/dashes. The MS has not a few corrections on the margin, by atleast one other hand.

AThe manuscritpt forms part of the collection of the Llbh Dalpatbh

Institute of Indology, Ahmedabad, Gujerat. The manuscript, written in Deva-ngari, carries the number 173; it has 47 folios of old paper, and measures11.5x26cm. It is paged 1 - 47 on the bottom of the right margin of the verso,and there are no title indications. The text is bordered on the left and the rightby two vertical lines; there are no similar horizontal lines above and below thebody of the text. There are 15 lines to a side except for folio 47 verso which hasonly 12 lines. In the middle of lines 6-10 each side has a roughly rhomboid blankarea in the center. The remaining lines, viz. 1-5 and 11-15, usually have between35-45 aksaras. A number of folios, viz. 14 verso, 25 recto and verso, 28 verso,39 verso, bear on the right or left margin the oval stamp "Llbhr DalpatbhBharatiya Samskrti Vidyrriandir Jnn Bhandar", which is, however, unfaded(almost) and legible only on folio 47 verso where it is there on the right belowthe body of the text. The manuscript contains no date; it covers the text of theYD from the beginning up to almost the end of the commentary on SK10. Itstarts with 16 // Om namah kamaladalatnpulanayanbhirmya

15Cf. PANDEYA, op. cit., Introduction, pp.xi-xii.16

As for this symbol, cf.Chandrabhl TripthT, Catalogue of the Jain Manuscripts at Strasbourg

XIV YUKTIDIPIKA

narayanaya // // snganesaya namah // (cf. p.l,fn.l), and breaks off withbhtstah prvasamsthnahnitah tadabhvd asiddho syai vise (cf.p.134.18). Theintermediate colophon on fol. 37 verso, line 7f. (cf.p.107.14) is coloured andthus marked off from the text itself. At several places there are gaps in thetext left blank, viz. on folios 12 verso, line 4 (appr. 6 aksaras), 17 recto, line 4(appr. 7 aksaras, the gap being additionally marked by five dashes), 17 verso,line 12 (appr. 6 aksaras), 19 verso, line 3, 19 verso, line 12 continued into line13 (altogether appr. 9 aksaras), 33 verso, line 8 (appr. 4 aksaras), 35 verso, line14 (appr. 2 aksaras), 39 verso, line 4 (appr. 3 aksaras), 43 recto, line 12 (appr.3 aksaras), 45 verso, line 15 (appr. 2 aksaras), 46 recto, line 1 (appr. 3 aksaras)and line 3 (appr. 4 aksaras) and 46 verso, line 10 (appr. 4 aksaras) and line 14(appr. 4 aksaras). There is an ink(?)-spot on folios 3 recto, line 5 in the middleand on folio 17 recto, line 6 and 7 on the left which is visible also on folio 17verso, lines 8-10 on the left. The MS has only a few corrections, apparently byanother hand17.

KThe most important of the MSS not yet used by PANDEYA is K, i.e. the

Srad manuscript deposited at the University of Kashmir, Srnagar. This MSis registered in the catalogue of the Sanskrit Manuscript Library in the Centre ofCentral Asian Studies of the University of Kashmir under the number 80518: A

(Indologica Berolinensis Bd. 4), Leiden 1975, p.39, as well as Descriptive Catalogue of theGovernment Collections of Manuscripts deposited at the Bhandarkar Oriental Research In-stitute, compiled by Hiralal Rasikdas Kapadia, Vol.XVII: Jaina Literature and Philosophy,Pt.II: (a) Agamika Literature, Poona 1936, p.12 and Appendix II.

17 Several letters which I sent to the director of the LlbhT DalpatbhT Institute of Indologyrequesting him to come to my help regarding the exact description of the manuscript, werenot answered. But Dr. N. M. Kansara who happened to be working at that time at theInstitute as visiting professor and got in touch with me in another matter, was kind enoughto give me the necessary information. In a personal communication dated May 27th 1997 hewrites me (W.):

"Dr. J. B. Shah had entrusted the work of locating your Ms. to the person in charge of theMs. Library at the L.D. Institute here. But since, after going through all the old and newCatalogues of Mss., of the L.D. Institute, the Ms. of Yuktidpika could not be traced at N.173, he could not send you any letter.

After receiving your letter, I took up the cudgels anew in company of Pandit Amratlal,who is in charge of the Mss. Library of the L.D.Institute. In spite of all our efforts fromvarious angles, we could not locate the Yuktidpika Ms. at No. 173 or any other number. Weare sorry for our failure.

As regards the entries of "le.sam.17 Sa" in the edition of R. Ch. Pandeya, "LE." standsfor "LEKHAKA" (= 'scribe'), "SAM." stands for "SAMVATA" (= 'year') and "17 SA." standsfor "17 SATAKA" (= 'century'). These are the usual abbreviations used in the Mss. by thescribes."

18The description of K owes much to Prof.Shinkan MURAKAMI'S Yuktidpika Yakuch (I) (Yukti-dpika Translated into Japanese with Critical Notes (I)), Annual Reports of the Faculty ofArts and Letters, Tohoku University, vol.33 (1983) p.40.

He has been so kind, and selfless, as to come to our assistance by supplying copies of

INTRODUCTION XV

paper manuscript, it is written in Sarada, measures ca. 13x 18cm, and is boundlike a book. The MS consists of two parts, each written by a different hand. Thefirst part has 7 folios, our siglum for it is KP, and it covers the text from the verybeginning up to the upodghtah, p.8.16 of our edition. It starts with a symboloften found in the beginning of a manucript.19 The first six folios are writtenon both sides, and each of the fifteen or sixteen lines has 18-23 aksaras. On theverso of each folio, on the left margin at the bottom, is given the page numberbelow the title indication yukti dt .20 The seventh folio is written only on therecto with six lines and, below this, five lines in smaller letters, this latter beinga note on the term namas (cf.p.l,fn.(2) of our edition). Between the seventhfolio and the first folio of the second part, there are four small slips of paperinserted. What is written on these slips are "The Marginal Notes....". We callthese slips Ks.l, Ks.2, Ks.3, Ks.4, respectively.21 The second part, which is themain part of the MS, has 135 folios. Every folio is written on both sides, thenumber of lines being 22 or 23 with 20 aksaras on the average. As in the caseof P, K is paged on the verso, on the left margin at the bottom, below whichis the indication of the title as in P, that is, sm. yu. di. The page numberingis continuous from 1 to 105. The numbers 49 and 50 are missing though thetitle is there. On folio 105 a lacuna in the 16th line is indicated by dots andthe text breaks off at this point (cf.p.224,fn.l). Then follows a blank folio, uponwhich we find a folio numbered 194, beginning with sr ganesya namah. Thusthis folio corresponds to the first folio of our MS B which too begins with thesame salutation. The numbering thereafter is continuous to 223 which is the lastfolio. As a whole K has the same lacunae as P. The most conspicuous feature ofboth parts of K is that they carry notes or comments anywhere, on the margin,or between lines, and that the number of these mounts to nearly 300 (cf.5).The notes usually set in at the point on the margin which the scribe consideredto be nearest to the word(s) of the mla concerned, and there is no referentialmarking of any kind. Almost all these notes and comments are found in thefirst four Annikas.

individual folios, and even of a whole MS (see p.XVII and fn.32 below), whenever we realizedthat our own material was incomplete or of too poor a quality.

The full text of the registration is as follows:NO.805 Sankhya Yukti DeepikaNo.of copies oneScript sharadaPaper countryPrice 15Date 27-X-56Remarks 257

19See above fn.16.20Only the first folio has the title indication rh yukti dt naturally enough.21See p.8,fn.(2)-(3); p.9,fn.(l)-(5),(7);

P.10,fn.(l)-(2); p.l8,fn.(2); p.68,fn.(l). For "TheMarginal Notes..." see below 5.

XVI YUKTIDIPIKA

DD is a paper Devangar MS of the National Archives in New Delhi, the

Serial No. being 3001 and the Acc.No.833/52; it has 361 leaves; its size is34.5cmx 21cm. The leaves are numbered 1-298 on the right margin at the topthe count 232 has been left out by mistake and thereafter22 1-64. All the foliosare bound like a book, and they are written only on one side.23 This is evidentlya very modern transcript of K2A made only after Independence, when, mostprobably for reasons of safety in the wake of the Kashmir imbroglio, a numberof MSS were brought down from Srinagar to the National Archives in Delhi tobe returned only later to their rightful owner (s). D is particularly noteworthyin that, on the margin, it quite often gives the readings of a kha-pustaka, calledDkha by us which is often in agreement with A , and at least twice also of aga-pustaka25 showing that the copyist had access to two more MSS26 and wasscholar enough to note down the variants he found in them. As the result a foliousually consists of the main text and footnotes, if any. The footnotes are of twokinds. First, beneath the main text, the marginal notes of K are numbered inorder to be able to identify the word(s) in the main text referred to.27 Second,beneath the marginal notes again, if any, the variant readings of kha-pustakaare written with the line number of the main text added. The usual formulawhen indicating variant readings of kha-pustaka is pam number khapu.... itipthah. But quite a few readings of kha-pustaka are written on the side margintoo. In doing this the scribe evidently regarded the manuscript which he wasactually transcribing in full as cka-pustaka\ One of the variants of Dkha wasknown also to the author(s) of "The Marginal Notes ..."(see p.H8,fn.9,(4) ofour edition). The identity of both kha- and ga-pustaka, however, remains anopen question. On the whole it is possible to say that D has a more orderedappearance than K. In this connection it should be pointed out that, in additionto the above mentioned characteristics of each folio, all the Ahnikas, except the9th, begin on a fresh folio and generally the verses are set off from the prose.The sandhi rules are ignored more often than not and corrected on the margin,

22 The serial number 299 has been changed to 1. This is the point where K gives the serialnumber 194 after a blank folio and, at the same time, the point where B begins.

23 Sometimes the marginal notes taken from K are written on the verso (cf.e.g.the leaves of serialnumber 9, 10).

24 D sometimes uses a comma for punctuation (cf.p.80,fn.l7, p.l63,fn.2).

25 See p.99,fn.7, p.212,fn.6. In addition, on the top margin of folio 45 we find the note gapustake'pi, in small letters, though it is not clear which word is intended by this note.

26The - theoretical - possibility of his referring to unknown editions can safely be ruled out.Corrections secunda manu in D, however, often agree with B so that one wonders whetherthe scribe of D had access to 5, or its original.

27In a few cases a mark is made in order to identify the word (cf.p.3,fn.(l); p.4,fn.(l)).

INTRODUCTION XVII

possibly by a different hand.

BThe MS given the siglum B by us is the most fragmentary one, containing

as it does only a small portion, i.e. appr. one fifth of the text, viz. pp.224-270 of our edition. It forms part of the manuscript collection of the Libraryof the Benares Hindu University; its Serial No. is 3A/2194, the Accession No.C4083. "It consists of 29 leaves of about 14x23cm (leaves numbered 1-22, 25-27,three blank leaves and a final leaf unnumbered) written on both sides except la(cover), last leaf (cover) and three further leaves; the whole is bound (or folded)as a booklet, each page contains 21 or 22 lines of 22~25 syllables in rad."28In the very beginning of the main text, upon "om namo nryanya", there isagain the bhale symbol.29 Only the page number is written on the left marginat the bottom of each verso without any indication of the title. Folios 23 and24 are missing.30 The texts of these missing leaves corresponds to a lacuna ofthe other MSS. Hence the lacuna is marked in B only by skipping the numbers23 and 24. Actually B lacks even a few more lines which the other MSS have,just before and after the lacuna (see p.264,fn.l8). It should be noted that Bis a paper MS, the paper giving the impression of being rather modern, butas regards the size of the pages and the arrangement of the lines it evidentlyfollows the tradition of Kashmirian birch bark MSS ('copy book').

Finally the MS called "K2" by MURAKAMI3 1 has to be mentioned, a xeroxcopy32 of which we have kindly been given by him. It contains the text from thebeginning up to p. 107.1 (prayunj-) of our edition but is quite obviously a verymodern33 Devangar transcript of a part of D,34 as it includes "The MarginalNotes ...", too. In our view this MS is of practically no critical value and hastherefore been ignored by us.

28Shinkan MURAKAMI, Benares-Manuscripts of the Yuktidtpik, JIBS vol.35-2 (1987), p.1019.3-7.

29 See Descriptive Catalogue of the Government Collections of Manuscripts deposited at theBhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, compiled by Hiralal Rasikdas Kapadia, Vol.XVII:Jaina Literature and Philosophy, Pt.II: (a) gamika Literature, Poona 1936, p.12. See abovefn.16.

30See Shinkan MURAKAMI, op.cit., p.1019.8-10.31

See his article mentioned in fn.28.32Of all the other MSS we used microfilms, taken by W. in 1972, 1974 (D) (in the latter case

with the help of Michael WITZEL, who it was who actually discovered this manuscript, andBalaram CHITRAKAR), and 1982 (B).

33The paper sheets used have a headline "NOTES" and to its left "Form No 12A/ Mis."!34Cf. also MURAKAMI'S remark (op, cit., p.1020) that the MS "of the National Archivs, b&w*

Delhi, ... is said to be the original of K2".

XVIII YUKTIDIPIKA

3 S t e m m a c o d i c o r u m

P forms according to "A [Consolidated] Catalogue of the Collections ofManuscripts deposited in the Deccan College [Poona, from 1868 to 1884]",35as is also quoted by PANDEYA,36 part of the "Collection of 1875-76", was "pur-chased from Kashmir" and its "material" is "bhrja". In fact, however, P is,as already stated above, a Devangar paper MS. One possible explanation forthis discrepancy is that P is but a copy of the original birch bark MS, and thisis not only confirmed by the authorities of the BORI,37 who rightly refer toG. BHLER,38 but also by typical misreadings of the Sarada original39 by thescribe who made the Devangar copy. Yet, one is still faced with the problemof the present whereabouts of the Sarada original of P: was it really purchasedby the BORI, or was it not rather returned to Kashmir after copying it andis it identical with "AT', i.e. MS No.805 of the University of Kashmir, Srinagar,as stated by MURAKAMI ?40 There is, however, quite another and much morelikely possibility, viz. that P is in fact the manuscript bought by BHLER in"Kasmr", since all the particulars given by him in describing it agree with thoseof P except for the material that is indicated by "ditto" to be birchbark (bhrja)(top of p.XXIII). Especially noteworthy is the agreement as to the number of fo-lios ("122") and lines per folio ("12"), as also the fact that BHLER'S manuscriptis classed as a new copy ("N.C.") and is written in "DevangarP. If this conclu-sion is correct BHLER'S "Detailed Report ..." would be wrong in just this oneregard of "ditto" in the column on "Material".

D, a Devangar transcript of K [see above p.VI], is of no little help indeciphering K1 including "The Marginal Notes ...", and gives, as has alreadybeen mentioned, variants from two more MSS (cf. above 2).

A which covers the text only up to p. 134.18 of our edition does notshow any of the specific features indicating that it was directly copied

35Compiled by Shridhar R. Bhandarkar, Bombay 1888, p.xxx. Note that the manuscriptsmentioned in G. BHLER'S Detailed Report ... (see fn.38) have been incorporated into this[Consolidated] Catalogue ...: see K.L. JANERT, An Annotated Bibliography of the Cataloguesof Indian Manuscripts, Part 1, Wiesbaden 1965, p.126 (no.269).

36R.C.Pandeya, op.cit., Introduction, p.xii.37In a personal communication by A. M. Ghatage (addressed to W.) dated August 28th, 1995.38

Viz. his Detailed Report of a Tour in Search of Sanskrit MSS. made in Kashmir, Rajputana,and Central India, Bombay and London 1877, p.XXIV(no.374).

39 For example, P has preserved the jihvmltya in the second line of folio No.2 verso. As fortypical misreadings of Sarada see Walter SLAJE, Sarada, Deskriptiv-synchrone Schriftkundezur Bearbeitung kaschmirischer Sanskrit-Manuskripte (Indische Handschriften Bd. I), Rein-bek 1993, pp.43ff.

40In fact what MURAKAMI says (op. cit., p.1020) is that it "is nearly the same as Pn", our P.

INTRODUCTION XIX

from a Sarada original. It thus clearly stands out from the rest of the material.But at not a few points it is faulty and, what is even more important, offersreadings which are clearly the result of an attempt at making the best, i.e. ameaningful text, of an original not really intelligible (for whatever reason).

In parts of the text common to A, K, P and D, A has a number of lacunaepeculiar to it as against the other three (at times they are even marked assuch (e.g. p. 113 n.14, p. 123 n.10, p. 133 n,4)), and this its independence leadsto positing the hyparchetype S. Note by the way that ^4's lacunae outnumberthose in K, P and D (see e.g. p.62 n.14, p.66 n.12, p.67 n.12) and that many arecases of aberratio oculi (see e.g. p.4 n.6, p.8 n.2, p.11 n.4, p.14 n.14, p.59 n.4,p.61 n.17) indeed all the others too are probably due to mechanical mistakes.

The relation between A and B cannot be determined because there is noportion of the text that is common to both covering as they do entirely differentAhnikas. As for the relation in which B stands to the other MSS, i.e.A', P andD, we should like to refer to MURAKAMI4 1 who has already stated that "on thewhole B agrees with Pn", our P, "and Kl", but adds that this holds of coursegood for D, too. All four MSS have two large lacunae in common (see p.265 n.land p.265 n.9), viz. practically the whole of the commentary on SK 60-63 andthat on SK 65 and 66. All of them have therefore at any rate at least one sourcein common, namely one in which the corresponding folios were already lost orillegible. It has, however, also to be noted that B has a number of significantlacunae peculiar or substantially peculiar to it, and significant as concerningnot merely individual words (see p.233 n.8 and p.234 n.12), but whole phrasesor sentences or a part of the mla (see p.259 n.17, p.264 n.18 and p.255 n.8),while in K and P only one such lacuna is found (see p.242 n.2). The first of thelacunae in B, the long quotation from Kdth.S. 11.3 (see pp.259-260), can hardlybe a mechanical mistake, whereas the second one (p.264 n.18) may simply bedue to the fact that at this point B is reproducing a source in which itself thislacuna was more extensive, already gone beyond the limits it has in the MSSK and P. These lacunae in B, i.e. the ones peculiar to it and the one it sharesonly in part with K and P, have led us to posit the hyparchetype e.

All our manuscripts have extensive lacunae in common;42 they havehence to be regarded as all going back to a common source, our (inwhich certain parts of the text, i.e. most probably on various consecutivefolios, were missing.) On the basis of these considerations the relation be-tween the MSS, on which the present edition is based, can be represented thus:

41 MURAKAMI, op. cit., p.1018.

42 See above p.XII.

XX YUKTIDIPIKA

4 T h e C o n s t i t u t e d T e x t a n d t h e T y p o g r a p h i c a lF e a t u r e s E m p l o y e d

In accordance with the methods of modern textual criticism43 we have followedthe so-called genetic principle44 in constituting the text of the Yuktidpik. Yetthis principle too cannot of course be applied just mechanically as if automat-ically yielding the correct results; in some cases, e.g. where only the sequenceof words of a phrase differs in one of the sources (cf.e.g. p.5 n.l , p.23 n.17), nodecision at all was possible; in other cases two alternative interpretations of theorigin of variant readings seemed equally possible; only in these latter cases dowe add in the critical apparatus the remark that a particular reading "is alsopossibly the original one". After repeated discussions we have arrived at theconclusion that the author of the Yuktidpik was most probably not consistentas regards his use of iti. Nevertheless we have at several places proposed orsuggested the addition of an iti, which, if it should not appear acceptable as aconjecture, will at least clarify how we understand the passage or sentence.

Our procedure was this: first we transliterated /f,45 comparing it carefully

43See e.g. Martin WEST, Textual Criticism and Editorial Technique appliable to Greek andLatin texts, Stuttgart 1973; or Texte und Varianten. Probleme ihrer Edition und Interpreta-tion. Hrsg. v. Gunter MARTENS und Hans ZELLER, Mnchen 1971; or G.Thomas TANSELLE,Textual Criticism and Scholarly Editing, Charlottesville-London 1990.

44 On which cf. Srinivasa Ayya SRINIVASAN, Vcaspatimisras Tattvakaumudt. Ein Beitrag zurTextkritik bei kontaminierter berlieferung (Alt-und Neu-Indische Studien 12), Hamburg1967, p.29ff.

45 It is for this reason that certain forms of internal sandhi as generally observed in Kashmirian

INTRODUCTION XXI

with D step by step, and then we collated the other MSS in order to finallyexamine the variant readings and to decide (whenever we deemed it necessarybecause of the genetic principle, or for reasons of the intelligibility, etc., of thetext) in favour of one of the variant readings, even if it happened to be foundonly in one of the MSS, or else to emend the text.46

The number of the Smkhyakrik to which a particular portion of theYuktidtpikd belongs as well as that of the Ahnika47 of which it forms part aregiven as running headlines on the pages to the right. The text of the corre-sponding Krik, or a part of it,48 are printed in capitals; pratkas, i.e. words ofa Krik repeated in the Yuktidtpikd for the sake of linguistic, grammatical orsemantic explanations, are given in italics. Words, or a number of consecutivewords explained in "The Marginal Notes ...", are marked off by a number withinround brackets ((1), (2), (3) etc.). Emendations are placed within angle brack-ets, sounds, syllables or words to be deleted within square brackets. Roundbrackets are used to add information which in our view is immediately useful tothe reader, viz. cross-references (page and line of our edition) and the name oftexts which are either quoted or referred to by the author of the Yuktidtpik, orin which a parallel to a quotation or reference in the Yuktidtpikd is found.In the case of references "cf." or "see"49 is added before the the name of the

MSS have been retained. Although in our case there was no reason whatsoever to becomesuspicious, it is perhaps advisable to remember what BHLER wrote, in his Detailed Report ...mentioned in fn.27, p.33, about the Kashmirian pandit's practice of 'cooking' MSS: "As theDevangarMSS. are mostly prepared for the market, they are also not unfrequently cooked,i.e. the lacunae and defects in the original are filled in according to the fancy of the Panditwho corrects them. This most objectionable habit prevails in Kasmr to a very great extent,perhaps to a greater extent than in India proper, though in India proper, too, the Pandithas little respect for the sacredness of the ancient texts. That sentiment is in Europe, too,of modern growth, and not much older than the historico-critical school of philology, whicharose in the end of the last century. In no part of India have I, however, been told of thepractice of restoring or 'cooking' Sanskrit books with so much simplicity as in Kasmr. I wasasked by my friends if the new copies to be made for me were to be made complete or not;and one Pandit confessed to me with contrition, after I had convinced him of the badness ofthe system, that formerly he himself had restored a large portion of the Vishnudharmottara."

46 A question mark after an emendation indicates that we are not certain a) whether it isnecessary at all or b) whether it is the correct one among various possibilities that came toour mind.

47The Yuktidpik as we have it now is divided into four prakaranas and (altogether) elevenhnikas (for details cf. Ram Chandra PANDEYA, Yuktidtpik..., p.xxiv). It is, at least at thepresent moment, difficult to say whether this division goes back to the author himself andwhether and, if so, to what extent it, too, shows the influence of Patanjali's Mahbhsya takenas model by the author (cf. p.XXIIf. and fn.50 and fn.55).

48If less than a quarter of an ry is quoted, an apostrophe is placed after the letter denotingthe ry quarter concerned.

49 We need hardly add that in certain cases it is very difficult indeed to take a decision betweenthese two alternative possibilities: what rather looks like a reference can be a (very) corrupt

XXII YUKTIDIPIKA

source.50 A wavy line indicates that we are not certain regarding the text asconstituted. Lacunae are marked by a number of dots.

By now it can certainly be regarded as an established fact that the Yuk-tidpik consists of a combination of a Vrttika and Bhsya, only that both areevidently written by one and the same author who wanted thus to follow themodel of Patanjali's Mahbhsya embodying the work of Ktyyana, and henceultimately to create a kind of counterpart, within the tradition of Smkhya, tothe works of the famous trimunis of Vyakarana, thus raising the Srnkhya-krikto the status of a Sutra.51

Nevertheless, it is a welcome confirmation, or in any case a noteworthyfact, that in "The Marginal Notes..." the keyword varttika is used four times,viz. in the note referring to p.19.6 (see p.l9,fn.(5)), to p.25.10 (see p.25,fn.(2)),to p.97.18 and to p.97.19 (see p.97,fn.(4),(5)). We have tried our very bestto identify vrttikas as such and to mark them off from the Bhsya text52 byprinting them in bold type; but there are cases, and quite a few at that, whereone wonders whether a particular phrase should in fact be regarded as a varttikaor not: the mere fact of the existence of a subsequent explanation written inthe Bhsya style is not sufficient proofjust as the particular nominal Vrttikastyle does not allow already by itself to draw the conclusion that what one hasto do with is a vrttika in the proper sense. Good examples for such difficulties

quotation, and what appears to be a quotation can be the result of a correction by a scribe,or, in general, a person involved in the transmission of the text.

50 Note that this information is not also included in the list of "Signs and Abbreviations"(p.XXX).

51 This has already been noted by our predecessors. It is highly probable that the author of theYuktidpik thereby wanted to enhance the status of Isvarakrsna's work and that in doing sohe did not have only Pnini, Ktyyana and Patafijali in mind, but felt also provoked, if thisis the right word, by the lack of an old, not versified Stra in the Smkhya tradition. The details of the reception of the Mahbhsya by the author of the Yuktidpik remainto be studied more closely; W. is preparing an article devoted to this problem.

52 This is not done in the MSS themselves. Note that in this regard the MSS of the YD do notdiffer from those of the Mahbhsya; for the remark of the editor of the Vyakarana Mahbhsyawith Kaiyata's Pradpa and Ngesa's Uddyota, Vol.IV, Bombay 1942, i.e. Pt. BhrgavasstrfJoshi Sstrcrya, in fn.l on p.248, viz. vararucikrtnm vrttiknrn sarvesm api kundalanbhsyakrdbhih kriyata ity abhiyuktnm abhipryah / atra ca [i.e. as regards the phrasesamndhikarana iti vaktavyam at MBhsya II 340.20f.] asmadupalabdhapustakesu prcnesvapi kundalander adarsann naite vrttike [the dual is due to the fact that the phrase crydanatvam ca, MBhsya II 340.5, was also regarded as a varttika by some Indian scholars] itinirnttam asmbhih / yai ca prctnatamesu pustakesu kundalandinimittam drstam, bhavettesm gaudnm vrttikatve 'bhinivea iti sudhiyo vicrayantu / / can hardly be taken totestify to the existence, entirely unknown so far, of MSS of the MBhsya in which the vrttikasare "encircled" or marked off in a similar graphic manner. The expression kundalan is,also in view of the logical subject bhsyakrdbhih, rather an attempt to render "paraphrase","circumscription" in Sanskrit, although MONIER-WILLIAMS lists, with reference to "Naish.1.14", the meaning "drawing a circle round a word which is to be left out in a MS".

INTRODUCTION XXIII

are perhaps the argument on the three_ kinds of inference (SK 5) (see pp.83-86) and the first paragraph of the 3rd Ahnika (see p.109). In many cases, the'normal' structure of an objection 'taken up',53 viz. "ABC (etc.) iti cen naVW (ablative)" which, of course, is also found several times, e.g. pp.5.19,14.12, 17.15, 20.15, 21.1,10 etc. is slightly varied in so far as instead ofna plus its paraphrase only naitad yuktam or a similar expression is met with.Taken together with similar observations this suggests that the author of theYuktidpik has not by any means been entirely consistent in distinguishingbetween the two levels of the text, viz. that of the Vrttika and that of theBhsya.54 At times one cannot but even consider it possible that he also madeuse of the device of formulating grahanakavkyas.55 But it is equally possiblethat, at least at some points, the text is a puzzle to us in this very regard becauseparts of a vrttika or a Bhdsya explanation have been left out by scribes, e.g.because they were similar to each other or regarded as redundant, etc.56

That is to say, our distinction between the Vrttika and the Bhdsya withinthe Yuktidpik is but a first attempt which inevitably has to some extent asubjective character. It can certainly be improved upon, but we doubt that itwill ever be possible to solve all the relevant problems, even if new MSS shouldbe 'unearthed'.

As for the critical apparatus, it has, of course, been our aim to alwaysgive reliable and precise information about the variant reading(s) so that thereader is able to form a clear idea which particular variant is found in the placeof precisely which element of the constituted text. We have decided to report

53In accordance with the dialectical strucure of Indian philosophical, or sstric, texts in general,and of the Yuktidpik, with its long prvapaksa sections, in particular, the reader is remindedof a particular objection, raised by an/the opponent and given earlier in extenso, by a briefrepetition of it introduced by e.g. yat tktam, etc. In the case of iti cet phrases the situation isslightly different in that the objection need not necessarily have been dealt with in a previouspart of the text and in that it may have the character of an objection self-posed, an anticipationof a theoretically possible objection and hence an element of objection self-raised.

54 In any case a remark of Medhtithi's is quite noteworthy in connection with the general question of the distinction between Vrttika and Bhsya, viz. istam hi vidusm lokesamsavysadhranam, found in his Bhsya on Manusmrti 1.1. The sentence is introducedby tad uktam and followed by an iti, and is in fact a quotation, viz. from MBh.(Poona) 11.49cd(cf.also MBh. I app. I 1 [41]). The expression samsavysadhrana, "keeping [something] inmemory both succinctly and in extenso11, has been misunderstood by J.A.B. VAN BUITENENwho renders it (The Mahbhrata I. The Book of the Beginning, Chicago-London 1973, p.22)by "(for the wise) wish to retain it for this world, in its parts and in its entirety" (ouremphasis).

55On which see Ernst WINDISCH, Ueber das Nyyabhshya, Leipzig 1888, and more recentlyJohannes BRONKHORST, Ngrjuna and the Naiydyikas, JlPh 13 (1985), pp.121-123.

56 F. KiELHORN was faced with similar problems in reconstructing Ktyyana's Vrttika; cf.Ktyyana and Patanjali: their relation to each other and to Pnini. Bombay 1876, p.27= Kleine Schriften mit einer Auswahl der epigraphischen Aufstze hrsg. von Wilhelm RAU,Wiesbaden 1969, p.27.

XXIV YUKTIDIPIKA

also evident scribal errors, but refrained from doing so in the case of sandhiphenomena and dandas. In the text itself we use first of all simple dandas more or less as full stops and, with hesitation, certain European punctuationmarks (hyphen, colon, comma, semi-colon, quotation marks). A question mark,in the text as constituted by us, means that we are not sure about the authenticreading; in the critical apparatus, however, that readings of the MSS concernedare not clear. Expressions like "add(s)", "insert (s)" in the apparatus are merelydescriptive, i.e. do not imply any judgement on the origin and nature, and hencevalue, of the reading(s) concerned.

5 " T h e M a r g i n a l N o t e s " ( T i p p a n T ) i n t h e K a s h -m i r a n d D e l h i M a n u s c r i p t s

It has already been stated above (1) that the discovery and edition of this scho-lion on the Yuktidpik, although it is by far not a running commentary, formsone of the major improvements we think we have achieved. The designation"Marginal Notes" is fully justified in that these explanatory remarks are indeedwritten in K on the margins (right, left, top or bottom) of the folios. Yet it hasto be noted that the first part of these notes, viz. Ks.2, is found a second time,viz. on separate leaves added before the very beginning of the text of the Yuk-tidpik itself, yet clearly written by a third hand.57 There can hardly be anydoubt that this is an attempt, incomplete, to extract all "The Marginal Notes"and to turn them into a consecutive commentary. Significantly, this attemptseems to have been undertaken by the Delhi copyist, i.e. the scribe who made Dby copying K, and that what he did was transcribed into Sarada most probablywhen K was returned to Srinagar.

Nothing is known about the person(s) to whom we owe these "MarginalNotes". That is to say, there is no clear evidence to decide even the questionwhether they were written by one or more than one author, not to mentionhis/their identity or date. The author, or one of the authors, however, wasremarkably familiar with Mahyna Buddhism, a fact that would suggest thathe/they may have lived before the extinction of Buddhism in Kashmir, i.e. inthe 14th century A.D. at the latest.58 At one point, viz. in the note referring top.43.12 (see p.43,fn.(4)), the author refers to the opinion of "others" (anye tu...ity huh) ; but that here he is referring to an older and now lost commentary, ofwhichever type, is just a possibility, and not by any means a certainty: he mayequally well have merely had in mind the opinion expressed orally by a 'col-league' of his as in the case where he introduces a particular interpretationby asmadguravas tu (note on p.104.5, see p.l04,fn.(2)). According to an infor-

57 The (implied) "second hand" refers to the person who is most probably not identical with thescribe of "The Marginal Notes" as such, but responsible for corrections made in them.

58Cf. Jean NAUDOU, Les bouddhistes kamiriens au moyen ge. Paris 1968, pp.210-206.

INTRODUCTION XXV

mation kindly given by A. SANDERSON,59 what is meant by "Abhinavagupta'sSmkhyanirnaya" referred to in the note on p.106.6,10 (see p.lO6,fn.(l)) is mostprobably not a yet unpublished or even unknown work of this name, but ratherthe section Tantrloka 13.3-41b. References to other MSS, or another MS, oranother "reading" are rather frequent (see p.23,fn.(3), p.25,fn.(4), p.54,fn.(6),p.95,fn.(2)andp.ll7,fn.(3)).

Regarding the typographical features employed in "The Marginal Notes..."it should be noted that the expression explained is given within brackets, evenif it is 'quoted' in the note itself (in which case it is underlined); at the end ofeach note, again within brackets, the references to K (folio number, a = recto,b = verso) and, if found there too, to D (folio number plus numbering of themarginal notes as given by the scribe) are added. Passage(s) 'quoted' from theYuktidpik, other than those directly annotated in a particular "Marginal Note",is/are given in italics. The use of question marks does not differ from that inthe main text, and its critical apparatus.

6 T i t l e o f t h e T e x t , A u t h o r s h i p a n d D a t e

The name " Yuktidpik" seems to be the correct one: it is not only the oneregularly given in the colophon at the end of each of the eleven Ahnikas, butalso confirmed by the second of the concluding verses (see p.270.15f.) as clearlyas one can wish.60 Some doubt, however, arises because in the sole two casesso far known of later authors referring to the Yuktidpik, the name used is"Rjavrttika": in his Nyyamanjar Jayantabhatta introduces a quotation byyat tu rj vykhytavn and rj is most convincingly explained by Cakradha-ra to be equivalent to rjavrttikakrah] similarly Vcaspatimisra ascribes inhis Samkhyatattvakaumud the verses he quotes from the very beginning of theYuktidpik (see p.2, nos.9-11) to the "Rjavrttika".61 Obviously what Jayantaand Vcaspatimisra or the person who coined the name "Rjavrttika" hadin mind was the specific, albeit by no means unique,62 feature of the Yuktidpik,viz. that its kernel is indeed formed by a Vrttika text. They seem to haveregarded this feature to be so significant as to name the text as a whole after it,though it does by no means consist of vrttikas only.63 But there are, of course,

59 Viz. in a personal communication of March 16th, 1992 (addressed to W.).

60As for its explanation cf. A. WEZLER, Some Observations on the Yuktidpika, in: ZDMG,Supplement II, Wiesbaden 1975, p.434 and fn.2.

61 Cf. A. WEZLER, op.cit., p.450f.

62Cf. J. BRONKHORST, Vrttika, WZKS 34 (1990), pp.123-146, as well as Karen LANG, Onryadeva's Citation of Nyya Texts in the *Sataka, in: WZKS 32 (1988), p.132.

63Cf. also J. BRONKHORST, op. c*.(fn.62), p.l40f.

XXVI YUKTIDIPIKA

other possibilities too to account for "Rajavarttika", ranging from an alternative,though to all appearances secondary, title, in the full sense of the word, to akind of a nickname created by and used e.g. among 'students'.

Yet, the prior member of the compound poses a problem, too; does"Rajavarttika" mean "the Vrttika of Raj an" or "of a/the king" or "the Vrttikathat is a king", i.e. the foremost of its class?64 We are afraid that even thefact that this title has been given also to other works65 does not help to solvethis particular problem. This has, of course, also to do with the fact that theidentity, and hence the name, of the author of the Yuktidipika alias Rajavarttikastill remain a riddle; unfortunately he is not like those authors of philosophicaltexts who did not hesitate to mention or should we say: attached quite someimportance to mentioning their own name in a verse at the beginning or theend of their work(s),66 although he refers to himself by a personal pronoun ofthe first person (see p.270.20) ;67 and unfortunately his name seems not to beknown to any later author, be he a philosopher or not. This last remark offersthe opportunity to state another rather strange, yet noteworthy fact, viz. thatknowledge of the Yuktidipika seems to have been confined to Kashmir and someparts of Northern India, at least as far as we can judge at the moment: theextraordinary significance this text has for the history of classical Srnkhya68 isapparently not reflected in corresponding reception and fame, in the centuriesafter its composition. Considerations like those just outlined, in the last twoparagraphs, will necessarily be made by anybody who muses on the designation"Rajavarttika". "The Marginal Notes ...", however, point in quite different a di-rection. For immediately upon the second of the two rambhaslokas whichare separated from each other by a gap of approximately 6 lines and before

64Cf. e.g. rjadanta, and Pan. 2.2.31. Cakradhara's explanation of raja by rjavrttikak-rah (Nyyamanjargranthibhanga, ed. by Nagin J. SHAH (L. D. Series 35), Ahmedabad 1972,p.59) is unfortunately rather ambiguous; further, Cakradhara does not seem to have himselfstill known the real name of the author.

65Besides Akalaiika's Tattvrthavrttika "which is also known by the name Rajavarttika" (J.BRONKHORST, Vrttika, op. cit., p.125) another Rajavarttika is referred to, or quoted, bySarvajnanryana on Manu 1.75.

66 W. is preparing a series of articles dealing with the "Probleme der Selbstnennung von indischenAutoren".

67Cf. the last of the concluding verses, p.270 of our edition. In passing only it should benoted that in P the Yuktidipika is ascribed to Vcaspatimisra and that this has, in its turn,led to MSS of the Smkhyatattvakaumud being catalogued under the title " Yuktidipika"''' (asdiscovered by W. when he was kindly allowed to copy the corresponding entry in the still unpublished volume of the New Catalogus Catalogorum and he later checked the references).It is difficult to say whether the wrong ascription in the colophon at the very end of P hasanything to do with Vacaspatimisra's quotation from the Yuktidipika or is simply causedby the scribe's having some knowledge of the fact that Vcaspatimisra is the author of anextensive, particularly well-known commentary on the Smkhya-Krik.

68Cf. also Eli FRANCO, Whatever happened to the Yuktidipika?, WZKS 35 (1995), pp.123-137.

INTRODUCTION XXVII

the commentary itself, these "Notes ..." read krh rajanagopalakasya (cf.belowp.l,fn.(l)); and this statement about the author of the work can hardly referto the two, or the last of the two preceding verses, or to the following Tippanproper: its very existence, in addition to the place where it is found, speakclearly against either assumption. What strongly suggests itself is hence thethird alternative, viz. that the reader is given information about the Yuktidpik information which one would expect to find at the end of the Yuktidpik,but which is conspicuously lacking in the colophons of all the extant MSS ,viz. that it is "the work of [a certain] Goplaka Rjna". In any case this isa particularly interesting, nay exciting piece of evidence, revealing as it doesthat there is yet another possibility of interpreting "Raja0" of "Rjavrttika":the prior member could be just a synonym of rjna, regarding which M. A.STEIN says among other things69 that "originally a title", it "must have becomea family designation at an early date", in Kashmir and Kangra, similar to therelated expression rjnaka70 : A work of the class called Vrttika and writtenby the member of the family, or clan, of the Rjnas, or by a person bearingthe title "almost a king" (rjnaka), could aptly be referred to by the name "theVrttika of Rj an".

As for its date the discussion of which is now avasaraprpta, thedecisive evidence is the following: the author of the Yuktidpik quotes Dig-nga's Pramnasamuccaya71 several times (see p.5.11, p.75.5-6, and p.86.20);NAKADA'S72 thesis that he refers also to Dharmakrti has been rejected bySTEINKELLNER,73 and on good grounds too. This suggests that the Yuktidpikwas written after Dignga and before the works of Dharmakrti had becomewidely known, or could not any longer be ingored. If we start from the dates ofthese two Buddhist philosophers as proposed by FRAUWALLNER,74 i.e. 480-540A.D. (Dignga) and 600-660 A.D. (Dharmakrti), it is possible to assign theYuktidpik to a period between the end of 7th century and the beginning of

69Kalhana's Rajatarangin ... Translated by M. A. STEIN, Vol. II. Westminster 1900, p.61 (noteon VIII, 756).

70On which see also op. cit. Vol.1, p.244 (note on VI, 117).71

The identification of those from the apohavda section of the Pramnasamuccaya, viz. onp.75.5-6 (among others), we owe to Ole Holten PIND.

72Viz. in his article Word and Inference in the Yuktidpik Part I, Naritasan Bukky KenkyjoKiy 12 (1991), pp.47-74.

73Cf. his article Dharmakrti on the Inference of Effect (krya), in Papers in Honour of Prof.Dr. Ji Xianlin on the Occasion of His 80th Birthday, Beijing 1991, pp.711-736.

74Reference is, of cource, to his famous article Landmarks in the History of Indian Logic,WZKSO 5 (1961), pp.l25-148= Kleine Schriften, hrsg. v. Gerhard OBERHAMMER U. ErnstSTEINKELLNER, Wiesbaden 1982, pp.847-870.

XXVIII YUKTIDIPIKA

the 8th century. This date, i.e. ca.680-720 A.D., fully agrees with the fact not observed by PANDEYA among others that the Yuktidipik also quotesa passage from the famous Ksikvrtti, viz. at the beginning of its commen-tary on Smkhyakrik 1 (see p. 11.10-11); since no parallel to this quotation isfound in the Cndravykarana and the wording in the Mahvrtti on the Jainen-dravykarana is clearly different,75 there can hardly be any doubt that whatis quoted at this point is in fact the Ksik which in its turn can be datedwith a high degree of certitude76 to 680-700 A.D. It should, however, be notedthat 680-720 A.D. is but the lower limit, though one will certainly hesitate tothink of an upper limit which is removed too far from Dharmakrti. We dorealize that this conclusion about the date of the Yuktidtpika is rather puzzlingbecause most of those who have read this text or part of it will have gatheredthe impression that it is ca. 100 years younger. The quotation from the Ksikcannot, however, be simply done away with by assuming that it is but a lateraddition to the text: it forms an essential part of the paraphrase of a vrttika which is in its turn confirmed by a subsequent passage. It is, hence, necessaryto reckon seriously with the possibility that the author, inspite of his dates, didnot know the works of Dharmakrti, for whatever reason, but was aware of theworks of Kumrila as cautiously assumed by Halbfass.77

7 A c k n o w l e d g m e n t s

First of all our sincere thanks are due to the libraries, and the authorities incharge of them, for giving us permission to microfilm the MSS of the Yuktidtpikain their possession and to use them for our edition, viz.

the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poonathe Lalbhai Dalpatbhai Indological Institute, Ahmedabadthe University of Kashmir, Srinagarthe National Archives, New Delhi, andthe Library of the Benares Hindu University, Varanasi.

Next we should like to thank our colleagues and friends LambertSchmithausen and Karin Preisendanz who allowed us to use their own copiesof Pandeya's edition with their own corrections, notes and annotations, andSrinivasa Ayya Srinivasan for correcting our English and making many valuable

75 As was kindly pointed out to us by Thomas OBERLIES.

76Cf. most recently, Th. OBERLIES, Das zeitliche und ideengeschichtliche Verhltnis derCndra-vrtti zu anderen V(ai)ykaranas (Studien zum Cndravykarana III), in: FestschriftPaul Thieme zum 90. Geburtstag am 18. Mrz 1995 dargebracht von Schlern und Kollegen,hrg. von H.-P.Schmidt und A. Wezler. ... Stil 20 (1995), pp.265-317.

77Cf. W. HALBFASS, Tradition and Reflection, Explorations in Indian Thought, Albany 1991,p.94.

INTRODUCTION XXIX

suggestions. Not a small number of friends and colleagues have most kindlyrendered us assistance, for the most part with regard to particular passages ofthe text. These are Koki Aruga, Ram Shankar Bhattacharya, Klaus Bruhn,Gerhard Ehlers, Felix Erb, Sieglinde Dietz, A.M. Ghatage, Jan E.M Houben,Harunaga Isaacson, Ashok Kapoor, Narayan Manila! Kansara, Masaaki Hattori,Minoru Hara, Yasushi Matsuoka, Rebecca Ann Marck, Hisayoshi Miyamoto,Shinkan Murakami, Naomichi Nakada, Yoshihito Muroji, Toru Tomabechi,Izumi Miyazaki, Bun'ei Otokawa, Thomas Oberlies, Rewati Raman Pandey,Ole Holten Pind, Alexander von Rospatt, Alexis Sanderson, Walter Slaje, ErnstSteinkellner, Esther Solomon, Kamalesh Datta Tripathi, and Michael Witzel.To all of them we should like to express our thanks.

Last but not least we are most grateful to the "German Research Council"("Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft") which made this publication possible bya subsidy, and to Gregor Hoppen of Franz Steiner Verlag Stuttgart who tookexcellent care of its production.

Autumn 1997Albrecht Wezler and Shujun Motegi

S i g n s a n d A b b r e v i a t i o n s

1 S i g n s

1.1 M a i n T e x t< > addition< > with footnote correction[ ] deletionwavy line reading uncertainletters in bold face vrttika deduced by usitalics word(s) of the Smkhyakrik commented on in the Yuk-

tidpik

1.2 M a r g i n a l N o t e s of t h e K a s h m i r a n d D e l h iM a n u s c r i p t s

< > with note correctionwavy line reading uncertainunderlining pratka commented on( ) mla element commented onitalics word(s) quoted from the mlai.n. notes written between the lines of the Kashmir Manuscripts.m. secunda manus, corrected reading in the Delhi Manuscript

2 A b b r e v i a t i o n s

A Manuscript of the Yuktidpik, deposited at the Llbh DalpatbhaIndological Institute (Ahmedabad)

AV(S) Saunakya Atharvaveda SamhitAK AbhidharmakosaAKBh AbhidharmakosabhsyaAKV AbhidharmakosavykhyALB Adyar Library Bulletin, MadrasIs U Isa UpanisadAi.Br AitareyabrhmanaK Manuscript of the Yuktidpik, which begins after the upodgh-

tah(p.8.16), deposited at the Kashmir UniversityKath.U Katha UpanisadKth.S Kthaka Yajurveda SamhitKai.U Kaivalya UpanisadKP Manuscript of the Yuktidpik which covers the upodghtah(p.8.16),

deposited at the Kashmir UniversityKs Fragmentary sheets inserted in KGdhS Gautamadharmastra

SIGNS AND ABBREVIATIONS XXXI

ChChnd.UJIBSJlPhTai.BrTai.STai.UTVTSPTSVD

Derge

DkhaDNCMath.Mait.UNirNBhNBhNMNVNVTTNSP

PanPekingPr.UPSPSVB

Brh.UMVManu SMBhsyaMBh 'MSMund.UYBh'YVYSRVVj.Sam

Yuktidipika, editio princeps by P.ChakravartiChndogya UpanisadJournal of Indian and Buddhist Studies, TokyoJournal of Indian Philosophy, DordrechtTaittiryabrhmanaTaittiryasarnhitTaittirya UpanisadTattvavaisradTatt vasamgrahapanj ikTattvasamsastravrtti, included in the Smkhya-SangrahaManuscript of the Yuktidipika, deposited at the National Archives,New DelhisDe-dge edition of Tibetan Tripitaka, kept in the Tokyo University,Tsad Ma 1, (Ce)Manuscript of the Yuktidipika, referred to in D as kha pustakaDvdasra NayacakraMtharavrttiMaitryanya UpanisadNiruktaNyyabhsyaNyyabhsanaNyyamanjarNyyavrttikaNyyavrttikattparyatkNyyastraManuscript of the Yuktidipika, deposited at the Bhandarkar OrientalResearch Institute, PoonaAstdhyy of PniniPeking edition of the Tibetan Tripitaka, mDo 'Grel Ce(95) (vol.130)Prngnihotra UpanisadPramnasamuccayaPramnasamuccayavrttiManuscript of the Yuktidipika, deposited at the Benares Hindu Uni-versityBrhadranyaka UpanisadMadhyamakavrttiManusmrtiMahbhsyaMahbhrataMmrnsstraMundaka UpanisadYogabhsyaYogavrttikaYogastraRgvedasarnhitVjasaneyi-Samhit

XXXII YUKTIDIPIKA

Var Varttika of KatyayanaVims Vijnaptimtratasiddhi VirnsatikVP VkyapadyaVyo VyomavatVS VaisesikasutraVSC Candrananda's commentary on the VaisesikasutraSPBr SatapathabrhmanaSBh abarabhsyaSV SlokavrttikaSvet.U Svetsvatara UpanisadSK SmkhyakrikSV(I) Smkhyavrtti(I)SDS SarvadarsanasangrahaSTK Smkhya-TattvakaumudWZKS Wiener Zeitschrift fr die Kunde Sdasiens, WienWZKSO Wiener Zeitschrift fr die Kunde Sd- und Ost-Asiens, WienZDMG Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlndischen Gesellschaft

FACSIMILE OF MANUSCRIPTS XXXIII

u ^ . r t ^ ' ^ ^ S B T O

Ms. K, folio 10 (see pp.35.13-38.14 of the edition)

XXXIV YUKTIDIPIKA

Ms. D, p.35 (see pp.35.1-36.2 of the edition)

FACSIMILE OF MANUSCRIPTS XXXV

i r a f l ^

B j ^ ^ i ^ f r j i t ; ! ! : ; ;

Ms. D, p.36 (see p.36.2-18 of the edition)

XXXVI YUKTIDPIK

Ms. D, p.37 (see pp.36.18-38.1 of the edition)

FACSIMILE OF MANUSCRIPTS XXXVII

P | l W | ^ W * W f f

Ms. B, folio 1 (see pp.224.11-226.20 of the edition)

P r a t h a m a m A h n i k a m

svasty astu / om namah sivaya^1)/ om

[vitavitavisanasya paksatavanasevinah2 /pravdh smkhyakarinah sallakisandabharigurh3 / / ]rsaye paramyrkamaricisamatejase4 / 5samsragahanadhvntasryya gurave namah^2) / l /tattvam jijnsamnya viprysuraye munih /yad uvca mahat tantram duhkhatrayanivrttaye / 2 /

na tasydhigamah sakyah5 kartum varsasatair api /

bhyastvd iti samcintya munibhih sksmabuddhibhih / 3 / 10

granthenlpena samksipya tad rsam anussanam /

JKP. svasty astu om namah sivya // omA. om namah kamaladalavipulanayanbhirmya nryanya // sriganesya namah //P. om Sriganesya namah om namah sivya / omD. 0771 srismbasadsivya namah / atha / yuktidipikbhidhn smkhyasaptatipaddhatih

2A. nntvanasevinah D tvanasevinah3This sloka is numbered No.l in A. D. writes this sloka with smaller letters and starts num-bering at the next sloka.

4A. paramryrka0 recte: paramrth0 (?)5A. sakyh

Marginal Notes of Kashmir Mss seems to have a kind of arambhaslokas which are written,though not clearly, on the first folio of K., but are not found in D.

pancavirnsatitattvesu janman jrinam ptavn /ya disrstau(?) namas tasmai kapilya m ah at mane / /

bhyah pro_ttapakss(?) cyutabahulasilh ksobhayanty adrayas cedutplutyoccaih saklau pad asu(?) dandahrte 'gnih /

dedhlyante 'thavntar miladalaghujalasaptak (?)svasthnj jtucin me pracalati na mano vlradhlram tathpi / /

krtl rjnagopalakasya' ' (namah) namaskro nma vgindriyasya tatkarmodlranapravanasabdaprabandhanirvartaka-

kriysratvam* antahkaranasya ca tadvisayam eva samkalpbhimndhyavasyactur-yam dehasya ca tathvidhasamastakaranavrttiprvakah pranamanarpaprnavrttisvabhvascestvisesa ucyate //(KP.6b, not found in D.)

* K. sdharatvam

YUKTIDIPIKA

nibaddham amalaprajnaih sisyanam hitakamyaya / 4 /pratipaksh punas tasya purusesnuvdinah1 /vainsikh prkrtik vikrapuruss2 tath / 5 /tesm icchvightrtham cryaih sksmabuddhibhih /

5 racith svesu tantresu visams tarkagahvarh / 6 /[vltvitavisnasya paksatvanasevinah /pravdh smkhyakarinah sallakisandabhangurh / / ] 3sisyair duravaghs4 te tattvrthabhrntabuddhibhih5 /tasmd Isvarakrsnena samksiptrtham idam krtam / 7 /

10 saptatykhyam prakaranam sakalam sstram eva v /yasmt sarvapadrthnm iha vykhy karisyate / 8 /pradhnastitvam ekatvam arthavattvam athnyat /prrthyam ca tathnaikyam viyogo yoga eva ca / 9 /

(see e.g.STK on SK72)15 sesavrttir akartrtvam clikrthh^1) smrt dasa /

viparyayah pancavidhas tathokt nava tustayah6 / 10 /(see e.g.STK on SK72)

karannm7 asmarthyam astvimsatidh matam /iti sastih padrthnm astbhih saha siddhibhih / l l /

20 (see e.g.STK on SK72)yathkramam laksanatah krtsnyenehbhidhasyate /

XA. purusesnuvdinah2A. vikrh puruss3This loka is not repeated here in A.4 P. duravaghys

5D. tattvrthabhrntrabuddhibhih, s.m. tattvrthabhrntabuddhibhih6P. tusta rthh smrtrthasah viparyayah pancavidhas tatho yah7A. karannm

(^ (culikarthah) pradhnastitvam ityadayo 'rthh pradhnyena culatvenanyasastravaiviktye cih-nataymrdhbhisiktatvenacehopadisyante/ te cliksadrsatvc clikrthukth / / (KP.la,D.2 without number)(clikrthh) pradhnastitvam ityder agramatah(?) / asti pradhnam, tac caikarpamtac ca bhogyatvn mahaddisvakryakartrtvc cnyrtham(?) / tadvyatiriktam csti bhok-trtattvam / tadartham eva ca bhogyam na svrtham / tac ca bhoktrtattvam bahupra-kram / bhogyasya bhoktram prati caritrthatvena tadasvmikatvam viyogah / acaritrtha-tvena tatsvmikatvam yogah / prakrtipurusaviveky api tadavivekasamskrt kimcit klamsade* evstv iti sesavrttih / saptavidhasya ca vaksyamnasya kartrtvasybhvd akartpurusa ity ete 'rthh / pradhnyena cltvennyastravaiviktyacihnatay mrdhbhisakta-tvena ceha vyapadigyante / tena cliksadrsrthatvc clikrth ity ukth / / (K.Oa, not foundin D.)*K. sadesa(!)

PRATHAMAM AHNIKAM INTRODUCTION 3

tasmd atah sstram idam alam nntvasiddhaye /12 /alpagrantham analprtham sarvais tantragunair yutam /pramarsasya tantrasya bimbam darsagam1 yath / 1 3 /tasya vykhym karisymi yathnyyopapattaye /krunyd apy ayuktm tm pratinandantu2 srayah /14/ 5

ha: karisyati bhavn3 vykhym / i d a m tv dv upanyastam sarvaistantragunair yutam idam tantram iti / ke tantragunh kiyanto veti /

ucyate:

strapramnvayavopapattir anynat sarnsayanirnayoktih / 10uddesanirdesam anukramas ca samjnopadesv iti4 tantrasampat / /

strni ca pramnni cvayavs ca strapramnvayavh / tesmupapattih strapramnvayavopapattih / upapattih sambhava ity anarthnta-ram / ananyo 'rtho 'narthntaram5/ upapattisabdah pratyekam parisampyatestropapattir itydi / 15

ha^1)6 laksanopetastropapattir7 iti vaktavyam / itarath hy alaksa-nopetasypi strasya tantrngabhvah syd iti /

ucyate: na nntarlyakatvt / na hy ant arena laksanopetatvam stra-tvam / ato na vaktavyam et ad iti /

ha: atha stram iti kasmt / 20ucyate: scant stram / scayati tms tn arthavisesn iti stram /

tadyath "kranam asty avyaktam"(SK16a) "bhednm parimnt"(SK15a)iti / atra pratijnhet kanthoktau / tayor upayogi drstntam sdhyasiddhayesamartham iti krtv mlasakalda8 'trntar anabhihit apy etasmd avasi-ynte / athav bhiksor upasamhrtabahiskaranntahkaranasya9 tesu tesv atind- 25riyesv api pradhndisv arthesu buddhim scayatiti stram / athav "sauksmyttadanupapattih" (cf.SK8a) iti10 stram / tadyath

alpksaram asandigdam sravad visvatomukham /astobham anavadyam ca stram stravido viduh / /

(see e.g.NVTT.on NS.1.1.2) 301D. darsanam, s.m. darsagam2KP., P. and D.: pratigrhnantu3A. bhagavn4A. iha5A. arthntaram / anyo 'rtho 'rthntaram6A. omits ha.7P. laksanopetas tatropattir8KP., P. and D.: mlasakaldaya A. mlasakalday We follow Chakravarti.9A. upasamhrtabahiskaranasya

10A.papattis ceti

praSnah / / (KP.lb, D.3 with a figurative mark like oo)

YUKTIDIPIKA

astobham apunaruktam ity arthah / tatha

laghni scitrthni svalpksarapadni ca /sarvatah srabhtni strny hur manisinah / /

(see e.g.NVTT. on NS. 1.1.2)5 pramnni ca pratyaksdmi tny uttaratra vaksyati "drstam anumnam pta-

vacanam ca"(SK4ab') "prativisaydhyavasyo drstam" (SK5ab') itydi1/ ava-yavh2 punar jijnsdayah pratijndayas ca / tatra jijnsdayo vykhyngampratijndayah parapratyyanngam / tn^1) uttaratra vaksymah(89.16f.) /

ha: avayavnabhidhnam anupadest / na hi yath pratyaksdlni10 pramnny upadistni tathvayav upadisth / tasmd avayavopapattir ity

et ad asat / bhsyakraprmnyd adosa iti cet / syn matam / yadyapi strakrenvayavopadeso na krtas tathpi bhsyakrh kecid esm sangra-ham cakrus te ca nah pramnam / tasmd yuktam avayavopapattir iti / etaccyuktam3 / kasmt / utstratvt / na hi utstram vycaksnh bhsya-

15 krh pramnam bhavanti(cf.MBhsya.I.12.27) / tath caitad utstritam iti /ucyate: na lingt / naitad yuktam4 anupadesn na santi jijnsdayah /

kirn tarhi / anupadistam apy esm astitvam lingt pratipadymahe5 yad ayam6cryah

duhkhatraybhightj jijiis tadapaghtake hetau /(SKlab)20 iti jijfisanam7 caste / "kranam asty avyaktam"(SK16a) iti pratijnm karoti /

"bhednm parimnt"(SK15a) iti hetum vyapadisati8/ "natavad9 vyavatisthateUngarn" (SK42d) iti drstntam dyotayati / "ksirasya yath tath10 pravrttihpradhnasya" (SK57b'd) ity upasamharati / "tasmt trividham karanam11 dv-ri"(SK35cd') iti nigamayati / na cnabhipretair crynm sstre vyavahro

25 laksyate / tena12 vayam lingt pratipadymahe santi13 jijnsdayo 'vayavhsstra14 iti /

XA. iti2A. avayavdayah3A. csatyam4KP. ne..ktam D. nettham P. not clear.5A. pratisidhymahe6A. yam instead of yad ayam7A. jijnsprayojanam8A. upadisati9A. na tvad

10 A. omits tath.

11A. kranam12A. te13A. sati14

A. omits sstra iti // ha ... jijnsdayo 'vayavh.

tan iti / avayavpeksaya pumlingena nirdesah krtah / / (KP.2a, D.4 with a figurativemark)

PRATHAMAM AHNIKAM INTRODUCTION

aha: sat am anupadese prayojanavacanam / evam cen manyase santijijnsdayo 'vayavh sstre tesm anupadese prayojanam vaktavyam1 amusmddhetor cryena nopadisyante2 santi ca ta iti /

ucyate: pramnntarbhvt / pramnesv antarbhva esm ity ayam3upadisto hetur asmbhih / anumnngam hi jijnsdayah / tasmt tadantar- 5bhtas ta iti na prthag upadisyante / kirn ca tantrntarokteh / tantrntaresu4hi vindhyavsiprabhrtibhir5 cryair upadisth / pramnam ca6 nas ta cryity atas cnupadeso jijnsdlnm iti /

ha: na pramnnupadesaprasangt / yadi7 ca tantrntaropadesdeva avayavnm anupadesah pratyaksdlny api ca tantrntarespadisyante / 10"srotrdivrttih pratyaksam" (cf.e.g.PS.:Peking.Ce.3bl, Derge.Ce.3a3; NV. andNVTT.onNS.1.1.4) / "sambandhd ekasmt sesasiddhir anumnam" (see e.g.NV.onNS.1.1.5) / "y yatrbhiyuktah karmani cdustah sa tatrptas tasyopa-desa ptavacanam" (cf.SV(I). on SK4) iti tesm apy8 anupadesaprasahgah /atha sati t antrnt aropadese pramnny upadisyante nvayav iti nanv9 et ad 15icchmtram iti /

ucyate: prva10 eva tarhi parihro 'stu / athav punar astu tantrn-tarokter ity ayam api11 parihrah / yat12 tktam13(5.9) pramnnupadesa-prasahga ity atra brmah: ayuk tam etat / kasmt / prayojanavatmupadesasydosatvt / anupadeso hi prayojanavatas14 codyata iti yuktam 20etat / upadesa15 eva tu sadosa iti krtv kah pratycaksita / tasmn na kimcidetat / kirn cnyat / pradhnopadese gunabhtntarbhvasiddheh / tad-yath taksnuhi caitra ity ukte yvadbhih sdhanavisesair16 vin taksanamnopapadyate sarvms tms caitra updatte / tath pratyaksdisu pram-nespadistesu yair esm avinbhvah sarvni tny updsymahe17 / kirn 25cnyat / anyatrpi tadanusthnt / na kevalam ihnyatrpy ayam cryahpradhnnm evopadesam karoti / tadangabhts tu tadupadesd eva prati-yante / tadyath "kranam asty avyaktam"(SK16a) "bhednm parimnt"(SKI5a) iti1 8/ itarath hi drstntbhvd asdhanam etat syt / pasyati tv

~ cryo ndrstntam sdhanam sdhyam pnotiti krtv prtipdakh19 pratip- 30*A. vaktavyam prayojanam2A. cryenopadiSyante3A. antarbhva ity esm avyam(sic)4A. tantrntare5A. vindhyavsa06KP., P. and D. omit ca. A. pramna ca7D. itiA. omits apy.P. na tv D. na tv, s.m. nanvA. prvam

11A. astu12D. tad, s.m. yad13A. yad uktam for yat tktam14A. prayojanatas15A. upadesam

D. sdhanasesair, s.m. sdhanavisesairA. updhsymahe

18 A. omits iti.

19A. prtipdikh

YUKTIDIPIKA

danakale1 tantrantaropadistan api mulasakaladin aksepsyantiti / kim canyat /anumne bhtavad upadest / atas caitad evam yad ayam cryah "tri-vidham anumnam khytam" (SK5b') iti braviti / katham krtv jnpakam /khytasya hi pratymnye bhtavcin sabdenopadeso bhavati na cnena2

5 prvam trividham anumnam khytam / khytam eveti3 cen na / tad khytam4 kvacid iti sakyam pratipdayitum / so 'yam ankhyypi yadbhtavcinam sabdam updatte5 tajjiipayaty cryas tantrntaraklptnmapiha sanniveso 'nglkriyate / kim etasya jnpane prayojanam6 / tantrntaropadisto7 'pi karmayonmm prnabheddinm ca laksanopadesah sangrhito8

10 bhavatiti siddham tantrntaropadesd avayavnupadesah / tasmt sktamL evvayavopapattir9 iti /

anynat(3.10) / padrthakrtsnyam asesatnynatety abhidhiyate / pad-rths ca dasa clikrthh pancsat pratyayh / tatrstitvam10 ekatvam pafi-cabhir vitaih siddham / arthavattvam kryakranabhvah / prrthyam sam-

15 hatyakrinm11 parrthatvt12(cf.SK17a) / ata evnyatvam cetansakter guna-trayt /"janmamaranakarannm13"(SK18a) ity evamdibhih purusabahutvam(cf.SK18a) / "purusasya darsanrthah"(SK21a) iti samyogah / "prpte sarira-bhede14"(SK68a) iti viyogah / "samyagjnndhigamt;>(SK67a) iti sesavrttih /"tasmc ca viparyst"(SK19a) iti purusasykartrtvam ity ete dasa clik^r-

20 thh / S

panca viparyayabhed bhavanty asaktis ca karanavaikalyt /astvimsatibhed tustir navadhstadh siddhih //(SK47)

iti pancsat pratyayh / sais sastih padrthnm / tadupapattir15 anynat /samsayanirnayoktih(3.10) / samsayas ca nirnayas ca16 samsayanirnayau

25 tayor uktih samsayanirnayoktih / smnybhidhnam samsayah / tadyath

mahaddi tac17 ca kryam prakrtivirpam sarpam ca / (SK8cd)ity ukte samsayo bhavati kena dharmena kryam prakrtivirpam kena v sar-pam it i1 8 / visesbhidhnam nirnayah / sa ca dvividhah, sabdato 'rthatas ca /

1P. pratipdankle2D. ca anyena3A. khytam deti4D. tathkhytm instead of tad khytam5A. updhatte6A. prayojanam nma7KR, P. and D.: tantrntaroddisto8A. omits sangrhito .... tantrntaropadesd avayavnupadesah.9KP., P. and D.: avayavopapattir

10A. tatrsristatvam(l)11P. samyatyakrinm12

A. padrthatvt13

A. krannm14

A. sarirabheda15A. tadupattir16A. ca tau17P. tas18

A. sarpam ceti

^ PRATHAMAM AHNIKAM INTRODUCTION 7

sabdatas tvad yath hetumaddibhih1(cf.SK10) kryam prakrtivirpam trai-gunydibhih prakrtisarpam iti / arthatas tadyath "tebhyo bhtni pancapancabhyah, ete smrt visesh" (SK38bc) / kirn kranam / yasmt "snt ghorsca2 mdhs ca"(SK38d) / asntaghoramdhatvt "tanmtrny3 avisesh"(SK38a) / 5

uddesanirdesam (3.11) / uddesas ca nirdesas coddesanirdesam / "sarvo dvan-dvo vibhsayaikavad bhavati"(cf.MBhsya.1.476.1) iti dvandvaikavadbhvah /samksepavacanam uddesah / tadyath

esa pratyayasargo4 viparyaysaktitustisiddhykhyah / (SK46ab)vistaravacanam nirdesah / tadyath "paiica viparyayabhed bhavanti" (SK47 10ab') "bhedas tamaso 'stavidhah" (SK48a) itydih5 /

anukramas ca(3.11) / padrthnm nuprvy sannivesopadeso ?nukra-mah / tadyath

prakrter mahrps tato 'hamkras tasmd ganas ca sodasakah / (SK22ab)ity anena / 15

samjnopadesau(3.11) / samjnipratyyanrthah6 sabdah samjii (cf.MBh-sya.1.38.20) / s ca dvividh / arthanibandhan svarpanibandhan ca /tatrrthanibandhanrthavasenrthakriypeks / j tydyarthasvarpntarbh-vi7 yathrthas tathbhtam eva samjiiinam8 pratyyayati / tadyath "pcakolvakah"(cf.SBh.onMS.1.1.5) iti / svarpanibandhan punah samjnipratyya- 20nopyamtram svarpamtropakrini9 vinvayavrtham samayavasd10 ata-thbhtam api samjiiinam pratyyayati / tadyath gajakarno 'svakarna iti /prayatnato bhagavatah paramarser rsena jnnena sarvatattvnm svarpamupalabhya samjnm vidadhato11 nsti svarpanibandhanah sabdah / tadyathpradhiyante 'tra vikr iti pradhnam / "puri sete" (cf.e.g.Gop.Br.l.l.39) iti 25purusa itydi / tanmatnusrinm apy crynm tbhir eva samvyavahrnnsty aprvasamjnvidhnam praty darah /

upadesah (3.11) / itikartavyatphalasamkhynam12 upadesah / tadyathevam tattvbhysn nsmi na me nham ity aparisesam /aviparyayd13 visuddham kevalarri utpadyate jfinam / / (SK64) 30

1A. hetuh padadibhihA. omits ca.

3A. mdhatvn mtrny4A. omits sargo.5A. itydibhih6A. pratyayanrthah7t>.ntarbhve8D. samjninahA. samjnipratyayopyamtrasvarpa0

10D. samjnivaSd11A. vivadato2A. samdhynam13 A - -1A. aviparyasad

YUKTIDIPIKA

ete sutropapattyadayas tantragunah /itikaranam (3.11) prakrrtham / evamprakr anye 'pi drastavyh /

tadyathotsargo 'pavdo 'tidesa1 itydi / tatrotsargah "prakrtivirpam"(SK8d')vyaktam "sarpam ca"(SK8d') ity apavdah / tath2 "tadvipantah"(SKlld')

5 ity utsargah / "tath ca pumn"(SKlld') ity apavdah / "smnyam aceta-nam prasavadharmi vyaktam tath pradhnam"(SKllbc) ity atidesah / ityevam any api tantrayuktayah saky iha pradarsayitum / atiprasahgas tuprakrtam tirodadhtiti3 nivartyate / siddham tantrayuktinm sambandhopapa-ttes tantram idam iti4 /

10 kim ca tantrntaravirodht5/ yadi khalv apidam6 prakaranam syttantrntare7 ptanjalapancdhikaranavrsaganaprabhrtlnm anyatama-sya sesabhtam syt tais csya irodhas8 tatra tatreti vaksymah / pr-vatantrasesabhvd iti cet tulyam / etny api prvatantrasesabhtnitesm api prakaranatvaprasahgah / atha matam sakalapadrthasangraht

15 tantrntarny etni / evam ihpi sakalapadrthasarigraht t