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 . inyas 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 manuscripts 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 identied manuscript from the Sarasvat bhavana 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 . inyas 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 Scientic Research (NWO). I would like to thank Arlo Griths and Harunaga Isaacson for their comments upon an earlier version of this paper. 1 Cf. Sastris 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 rst 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 rst brought to my attention by Dominic Goodall. Dr S.A.S. Sarma (EFEO, Pondicherry) kindly provided me with a copy of this manuscript.

dierent from that given in Kaun as .d . inyas Bh . ya, makes good sense. A striking dierence with Kaun d inyas text of the S u tra concerns the ve Brahma.. mantras which conclude each of the ve Adhy ayas into which the S utra and Bh as . ya are divided. On the whole it is conspicuous that Kaun .d . inyas version of the Brahma-mantras shows more metrical features,3 while the S utrap at . has version tends to be closer to the version of these Mantras in Taittir y 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 reect 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 ve 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 rst 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 . inyas 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: 225227)? The Balinese version of these ve Brahma-mantras is closer to Kaun .d . inyas version in several respects: cf. the annotation on 1.34 and 2.14 below. 4 Cf., however, also 5.11, which suggests a dierent 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 Sastris: 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.

B Benares, Sarasvat Bhavana Library, MS 86112. Paper, Devan agar script. Folios 176; complete; double sided; 811 lines a page.7 C Calcutta, Asiatic Society, MS IM-5474. Paper, Devan agar script. 13 folios; incomplete; double sided; 1215 lines a page. Comes with four folios from an unidentied Alam ara s astra work.8 . k K S utra as quoted by Kaun as .d . inya in the Bh . ya. T Trivandrum, University of Kerala Library, MS 2018. Paper, Devan agar script.9 Folios 187 (nos. 1, 813, 27, 28 missing); double-sided; 910 lines a page. The text for the missing folios 1 and 813 is preserved on folios numbered 111 in a dierent hand and written on more recent paper. This may be the handwriting of the editor of the Pa nc arthabh as . ya, who copied this part of the MS from the Calcutta MS (cf. n. 1 above). Alternatively someone else may have copied it for Sastri from the Calcutta MS. 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. A few common variants are: 1) m utra; 2) absence of avagraha ; . for m at the end of a S 3) doubling of t after a preceding r. The above variants are shared by all three MSS, which may indicate their close relationship. B starts with sr gan s aya namah sr mah agan . e . , C with om . . apataye namah . , and T with harih gan apataye namah . The edition and apparatus below only refer to the . . . reading of the S utrap at . ha. Note that the numbering does not correspond with the S utra numbering in the existing edition of Kaun as .d . inyas Bh . ya. References to Kaun .d . inyas numbering in the notes are preceded by a K. If not stated otherwise K has the adopted reading. In case there is a dierence between Sastris edition of the Bh as . ya and what T or the other manuscripts actually have, this is reported in the notes and the siglum K is in general avoided. In such cases Sastri refers to the reading of the S utra in Sastris edition. I have refrained from recording all the variants of the Bh as . ya readings in B, because they are full of scribal errors and they do not help in reconstructing the reading of the S utrap at . ha. In general one
Cf. A Descriptive Catalogue of the Sanskrit Manuscripts. Acquired for and Deposited in the Sampurnanand Sanskrit University (Sarasvati-Bhavana) Library Varanasi during the years 19511981. Vol. VI, part II. Tantra Manuscripts. Varanasi 1991, p. 84. 8 I am grateful to Dr Abhijit Ghosh for providing me with a copy of the Calcutta manuscript. 9 A copy of this manuscript was provided to me by Dr Dominic Goodall and Dr S.A.S. Sarma.
7

gets the impression that the text of the S utrap at . ha is better preserved in this manuscript than the text of the Bh as yas S u tras. . Edition 1.1 ath atah supateh a supatam akhy asy amah . pa . p . yogavidhim . vy .|
p a supatam a supatayogavidhim . yogavidhim . ] B Tpc , p . C Tac . K reads p a supatam The variant reading of . yogavidhim . with B and Tpc . C and Tac also occurs in the Bh as . ya in B (f. 2r, ll. 56) and in the Sarvadar sanasam adis utramath atah supateh . graha (p. 162, ll. 12): tatredam . pa . p a supatayogavidhim akhy asy ama iti | . . vy Note in this connection also the compound p a supatayogavidh anam in RT . p. 21, l. 19.

1.2 bhasman a tris ay ta | . avan . am . sn

tris sis ay ta ] C T, sn ay t B. . avan . am . ] Bpc C T, . avan . am . Bac sn Chakravarti erronously transcribes C as reading sn ay at.

1.3 bhasmani say ta |

say ta ] C T, say t B.

1.4 anusn anam |

T connects this S utra with the next one (i.e. by omitting the dan .d . a ).

1.5 nirm alyam |

For testimonia for this and/or the following S utras, cf. the annotation to 1.8 and 1.9.

1.6 lingadh ar | 1.7 ayatanav as | 1.8 hasitag tanr aranamask arajapyopah aren . tyahud . um . k . opatis .t . het |

nr aranamask ara ] B C, nr aranamask ara Tpc , nr . tyahud . um . k . ttad . um .d . um . k . tta d um d um k a ra T . ac . . . . Chakravarti erronously transcribes C as reading huhum ara . C connects this . k S utra with the following one. K agrees with the reading of Tpc . However, external evidence suggests that B and Cs hud ara reects the original reading. . um . k Sanderson (2002: 30, n. 32) has argued that the intended vocalization must be . Cf. also Ratnat hud k a p. 19, ll. 46 tad evam aram ayann .d . un . . nirvartyopah . dhy

sam tanr aranamask arajapyaih sad aram sv asamukha . hasitag . tyahud . ukk . . . angopah . , Ni f. 5v , l. 4 hud arasya nr ady a. t. tah asayoh alam an . ukk . tyasya mukhav . | tris . k . caiva kurv .o bhaved gan sv asamukha f. 17r , l. 3 lingasy ayatane . a[h . ] sa cottamah . , and Ni v aso hud arastavais tath a | g tanr arair brahmabhir japasam .d . unk . tyanamask . yutah . .

nr ara is also the reading of B (f. 10v, ll. 34.) and C (f. 6r, l. 14) in the . tyahud . um . k quotation of the S utra in the Bh as arajapyopah aren thet . ya. Instead of namask . opatis .. B wrongly reads namask aram aren thet there. . tathopah . a upatis ..

1.9 mah adevasya daks am urtim | . in .

daks am urtim ] B C, daks am urteh . in . . in . . T. Sastri agrees with T. The accusative daks am urtim also occurs in the Bh as . in . . yas quotation of this S utra in B (f. 11v, l. 2) and C (f. 6v, l. 11) and at the end of the commentary on this S utra in B (f. 23v, l. 1) and C (f. 11v, l. 5). Although this may be considered to be the lectio facilior as has been argued in Bisschop & Griths 2003 (p. 327, n. 61) the accusative is supported by two external sources: T rthavivecanak an alyadh ar ca yatih ayatane vaset | .d . a p. 106, ll. 1517 linganirm . sv upag tahud um k a rastutikr tyaparah sad a | bh a van a d devadevasya daks am urtim . . . . . in . . m asthitah sv asamukha f. 17r , l. 3 ekav aso hy av aso v a daks am urtim a sritah . | and Ni . in . .. Moreover, the reading of this S utra in the S utrap at as . ha and Bh . ya in T may very well be the editors own handwriting (see introduction above), while the nal reference to this S utra at the end of the commentary on K 1.9, for which the original Trivandrum MS is available again, in fact has daks am urt[t]im as well. A second hand appears . in . to have tried to correct it to daks am urtteh . in . . (T f. 23r, l. 8). The evidence for the reading adopted by Sastri is thus rather weak indeed.

1.10 ekav as ah .|
ekav as ah as a B C. . ] T, ekav K agrees with T.

1.11 av as a v a| 1.12 m utrapur s aveks . am . n . et |

This and the following S utra are reminiscent of BaudhDhS 3.8.17 str su drair n abhibh a. seta m utrapur s aveks . e n . eta .

1.13 str su dram abhibh as . n . et |

For parallels to this S utra, see Bisschop & Griths 2003: 338, n. 121.

1.14 yady aveks as . ed yady abhibh . et | 1.15 upaspr sya | .

C reads this S utra together with 1.16, while B takes 1.1517 together.

1.16 pr an ay amam a| . . kr . tv 1.17 raudr m ayatr m up m a japet | . g . bahur . v

1.18 akalus s caratas tato sya yogah . amate . pravartate |

tato sya ] B Cpc T, tasyato Cac (2 above sya; 1 above to). K divides akalus . amateh . | caratah . | tato sya yogah . pravartate | (K 1.1820).

1.19 d ur ad dar sana sravan n an ani c asya pravartante | . amananavij

Instead of d ur ad dar sana K has d uradar sana . This S utrap at . ha variant is not reported by Sastri or Chakravarti. For the ablative construction, cf. Ni sv asam ula f. 22v , l. 4 d ur ac chravan n anam a, and Yogabh as utra . avij . mananam . tath . ya ad Yogas 2.43 tathendriyasiddhir d ur ac chravan san adyeti. After this S utra C is not avail. adar able for the text of the Bh as . ya anymore.

1.20 sarvaj nat a|

B connects this S utra with the following.

1.21 manojavitvam | 1.22 k amar upitvam . vikaran . adharmitvam . ca |

Sastri has k amar upitvam | vikaran . ah . | dharmitvam . ca | (K 1.2526). However, T (f. 17v, ll. 34) in fact reads yasm ad aha vikaran as . eti in the Bh . ya, indicating that Kaun d inya commented upon the rst member of a compound? The compound .. vikaran . adharmitva is supported by PBh p. 50, l. 10 and l. 18, and RT . p. 10, ll. 45; cf. also Schultz 1958: 133 and Hara 2002: 256. T punctuates after k amar upitvam . (in agreement with K). The three kriy a sakti s listed in 1.2122 are also found in a verse transmitted in the Old Javanese J n anasiddh anta (J n aSi 9.11.5), with vikaran . adharmitva changed to avik aradharmitva : yugapad manojavitvam amar upitvam eva ca | . k avik aradharmitvam sakty etad ucyate (hypometr.); cf. also the enumeration . tu tri of ve j n ana sakti s and three kriy a sakti s at the end of chapter 9 of the same work (p. 134, ll. 812): Pa nca sakti naranya: yugapat dar sana, yugapat sravanam, yugapat mananam, yugapat vij n anam, mah asarvaj nat a. Nahan ta n pa nca sakti na. Tri sakti na: yugapat manojavitvam, yugapat k amar upitvam, yugapat avik aradharmitvan. Nahan ta n tri sakti na . Yogas utra 3.48 has a dierent list: tato manojavitvam avah anajaya s ca. . vikaran . abh . pradh

1.23 sarve c asya va sy a bhavanti | 1.24 sarves am ava syo bhavati | . . c

c ava syo ] Bpc C T, c ava dhyo syo B. As can be deduced from Sastris note on p. 46, this S utra is absent in T in the Bh as . ya. The preceding and following commentary are Sastris own reconstruction. The commentary is also lacking in B.

1.25 sarv am s c avi sati | . 1.26 sarves am an ave syo bhavati | . . c

c an ave syo ] B C, ca n ave syo T. K agrees with B and C.

1.27 sarve c asya vadhy a bhavanti | 1.28 sarves am avadhyo bhavati | . . c 1.29 abh to ks apratihatagatir bhavati | . ayo jaro marah . sarvatra c
Sastri divides this into ve separate S utras: abh tah . | aks . ayah . | ajarah .| amarah apratihatagatir bhavati | (K 1.3337). The Bh as . | sarvatra c . ya upon the words sarvatra up to atredam brahma japet (1.31) was previously unavailable . due to loss of two folios (3334) in T: it is, however, preserved in the Benares manuscript (see n. 1 above).

1.30 ity etair ebhir gun adevasya mah agan . air yukto bhagavato mah . apatir bhavati |
Sastri omits the redundant ebhir in the edition. ebhir is absent in the Bh as . yas quotation of the S utra in B; in fact ebhih . is Kaun .d . inyas gloss of etaih . : etair ebhir ity anukr antaih urvoktair d uradar san adyair vikaran antaih . p . . na dos . air asarvaj natv adibhir ity arthah (f. 34r, l. 1). This suggests that the S u trap a t ha was at . . one time extracted from the commentary. This S utra (= K 1.38) is quoted and commented upon in four segments in the Bh as . ya only preserved in B: ity etair gun . air yuktah h adevasya | mah agan . | *bhagavatah . (em.; bhagavat . B) | mah . apatir bhavati | . It seems to be referred to in Paramoks asak arik a 3a (mah agan sasya ), de. anir . o mahe scribing the goal of yogimahe svar ah ahe svarayoginah . (= m . ?).

1.31 atredam . brahma japet |

This S utra reads slightly dierently in the Bh as . ya preserved in B: atra cedam . brahma japet. The ca is original, for Kaun sabdah .d . inya comments upon it: ca .
*sab ahy abhyantarakriy asamuccay artho (em.; sab ahyo bhyam tavyah . tara B) dras .. . (f. 34v, l. 10).

1.32 sadyoj atam ami sadyoj at aya vai namah . prapady .|

sadyoj atam atam . ] Bpc C T, pratihata sadyoj . B namah . ] B, namo namah . C T. The single namah utra in K, who divides . (metrical!) in B is also the reading of the S sadyoj atam ami | sadyoj at aya vai namah . prapady . | (K 1.4041). Thus also Stuti and Stava 360 (Goudriaan & Hooykaas 1971: 225227). For the Brahma-mantra in 1.321.34, cf. Taittir y aran an ar ayan . yaka 10.43 ( Mah . a-Upanis . ad 277278).

1.33 bhave bhave n atibhave bhavasva m am |

n atibhave ] B C, (n a)tibhave T. B connects this S utra with the following. n atibhave | bhajasva m am | (K 1.4244). Sastri reads bhave bhave However, B (f. 36r, l. 3) and T

(f. 36r, l. 5) in fact omit n atibhave in the Bh as utrap at . ya quotation. The S . ha reading bhavasva agrees with the Taittir y aran . yaka version of this Brahma-mantra 10.43), while Ks bhajasva is found in the Mah (TA an ar ayan aUp . a-Upanis . ad (MN 10.43 as well. After the rst bhave 278) and is recorded as a variant reading to TA T starts on a new folio in the original hand. Consequently, for the next S utras I have given more weight to the readings of T.

1.34 bhavodbhav aya namah .|

K has bhavodbhavah sloka (1.32 . | (K 1.44) instead and thus constitutes a regular 34). TA 10.43 agrees with the reading of the S utrap at . ha. Stuti and Stava 360 (Goudriaan & Hooykaas 1971: 225227) corresponds to Ks version, except that it has a vocative bhavodbhava.

2.1 v amadevasya jyes sres asanam | .t . hasya .t . hasya rudrasya kalit

v amadevasya ] B C, v amadeva T kalit asanam ] B Cpc T, kalit as anam . Cac . Sastri reads dierently: v amah thasya | rudrasya | kalit asanam | (K . | devasya | jyes .. 2.14). The reading of K constitutes a metrical hemistich of a Sloka. This may indicate that sres thasya in the S utrap at .. . ha is not original, but inuenced by the Taittir y aran as . yaka Brahma-mantra (cf. 2.14). The text of the Bh . ya for K 2.1 is not secure: in T v amadeveti is written in the margin in a dierent hand, but these words are inserted at the wrong place in the text in the manuscript, namely after the vo in bhavodbhava (PBh p. 56, l. 2). At the end of the commentary on this S utra, after iti, in the edition on p. 56, l. 7, the MS adds v amah . (not reported by Sastri). Instead of rudrasya (PBh p. 57, l. 11), B (f. 37r, l. 10) and T (f. 37v, l. 5) have rudra, although it is clear from the commentary (PBh p. 57, l. 17: atr api taddharmitve . sas th ) that the genitive is original. ..

2.2 sarvak amika ity acaks . ate |

Instead of sarvak amika Sastri has s arvak amika (K 2.6), but this is the editors silent emendation.

2.3 amangalam atra mangalam . c . bhavati | 2.4 apasavyam . ca pradaks . in . am |

apasavyam . ] B C, savyam . T.

2.5 tasm ad ubhayath a yas .t . avyo devavat pitr . vac ca |

Sastri divides tasm ad ubhayath a yas tavyah .. . | devavat pitr . vac ca | (K 2.910). This is

the editors divison: tasm ad (B f. 38v, l. 10; T f. 41r, l. 4) and ubhayath a yas tavyah .. . (B f. 49r, ll. 23; T f. 41r, ll. 78) are commented upon separately in T as well.

2.6 ubhaye tu rudre dev ah s ca | . pitara

Instead of ubhaye K has ubhayam ..

2.7 hars apram ad | . 2.8 cary ay am ay am ah atmyam av apnoti | . cary . m

K starts a new S utra after the second cary ay am (K 2.1314).

2.9 atidattam atig ud . ham |

Instead of atig ud s tam (K 2.15). Contrary to what Sastri suggests, T . ham K has at .. (and B) read this S utra together with the next one (T f. 44v, ll. 34). Instead of the short i in atig ud (as transmitted in at s tam ) to retrieve . ham we need a long .. the underlying Sloka in 2.912. Probably atig ud . ham the lectio facilior is not original. It seems more likely that a relative yat after Ks at s tam has dropped out. ..

2.10 atitaptam a| . tapas tath

atitaptam . ] C T, atitapta B tapas ] B C, (ta)pas T.

2.11 aty agatim . gamayate |

Na-vipul a. aty agatim . instead of the more common atigatim . is presumably metri causa.

2.12 tasm ad bh uyas tapa s caret |

K divides tasm at | bh uyas tapa s caret | (K 2.1819).

2.12 n anyabhaktis tu sam . kare | 2.13 atredam . brahma japet | 2.14 v amadev aya namo jyes aya namah sres aya namo rudr aya namah .t . h . .t . h . k al aya namah kalavikaran a ya namo balavikaran a ya namo bal a ya . . . namo balapramathan aya namah utadaman aya namo manon. sarvabh man aya namah .|
v amadev aya ] B C, v a(ma)dev aya T sres aya namo ] C T, sres aya namo .t . h .t . h balapramathan aya nama B kalavikaran aya ] B C, kala (ka)ran aya T namo . . manonman aya namah . ] B C, +na+(mo) manonma[. . . ] T. Sastri reads and separates quite dierently: v amadev aya namo jyes th aya .. namo rudr aya namah al aya namah aya namah aya . | k . | kalavikaran . . | balapramathan namah utadaman aya namah aya namah . | sarvabh . | manoman . | (K 2.2227). Note that this is the second time that K omits the word sres t . . ha (cf. the annotation

on 2.1). Taittir y aran sres th aya namah aya namah . yaka 10.44 has .. . , but lacks bal ., this in agreement with K. The Mah an ar ayan a-Upanis ad recension, however, has . . sres th aya namah aya namah .. . as well as bal . , but reads the latter invocation before balavikaran aya namah aUp 280). Stuti and Stava 360, nally, is again closer . . (MN to K, in that it omits both sres th aya namah aya namah .. . and balavikaran . . , although it includes bal aya namah . . According to Goudriaan & Hooykaas (1971: 225) [t]he words sres th aya namah manuals. The last S utra .. . are omitted also in Indian Sivaite (K 2.27) is a silent conjecture by the editor: T (and B) reads yan manonman aya namah . (f. 47r, l. 8). On the other hand, Kaun .d . inya indeed seems to comment upon manoman aya in the commentary (PBh p. 77, l. 2 = T 47v, ll. 56). On f. 66r, l. 10, however, where Kaun .d . inya refers to this mantra, T reads manonmana and not manomana as Sastri has it (p. 109, l. 19); also on f. 68r, l. 7 (= p. 113, l. 15).

3.1 avyaktaling vyakt ac arah .|

vyakt ac arah ac arah . ] B, avyakt . C T. The reading of B is also the reading of K: avyaktaling | vyakt ac arah . | (K 3.12). For the signicant variant in C and T, cf. V asis s astra 10.18 (avyaktalingo .t . hadharma vyakt ac arah . ). Note also the next line of the same text: anunmatta unmattaves . ah . 10.19). This is related to a passage in the J (V asDhS ab ala-Upanis . ad (quoted in Oberlies 2000: 175): avyaktaling a avyakt ac ar a anunmatt a unmattavad acarantah .. Instead of avyaktaling iti (PBh p. 78, ll. 12), T (f. 50r, l. 4) and B (f. 43v, l. 8) in fact have avyaktalingeti , suggesting that K comments upon a compound avyaktalingavyakt ac arah ..

3.2 avamatah utes . sarvabh .u |

B reads this together with the following S utra. Kaun .d . inya comments upon two separate S utras (K 3.34).

3.3 paribh uyam ana s caret | 3.4 apahatap apm a pares am ad at | . . pariv
apahatap apm a pares am ad at ] B C, apa(ha)ta [. . . ] riv ad at T. . . pariv T drops the t (in pariv ad at ) in the Bh as utra (f. 51v, l. 6), . ya quotation of this S while B (f. 47r, l. 1) reads pariv ad asta (sic).

3.5 p apam ati | . ca tebhyo dad 3.6 sukr am adatte | . tam . ca tes .
sukr ara possibly lost due to damage). . tam . ] B T, sukr . ta C (anusv

10

3.7 tasm at pretavac caret |

K divides after tasm at (K 3.1011). Oberlies (2000: 178) has pointed out the parallel to this and the following S utras in Taittir yabr ahman asm ad ev am . a II 3.9.9: t . n v vidv a va nr eva calet | vy asyev aks au bh a. seta | man t ayed iva kr ath ayed . tyet | pr . y` .. yeteva | ut nam iva sr a a m opavadeyuh a p apm a apahanyur ti. . ng . ut

3.8 kr atheta v a|
kr atheta v a ] B C T, last two syllables damaged in T.

3.9 spandeta v a|
spandeta v a ] B C, spam . [. . . ] T.

3.10 man a| .t . eta v

man ara above ma possibly .t . eta ] em., madeta B, mat . heta Cac , mat . eta Cpc (anusv lost due to damage); ill. T. K has man teta. ..

3.11 sr areta v a| . ng 3.12 apitatkury at | 3.13 apitadbh as . et | 3.14 yena parebhyah . paribhavam . gacchet |
K omits parebhyah . (K 3.18). Note that K alone shows metrical features.

3.15 paribh uyam ano hi vidv an kr a bhavati | . tsnatap

paribh uyam ano hi vidv an ] B C, paribh uya [. . . ] T.

3.16 atredam . brahma japet | 3.17 aghorebhyo tha ghorebhyo ghoraghoratarebhyah .|

ghoraghoratarebhyah . ] C T, ghoratarebhyah . B. Sastri reads and divides dierently: aghorebhyah . | atha ghorebhyah . | ghoraghoratarebhya s ca | (K 3.2123). However, ca is a silent addition by the editor, presumably because Kaun .d . inya comments upon it. As noted by Bisschop & Griths (2003: 332, n. 89) there is considerable variation of reading and accentuation of this mantra in Vedic and other sources; ca is absent in the version of this mantra in Taittir y aran ayan sam a 2.9.10:130.12. . yaka 10.45, but it is present in Maitr . . hit

3.18 sarvebhyah sarvebhyo namas te astu rudrar upebhyah . sarva .|

sarvebhyah sarvebhyo ] B C, sa [. . . ] sarvebhyo T. . sarva Sastri reads and divides dierently: sarvebhyah sarva sarvebhyah . | . | namas te astu 10.45, except rudrar upebhyah . | (K 3.2426), which is closer to the reading of TA

11

 10.45 has sarvatah that TA . instead of the rst sarvebhyah . . However, sarvatah . is actually the reading of B (f. 59v, l. 4) and T (f. 56r, l. 9): the editor has silently emended the S utra. Sastri does not report K 3.26 correctly either: Kaun .d . inya comments separately upon namas te stu (T f. 56v, ll. 45) and rudrar upebhya [h .] (T f. 56v, ll. 67): the editor has left out rudrar upebhyah . before Kaun .d . inyas remark atra rudra iti k aran apade se | (PBh p. 91, l. 10). .

4.1 g ud a taponanty aya prak a sate | . havidy

g ud a taponanty aya ] B Cpc T, g ud aya taponity aya Cac . . havidy . havidy Sastri transcribes tapa ananty aya instead of taponanty aya, but B (f. 50v, l. 5) and T (f. 57r, l. 6) read taponanty aya in the Bh as utra. Moreover, . yas quotation of the S instead of prak a sate both MSS have prak a syate. Note that Kaun .d . inya considers tapo nanty aya as a variant reading in his commentary on K 4.1 (p. 92, l. 16).

4.2 g ud ud an . havrato g . hapavitrav . ih .|

g ud an ud . hapavitrav . ih . ] B C, g . hapavi [. . . ] h . T. 4.2 and 4.3 together constitute a hemistich of an Indravajr a. g ud ud an . havratah . | g . hapavitrav . ih . | (K 4.23). K divides

4.3 sarv an ar an aya buddhy a| . i dv . i pidh

K divides sarv an ar an aya | buddhy a | (K 4.45). The words of this S utra . i dv . i pidh have a parallel in pr an y ama descriptions. Cf. e.g. pidh aya buddhy a dv ar an .a .i in V ayupur an arkan an aya sarvadv ar an . a 17.4c ( M .d . eyapur . a 41.20c), pidh . i in S ardhatri satik alottara 11.13a (= Sarvaj n anottara Yogap ada 19a, = Agnipur an .a 2.214.22a) and Wr n anasiddh anta . haspatitattwa 56a (= Gan . apatitattwa 6a, J 15.4a). For a possible allusion to this S utra in the Madhyamakahr arik a, see . dayak the annotation on 5.17.

4.4 unmattavad eko vicareta loke |

This is also the reading of K, but it seems likely that this S utra goes back to an original unmatta eko vicareta loke (a regular Indravajr a p ada ).

4.5 kr annam utsr adad ta | . t .s .t . am up

up adad ta ] C, up adad t B, up ada ta T. This is an Upendravajr a p ada.

4.6 unmatto m ud ah . ha ity evam . manyante itare jan .|

ity evam . ] B Cpc T, ityes . avam . Cac . 4.6 and 4.7 together constitute a Sloka.

4.7 asam ano hi jant un am am uttamah . m . sarves . . smr . tah .|

Instead of jant un am an am . K has yantr . . , which is probably original (cf. PBh ad

12

PS 4.9). Additional support comes from two verses in the original Skandapur an .a (ca. sixth century AD), which contain a reference to this S utra. Siva is teaching the gods the P a supata observance (vrata ): yantr an am . . paramam . yantram anyad yasm an na vidyate | . sad . sarvak am yam . angam . sarvalokanamaskr . tam (SPBh 122.81); tasm at sarvaprah an artham acaret . . yantram etat sam loke yena j ryen na karhicit | (SPBh 122.83cd84ab). asam a . matah . sad

4.8 indro v a agre asures a supatam acarat | . u p 4.9 sa tes am is ap urttam adatta m ayay a sukr a samavindata | . .t . . tay
adatta ] B C Tpc , adatte Tac . Sastri divides sa tes am is t ap urttam adatta | m ayay a sukr a samavindata | (K . .. . tay 4.1112). However, instead of K 4.12, T (f. 63r, l. 5) actually reads m ayay a sukr a| adatta | . B has the same reading, except that it has p ayay a (sic) instead . tay of m ayay a (f. 55v, l. 2).

4.10 nind a hy es am anind a| .

K reads dierently: nind a hy es anind a tasm at (K 4.13). The variant in the . S utrap at ha has not been recorded by Chakravarti. Note that in the Bh as . . ya tasm at belongs to this S utra, while in the S utrap at . ha it is part of the following S utra. Cf. however Kaun .d . inyas remark: atra tasm acchabdah urvottaram . p . c apeks . ate | (p. 104, l. 2).

4.11 tasm an nindyam ana s caret |

As mentioned above, K omits tasm an, connecting it with the preceding S utra. After this S utra K adds an additional S utra aninditakarm a | (K 4.15), which is not in the S utrap at . ha.

4.12 sarvavi sis ah .t . o yam . panth . satpathah .|

K divides sarvavi sis to yam ah .. . panth . | satpathah . | (K 4.1617).

4.13 kupath as tv anye | 4.14 anena vidhin a rudrasam pam a na ka scid br ahman . gatv . ah . punar avartate |
Sastri divides this into two S utras: anena vidhin a rudrasam pam a | na ka scid . gatv br ahman avartate | (K 4.1920), but this is not done in B (f. 56v, l. 2) or . ah . punar T (f. 64v, l. 1): in the place of K 4.19 both MSS have the entire line.

4.15 atredam . brahma japet |

As Sastri remarks, this S utra and the corresponding commentary are missing in the Bh as . ya. I can add that this is also the case in B.

13

4.16 tatpurus aya vidmahe mah adev aya dh mahi | .

K divides tatpurus aya vidmahe | mah adev aya dh mahi | (K 4.2223). . Brahma-mantra in 4.1617, cf. Taittir y aran yaka 10.46. . For the

4.17 tan no rudrah at | . pracoday 5.1 asangayog nity atm a ajo maitro bhij ayate |
nity atm a ajo ] B C, nity a jo T. Sastri divides this into six S utras and reads dierently: asangah . | yog | nit-

y atm a | ajah ayate | (K 5.16), but in fact B (f. 58v, l. 8) and T . | maitrah . | abhij (f. 66v, l. 8) have asam gayog in place of K 5.1. Note that the S utrap at . . ha reading constitutes a metrically correct hemistich of a ma-vipul a (syncopation in the rst half and caesura after the 5th syllable). Cf. Oberlies (2000: 181, n. 29), who observes that K 5.46 constitute a p ada if one dissolves the sandhi, but who does not mention the metrical problem in K 5.13.

5.2 indriy an am abhijay at | . 5.3 rudrah aca t avat | . prov 5.4 su ny ag araguh av as |
5.46 together constitute a Sloka.

5.5 devanityo jitendriyah .|

K divides devanityah . | jitendriyah . | (K 5.1011).

5.6 s as an nityayuktasya bh uyis . an . m .t . ham . sampravartate |

K divides . san as an nityayuktasya | bh uyis tham . m .. . sampravartate | (K 5.1213). With this S utra compare Mah abh arata 12.232.30cd (. san as an nityayuktasya . m sabdabrahm ativartate ) and 14.19.60cd (. san as an nityayuktasya yogah artha . m . p pravartate ). Note that in contrast to these two Epic passages the present S utra has no subject; in his commentary ad K 5.12 Kaun .d . inya argues for a remote connection (d urasthah sambandhah ) with K 1.21 ( vij n an ani c asya pravartante ) . . and K 1.38 (ity etair gun air yuktah ). . .

5.7 bhaiks atr agatam am a| . yam . p . m . sam adus . yam . lavan . ena v
5.7 and 5.8 together constitute a Sloka. K divides bhaiks atr agatam | m am . yam | p . sam adus a | (K 5.1416). . yam . lavan . ena v

5.8 apo v api yath ak alam a sn y ad anup urva sah .| 5.9 godharm a mr a v a| . gadharm
5.912 together constitute a Sloka.

14

5.10 adbhir eva sucir bhavet | 5.11 siddhayog na lipyeta |

K connects this with the following S utra (= K 5.20). Instead of lipyeta K has lipyate. The S utrap at . ha variant is not reported by Sastri or Chakravarti. Note that lipyeta is metrical, while lipyate is not. It may therefore very well represent the original reading, a conclusion which is conrmed by a quotation identied by Sanderson (*1998) of this and the following S utra in the 9th chapter (M m am atattvanirn avat arah a(va)vivekas Madhyamakahr . s . ay . ) of Bhavya/Bh . dayak arik a (MHK 9.62): siddhiyogo [sic] na lipyeta karman a p a takena v a | iti bruv an . . aih . sanm arg an nas tair anye pi n a sit ah .. . . That lipyate is not just a scribal error in K is suggested by Kaun .d . inyas commentary ad loc.: na lipyate na sam . yujyata ity arthah aha: kena lipyate | tad ucyate karman a | . This would seem to suggest that .| . the shared reading of the MHK and the S utrap at . ha goes back to an older tradition, unless it is assumed that both sources independently changed lipyate to lipyeta for metrical reasons.

5.12 karman a p atakena v a| . 5.13 r am adh y ta | . cam is .t .

K connects this with the following S utra (= K 5.21). 5.1316 together constitute a Sloka.

5.14 g ayatr m atmayantritah .|

B omits 5.145.17.

5.15 raudr m a bahur up m a| . v . v

C omits the dan .d . a.

5.16 ato yogah . pravartate | 5.17 om aram abhidhy ay ta | . k

abhidhy ay ta ] T, abhidhy a ta C. 5.1719 together constitute a Sloka. phrased in As has been observed by Sanderson

(*1998), this and the following S utra, along with 5.24 and 5.26, are paraMadhyamakahr arik a 9.114115: [sam a ]rah . dayak . yamitamatidv . sth apayitv a sive manah aram abhidhy ayan dh arayan dh aran am . | tathom . k . . hr . di ks adidh aran abhy as at pr aksam ahitam anasah se prasanne duh antam . ity . .| . kh . gacchat ty etad apy asat . The compound sam yamitamatidv a rah (having restrained . . the doors of his mind) is Lindtners reconstruction; the syllables up to rah . are lost in the unique Sanskrit manuscript of the MHK. Kawasaki, in his edition of the ninth chapter of the MHK, reconstructs [sam a ]rah . yamakabuddhidv . on the

15

basis of Tibetan blo yi sgo rnams legs bsdams la. Both reconstructions suggest a paraphrase of 4.3 (sarv an ar an aya buddhy a ) above, but they suer . i dv . i pidh from the metrical defect that the second and third syllables are both short. Harunaga Isaacson has provided me with the following information concerning the Tibetan rendering. First of all yi and yis are often exchanged in Tibetan, and so yi (genitive particle) may be a corruption of yis (instrumental particle). If we read blo yis, the Sanskrit could be reconstructed to buddhy a sam arah . yamitadv . (having restrained the doors with the buddhi ). On the other hand, the Tarkajv al a commentary in the Derge (sDe dge) edition of the Buddhist canon has the shorter form of the genitive bloi, which makes confusion with the instrumental less likely. In addition, the commentarys bloi sgo dban po thams cad (Derge f. 303r , l. 7) could be glossing buddhidv ara (- an an . i ?) with sarvendriy . i. As to what root lies behind the rendering bsdams there is no certainty, but in addition to restrain, bind, the meaning close is also, depending on context, possible. Considering that the legs would normally suggest an adverbial prex such as su - or sam -, a reconstruction supihita - may also be considered. The latter reconstruction would take us close to the probable P a supatas utra source of this verse. The view refuted in MHK 9.114115 is ascribed to the Siva or Saiva tantra ( si bai rgyud ) in the Tarkajv al a (Derge f. 303r , ll. 56). There is no parallel for the hemistich MHK 9.115ab in the P a supatas utra.

5.18 tat sad iti hr ta dh aran am | . di kurv .

dh aran am aran . . ] Bpc C T, dh . am . Bpc . K omits the words tat sad iti. The reading of the S utrap at . ha is hypermetrical; only K is metrically correct. For an exposition of the mantra om . tat sat, referred to in the S utrap at ha, cf. e.g. Mah a bh a rata 6.39.2328. .

5.19 r an es agvi suddho mahe svarah .s . ir vipro mah . a v .|

K separates three S utras: r sir vipro mah an es agvi suddhah svarah .. . ah . | v . | mahe . |.

5.20 sma s anav as dharm atm a yath alabdhopaj vakah .|

5.2022 together constitute a Sloka (ma-vipul a). Sastri separates three S utras: sma s anav as | dharm atm a | yath alabdhopaj vakah . | (K 5.3032). However, in place of K 5.30 ( sma s anav as ), B (f. 66v, ll. 12) and T (f. 76r, ll. 910) in fact read sma s anav as dharm atm a yath alabdhopaj vakah ..

5.21 labhate rudras ayujyam | 5.22 sad a rudram anusmaret |

Probably the original reading of this last p ada of a Sloka (5.205.22) was sad a r udram anusmaran. As such it is transmitted in the Bh as . ya in B (f. 67v, l. 5).

16

T reads anusmarat there (f. 77v, l. 9), which has been silently emended to anusmaret by Sastri, presumably on the basis of the S utrap at . ha. Cf. the parallel in the Lingapur an dhara (T rthavivecanak an . a quoted by Laks . m .d . a p. 107, ll. 4 5): sma s anav as dharm atm a yath alabdhena vartate | labheta rudras ayujyam a . sad rudram anusmaran .

5.23 chittv a dos an am alasya m ulam | . . . hetuj

5.235.26 together constitute a Vai svadev . For parallels, see the annotation on 5.24.

5.24 buddhy a sam apayitv a tu rudre | . cintya sth

Sastri reads and divides dierently: buddhy a | sam apayitv a ca rudre | (K . cittam | sth 5.3638). Actually B and T divide K 5.37 (sam . cittam ) into sam . (B f. 70v, l. 9; T f. 81v, l. 4) and cittam (B f. 70v, l. 11; T f. 81v, l. 6). Sanderson (*2004: 1) has suggested to emend the hapax sam . cittam to svam . cittam ; cf. PBh ad K 5.37: atra *svam (em.; sam Ed.) iti dos a divi s lis t am svayam eva svagun . .. . . atvena parigr k a p. 20, ll. 911: yo vidy anugr tay a buddhy a svam . hyate. Cf. also Ratnat . . h . cittam alambanam ud a dh aran a nirmal kr . nir . karoti so m . ha ity ucyate. tay . ay . tam . cittam apitam rghak alam . rudratattve sth . sud . na cyavate. Additional support comes from Pamp am ah atmya 11.61cd62ab (Filliozat 2001, p. 145): tasm ad asmin svakam . cittam apy atyantani scalam (sam apy a conj.; susth apy a Ed.) idam . *sam . sth . sth . vapus tyaj am ti tasya buddhir bhavet sad a | , which probably goes back to a passage from the Ratnat k a (p. 16, ll. 45): dos alebhya s chinnasya m ul akhy anivr . . ahetuj . ttau cittasya rudre vasth anam atyantani scalatvam sthitir ucyate . . The present passage has a parallel in the Atharva siras-Upanis . ad, with some interesting variants. The variant sam utrap at . cintya of the S . ha corresponds with the . kar version with Sam anandas commentary: tr s n a m chittv a hetuj alasya m ulam .. . . . bud dhy a sam apayitv a tu rudre (ASiUp p. 37, ll. 45), while sam . cintya sth . cittam (K) corresponds more closely with N ar ayan as version: tr s n a m hitv a hetuj a lasya m ulam . .. . . . buddhy a sam apayitv a tu rudre (ASiUp p. 17, ll. 12). There are other vari. citam . sth ants; cf. Hara 2002: 151152. The tu of the S utrap at . ha (instead of ca ) is present in both versions. Lingapur an sn am a hetuj alasya m ulam . a 2.18.40cd (tr .. . . chittv . buddhy a cintyam apayitv a ca rudre ), on the other hand, is closer in this respect to . sth alin K. In the Lingapur an a the verse has been rewritten to form a S . This wide . variation suggests that the passage from the Atharva siras-Upanis . ad may go back to an early corruption of svam . sam . , repaired in dierent ways. In the process of repairing the original metre was lost. The presence of sam . cintya the reading of Sam anandas version in the S utrap at . kar . ha indicates a contaminated tradition. For an allusion to this S utra in the Madhyamakahr arik a, see the annotation . dayak on 5.17.

17

5.25 ekah am ta sokah . ks . emy . sam . v .|

Instead of ks am san, but Tac (f. 82r, l. 7) and B . emy . sam . (?) Sastri has ks . em (f. 72v, l. 1) have ks emy a san in the Bh a s yas quotation of this S utra. A second hand . . (Sastri?) seems to have tried to correct this to ks san in Tpc , presumably be. em cause of Kaun d inyas interpretation: tath a s u ks masth ulasab ahy abhyantaralaks .. . . an . avilaks asu kriy asu vinivr asu rudre sthitacitto nis yate (PBh . an . . tt . kriyah . san ity abhidh a p. 139, ll. 1415). The S utra bears a partial resemblance to Svet svatara-Upanis . ad 2.14d: ekah artho bhavate v ta sokah . kr . t ..

5.26 apram ad gacched duh an am antam sapras ad at | . kh

gacched duh an am ] B Cpc , gacche duh an am Cac , gacche [. . . ] - an am T. . kh . kh Instead of Sastris K 5.40, which is identical with this S utra, B (f. 73r, ll. 12) and T (f. 82, l. 10) actually only have apram ad . The entire S utra is quoted later in the Bh as . ya: K p. 141, l. 3 = B f. 73r, ll. 45 / T f. 83, ll. 23, where T does not read apram ad ad, as Sastri has it, but apram ad a (w.r. for apram ad ). In order to retrieve the Vai svadev metre underlying 5.235.26, sandhi between v ta sokah . and apram ad must be applied. For the Madhyamakahr arik a testimonium of this . dayak S utra, see the annotation on 5.17 above.

5.27 atredam . brahma japet | 5.28 s anah an am svarah ut an am | . sarvavidy . sarvabh

K divides s anah an am | svarah ut an am | . C omits the dan . sarvavidy . sarvabh .d . a after sarvabh ut an am.

5.29 brahm adipatir brahman a sivo me astu sad a sivom | . o dhipatir brahm
brahm adipatir ] B C, bra [. . . ] tir T sad a sivom a sivo B. . ] C T, sad K reads and divides dierently: astu | sad a | sivah . | (5.4447). (applying Sandhi): brahman a | sivo me . o dhipatir brahm Note that K alone constitutes a regular Sloka The latter reading is also that of

s anah an am svarah ut an am | brahman . sarvavidy . sarvabh .o

dhipatir brahm a sivo me stu sad a sivah . |. identical with Taittir y aran . yaka 10.47.

Ni sv asaguhya f. 109v , l. 1. The reading of the S utrap at . ha, on the other hand, is

iti p a supatas utr an urn ani | . i sam . p . Bibliography

Agnipur an .a arya Baladeva Up (AgnP) Agnipur an asa. Ed. by Ach adhy aya. . a of Mahars . i Vedavy The Kashi Sanskrit Series 174. Varanasi 1966.

18

Atharva siras-Upanis . ad -N . kar (ASiUp) [Published in] Sr ar ayan ananda-viracitad pik asamet an am . a-Sam Atharva sikh ady an a[m ] Ham sopanis adant a n a m Dv a trim s anmit a n a m . . . . . Upanis am a sramasam avalih . ad . Samuccayah . . Anand . skr . t . 29. [Poona] 1895. Baudh ayanadharmas utra (BaudhDhS) [Published in] Dharmas utras. The Law Codes of Apastamba, Gautama, Baudh ayana, and Vasis t ha. Annotated Text and Translation [by] Patrick .. Olivelle. Delhi 2000. Bh asarvaj na arya Bh (RT Gan arik a [with Ratnat k a] of Ac asarvaj na (With four .) . ak . appendices including the K aravan a-M a h a tmya ). Edit. by Chimanlal . D. Dalal. Gaekwads Oriental Series 15. Baroda 1920. Bisschop, Peter forthc. a Review of Minoru Hara, P a supata Studies. Edited by Jun Takashima. Vienna 2002. Publications of the De Nobili Research Library XXX. To appear in the Indo-Iranian Journal. forthc. b Pa nc arthabh as a supatas utra 1.3739. Recovered from a newly . ya on P identied manuscript. To appear in the Journal of Indian Philosophy.

Bisschop, Peter & Arlo Griths 2003 The P a supata Observance (Atharvavedapari sis .t . a 40). In: Indo-Iranian Journal 46, pp. 315348. Chakravarti, Chintaharan 1943 P a supatas utra. In: Indian Historical Quarterly 19, pp. 270271. Filliozat, Vasundhara 2001 K al amukha and P a supata Temples in Dharwar. Chennai. Gan . apatitattwa (GT) Gan . apati-Tattwa. An Old Javanese philosophic text. Critically edited and translated by Sudarshana Devi Singhal. Dv p antara-Pit . aka 3. New Delhi 1958. Goudriaan, T. and C. Hooykaas 1971 Stuti and Stava (Bauddha and Vais .n . ava) of Balinese Brahman priests. Verhandelingen der KNAW, afd. Letterkunde, Nieuwe Reeks 76. Amsterdam, London. Hara, Minoru 2002 P a supata Studies. Edited by Jun Takashima. Publications of the De Nobili Research Library XXX. Vienna. J n anasiddh anta (J n aSi) J n anasiddh anta. Edited and translated by Haryati Soubadio. Bibliotheca Indonesica 7. The Hague 1971. Kaun .d . inya (PBh) Pasupata Sutras with Pancharthabhashya of Kaundinya. Edit. by R. Ananthakrishna Sastri. Trivandrum Sanskrit Series CXLIII. Trivandrum 1940. Kawasaki, Shinjo 1988 The M m am a Chapter of Bhavyas Madhyamaka-hr arik a. Sanskrit . s . daya-k and Tibetan Texts. From Studies 1976, 1987, 1988, Institute of Philosophy, The University of Tsukuba. Laks dhara . m

19

Bhat sr -Laks dhara-viracite Kr agah .t . a- . m . tyakalpatarau As .t . amo bh .. T rthavivecanak an .d . am. Edit. by K.V. Rangaswami Aiyangar. Gaekwads Oriental Series XCVIII. Baroda 1942. Lindtner, Christian 1997 Bhavya on M m am a. in: Studia Indologiczne 4. Aspects of Buddhism. . s Proceedings of the International Seminar on Buddhist Studies, Liw 25 June 1994. Warsaw, pp. 91123. Lingapur an .a -Vy -Lingamah (LiP) Sr asa-mahars apur an . iproktam . Sr . am . , with the Sanskrit commentary Sivatos in by Gan sa N atu. [Edit. by] Gang avis . . . e .n . u (son of Kr s n ad a sa). Venkatesvara Press, Bombay V.S. 1981 [= AD 1924]. .. . anukraman [Reprinted, with a Slok by N aga saran . . a Sim . ha, by Nag Publishers, Delhi 1989 (2nd ed. 1996)] Madhyamakahr arik a . dayak (MHK) See Kawasaki 1988 and Lindtner 1997. Mah abh arata (MBh) The Mah abh arata. For the rst time critically edited by V. S. Sukthankar and others. Poona 192759. 19 vols. Mah an ar ayan . a-Upanis . ad (MN aUp) La Mah a N ar ayan . a Upanis . ad. Edition critique, avec une traduction fran caise, une etude, des notes et, en annexe, la Pr an agnihotra Upanis . . ad. par Jean Varenne. 2 tomes. Paris 1960. Maitr ayan sam a . . hit (MaiS) M aitr ayan Sam a. Die Sam a der M aitr ayan ya-C akh a. [Edit. by] . . hit . hit . Leopold von Schroeder. 4 vols. Leipzig 18811886. M arkan an .d . eyapur .a (MkP) The M arcan an .d . eya Pur . a in the original Sanscrit edited by K. M. Banerjea. Bibliotheca Indica 29. Calcutta 185562. [Reprinted by Biblio Verlag, Osnabr uck 1988.] Ni sv asatattvasam hit a . Electronic transcription of the codex of the Ni sv asatattvasam a in the . hit National Archives, Kathmandu, MS 1227 (= A 41/4) supplemented with readings from its Kathmandu apograph MS (NGMPP 159/18), by Dominic Goodall. Includes the Ni sv asamukha, Ni sv asam ula, Ni sv asottara, Ni sv asanaya and Ni sv asaguhya. Oberlies, Thomas 2000 Kriegslisten und ungeziemendes Benehmen: Die Askesepraktiken der P a supatas. In: Ryutaro Tsuchida and Albrecht Wezler (eds.), Har anandalahar . Volume in Honour of Professor Minoru Hara on his Seventieth Birthday (Reinbek), pp. 175191. Pa nc arthabh as . ya See Kaun .d . inya. Paramoks asak arik a . anir [Published in] As . .t . aprakaran . am. Edit. by Vrajavallabha Dvived Yogatantra-grantham al a vol. 12. Varanasi 1998. Sanderson, Alexis *1998 L akulas and Somasiddh antins. Hilary Term 1998. Handout 5. [Unpublished lecture handout.]

(TVK)

20

2002

*2004

History through Textual Criticism in the study of Saivism, the Pa ncar atra and the Buddhist Yogin tantras. In: Fran cois Grimal (ed.), Les Sources et le Temps. Sources and Time. A Colloquium. Pondicherry 1113 January 1997 (Pondicherry), pp. 147. The Yoga of Dying. The Saiva Atim arga. Week 5: Handout, 9 November, 2004. [Unpublished lecture handout.]

S ardhatri satik alottara (STK) S ardhatri satik alottar agama with commentary (-vr . tti ) of Bhat .t .a R amakan t ha. Edit. by N.R. Bhatt. Publications de lInstitut Fran cais .. dIndologie 61. Pondicherry 1979. Sarvadar sanasam . graha (SDS) Sarva-Dar sana-Samgraha of S ayan adhava. Edited with an original . a=M commentary in Sanskrit by Mahamahopadhyaya Vasudev Shastri Abhyankar. Government Oriental (Hindu) Series Vol. I. Poona 1924. Schultz, Friedrich August 1958 Die philosophisch-theologischen Lehren des P a supata-Systems nach dem Pa nc arthabh as k a. Beitr age zur Sprach- und . ya und der Ratnat . Kulturgeschichte des Orientes 10. Walldorf-Hessen. Skandapur an .a (SPBh ) Skandapur an akhan adakah ada Bhat a . . asya Ambik .d . ah . , sam . p . Kr .s .n . apras .t . ar Mahendraratnagrantham al a 2. Kathmandu 1988. a Svet svatara-Upanis . ad (SvUp) [Published in] Eighteen Principal Upanis . ads. Vol. I. Upanis . adic Text with Parallels from extant Vedic Literature, Exegetical and Grammatical Notes by V.P. Limaye & R. D. Vadekar. Gandhi Memorial Edition. Poona 1958. Taittir yabr ahman .a mad-S (TBr) Taittir yabr ahman ayan ac arya-viracita-Bh as . am. Sr . . ya-sametam. [Edit. by] V.S.R. N ar ayan a S a stri God bole. . . Anand a sramasam avalih . skr . tagranth . 37 [3 Vols.]. Poona 1898. Taittir y aran . yaka astr (TA) Taittir y aran B ab a S Phad . yakam. [Edit. by] V.S.R.R. . ake. Anand a sramasam skr tagranth a valih 36 [2 Vols.]. Poona 1897. . . . V ayupur an .a (V aP) The V ayumah apur an aja. Delhi 1983. Nag Publishers. . am. Edit. by Khemar [Reprint of the Venkate svara edition of AD 1895] V asis s astra .t . hadharma [Published in] Dharmas (V asDhS) utras. The Law Codes of Apastamba, Gautama, Baudh ayana, and Vasis .t . ha. Annotated Text and Translation [by] Patrick Olivelle. Delhi 2000. Wr haspatitattwa . (Wr Wr . T) . haspati-Tattwa. An Old Javanese philosophical text. Critically edited and translated by Sudarshana Devi. Dv p antara-Pit . aka 1. New Delhi 1957. Yogas utra (YS) V acaspatimi sraviracitat k asameta sr vy asabh as ani . . yasamet P ata njalayogas utr an a sramasam avalih . i. Anand . skr . tagranth . 47. [Poona] 1904.

21