Studies on Utpaladevas varapratyabhij-vivrti. Part III: Can a . cognition become the object of another cognition?

R T e present paper is the third of a series of papers (T, forthcoming a, b) in which I am presenting the critical edition and English translation of the fragmentary codex unicus of the varapratyabhij-vivrti, the long commentary . that Utpaladeva composed on his own varapratyabhij-krik (PK) and svavrtti, a work of outstanding importance for the philosophy of Kamirian . aivdvaita, and for Indian philosophy as a whole. I need not repeat here what I have already said elsewhere on the nature of the Vivrti and its relation to . the other commentaries.1 Suce it to recall that Utpaladeva is said to have composed the PK and the concise Vrtti at the same time, and later on to have . devoted an analytic commentary to the complex Krik-Vrtti, i.e. our Vivrti . . (or Tk), in which he discussed possible alternative views and rejected them, . also making occasionally quite long digressions on particular subjects. Of this lenghty workcorresponding to the extent of 8000 loka (hence the traditional denomination of Astashasr)only a comparatively small fragment has come .. down to us, covering the section PK I.3.6 through I.5.3. A detailed exposition of my discovery of the original manuscript after a cursory consultation, some 15 years ago, with a transcript of the same made by Prof. K. Ch. P, can be found in the rst study that I have devoted to this text (T forthcoming a), which also contains a description of the manuscript (National Archives, Delhi, Skt. Mss. No. 30). e present paper deals with the Vivrti on PK I.4.35. In the previous . chapter Utpaladeva, referring to an enigmatic statement in the Bhagavadgt,2
With deep sadness I pay tribute to the memory of Hlne B. My admiration for her scholarly work is as great as my admiration for her uninching courage and serenity in the last years of her life. 1 T 2002: XLXLV. 2 Bhagavadgt XV.15b mattah smrtir jnam apohanam ca From Me derive memory, . . . knowledge and exclusion.

438

Mlanges tantriques la mmoire dHlne Brunner

had identied three powers (akti) in the Lord: Cognition, Memory and Exclusion. After making some preliminary remarks concerning them as a whole, he starts a detailed inquiry into each of them. His aim is to show that cognition, memory and exclusion, which constitute the very basis of the knowledge process in human mind, are indirectly also a proof of the coinciding of the individual subject with universal Consciousness. None of these phenomena can be really explained and their complex functioning accounted for satisfactorily in merely mechanic terms, as rst of all the Buddhists do. e individual subject can cognize, remember and exclude only if it is conceived of as inscribed within an eternal and, at the same time, dynamic universal I-ness, i.e. iva. If Utpaladevas investigation starts with memory, by infringing the above stated order, it is because in a very clear manner memory can serve as a logical reason for the establishment of the identity of the self with the Lord.3 e starting point is the classical denition of memory given in Yogastra I.11: Memory is the non-extinction of the object formerly perceived (anubhtavisaysampramosah smrtih). e sustained analysis of Utpaladeva singles . . . . . out a few crucial points contained in such an apparently simple process: How is it possible to attribute temporal dierentiation to a cognizer that is permanent in his essential nature? What is the relationship between the cognitive act of the original perception and the cognitive act of the subsequent memory? How can the latter bring the former to light again without objectifying it? On this point, in fact, the aiva and his principal opponent, the Buddhist epistemologist, are in full agreement: a cognition is self-luminous and cannot be the object of another cognition. e standard Buddhist explanation (examined in T, fortcoming b, from which I derive some of the observations that follow) is far from being satisfactory: saying that the perception produces a samskra, which in turn will . produce the phenomenon of memory, only accounts for the fact that memory has a certain objective content but leaves out the subjective component represented by the fact that the object has been coloured by the previous perception, or, to be more precise, by its having been already perceived in a certain past moment. Memory, in fact, is indeed the memory of the past object but also of the past perception of it. Instead, as Abhinavagupta says, what the
So we read at the very beginning of the Vivrti on I.4.1: smrtydnm idnm . . . jnaprakaranennena svarpam nirpayisyann aesaklnugatasvatantrvabodhalaksantmata. . . . . . ttvasvabhvevaraaktirpatm pratipipdayisuh smrter eva tvat suspastam vartmasiddhihetu. . . . .. tay prathamam sambhavam ha. .
3

Raaele Torella

439

samskra is able to convey (or resurrect) is neither the original perception nor . the object insofar as it was cognized by such past perception.4 is presupposes a living organism at work, a dynamic and unitary consciousness able to freely move between dierent moments of time. It is the I that ensures the possibility of unifying the various cognitions occurring at dierent times, thus resolving the apparent inconsistency between a (present) vimara and a (past) anubhava. e one and same svasamvedana of both cognitions creates that necessary . bridge between them which the Buddhist epistemologist fails to account for.5 A further clarication is provided by Abhinavagupta in the PVV (II, p. 32, ll. 10 13): the praka concerning the part-object (arthme) belongs to the past; but . the praka as grasped by the vimara, concerning the part-self (svtmmse), is . not limited by time. us the vimara in the memory can connect itself with the vimara in the perception and, through it, with the former light of the objectin this way meeting both requirements: taking place in the present and not being divorced from praka (T 2002:106107, fn. 12). e portion of the Vivrti that I have edited here (its translation will . be published subsequently) is meant to answer the most obvious objection from a common sense point of view: why not simply say that the present memory cognizes the former perception and, through it, the former object? Utpaladevas reply is centred on the vindication of one of the main foundation stones of Pratyabhi philosophy: the basic identity of the I, consciousness and any cognitive activitiy. If the I, the self, became the object of something outside it, it would simply cease being the I. Any cognition has as its essential nature self-awareness (svamvit), which can be taken in three dierent, and . complementary, senses: svasyaiva samvit, svaiva samvit, svasya samvid eva ca . . .
e point has been explicitly touched upon, in a dierent context, by Utpaladeva in PK I.3.2cd [] samskrajatvam tu tattulyatvam na tadgati? e fact that [memory] arises from . . . latent impressions implies its similarity to the former perception, but not its cognition of that. e samskra of the former perception is awakened by a present perceptionsimilar to the . otherwhich gives rise to the memory. e samskra, therefore, ensures this similarity in the . memory, but the memory itself has no direct access to (cannot know) the former perception and therefore nor can it, strictly speaking, establish the similarity between the latter and the present perception which has been reawakened by the samskra (T 2002:99100, fn. 4). . Vrtti thereon: Since memory arises from the latent impression left by the former perception, . it only bears a similarity to that perception but does not have direct cognition of the latter; and, moreover, as there is no cognition of the former perception not even the similarity to it can be maintained. 5 Cf. PVV II, p. 17, ll. 2223 anubhavasmrtyor ekam svasamvedanarpam ekavisayatopa. . . . lambht.
4

440

Mlanges tantriques la mmoire dHlne Brunner

(see below, p. *). Abhinavagupta, availing himself of a device very popular among the commentators, maintains that the particle ca evokes the existence of a further sense to be added to the three explicitly stated by Utpaladeva: sv samvid eva. None of them would stand, if the objectiability of cognition were . accepted. For each of them, apart from the rst one,6 Abhinavagupta species the respective counterparts, aptly clarifying the terse lines of the Vivrti: svaiva . samvitparpy asya [jnasya] samvit, svasya samvid evaasamvid api ca, sv . . . . samvid evajadam api asya rpam.7 . . But the opponent has one more argument, apparently a very strong one. e yogin, thanks to his extraordinary power of perception, is able to penetrate other minds and know their contents: this is an unequivocal proof that cognitions can become the object of others cognitions. Utpaladevas answer is expressed in the last krik taken under consideration here, and subtly elaborated in the dense Vivrti thereon. Even if we hypothetically admitted that . a cognition can be objectied, nothing would change, since the establishing of a valid relationship of visaya-visayin between the two cognitions should be . . mediated by the attainment of a state of unication between the two cognitions and the respective subjects, and, if a successful knowledge process has srpya as its core, srpya, for its part, is incompatible with unity. It is undeniable, concludes Utpaladeva, that the yogin can have access to other minds, but this is possible precisely because he has reached the identication with the supreme Self and consequently has gone beyond the distinction of limited subjects: at that point, the cognitions of others end up being his own cognitions. us, tmavda has been nally established, but for Utpaladeva this is not enough. Cognitions now are provided with a permanent self as their ultimate ground, but the lazy self (e.g. of the Nyya or the Vaiesika) is unable to freely move . among cognitions, unite them, separate them, or, for example, in the case at issue (the phenomenon of memory), recover an object and its perception from the past and make them shine again in the present without cancelling their original nature but also without reproducing them mechanically. For this, the sovereignty (aivarya) of self of the aivas is needed.
e counterpart of svasyaiva samvit is not shown both because it is not relevant to what . the author intends to prove, and because an awareness also of the other does not constitute a characteristic of insentience (PVV II, p. 45, ll. 57). 7 Cf. PVV II, p. 44, l. 25 p. 45, l. 5 (l. 3 prg iti is to be corrected to pratiyogi).
6

Raaele Torella

441

T8
[f. 31, l. 15] <Vivrti> 9 smrtikle ca prvaklvacchedenrthbhsasya sama. . rthitasya 10 vrtamnikasmrtiprakd bhedo nopapadyata ity anubhavasmrty. . bhsayoh arrbhta eko rthah tayor apy 11 ekatvam ksipatti 12 copadarayan . . . drastram 13 smartram caika[16v]m upapdayati || 14 [] .. . . [16v, l. 4] na ca yuktam smrter bhede smaryamnasya bhsanam | . . . tenaikyam bhinnaklnm samvidm veditaisa sah || 3 || <I.4.3> . . . . . . 15 [] [17r, l. 14] Vrttih || prvnubhta crtho nubhavena saha . . ttklikasmrtiprake vabhsamnah smrtyabhinna eva prakd bhinnasya . . . prakamnatnupapatteh | 16 evam anubhavasmrty[17v]disamvidm aikyam . . . . sa eva ctm vedakas | tath hi || Vivrtih || prvnubhtasyaivrthasya kevalasya na smrtau yogijna . . . ivttrthavisaye prakah | tath hi smrtitvam na syt | anubhavamukhenaiva . . . . crthasya svayam sthiratve pi smrtv attatvatvam 17 ucyata ity anubhavapraka . . evtropayog | tad ha prvnubhta crtho nubhavena saha
e words underlined in the text are those literally cited in the PVV. Punctuation is mine (that found in the MS is often misleading). In the edition, <> means addition with respect to the transmitted text; [], means elimination of portions of the transmitted text (also the indications folio and line are between square brackets). e sandhi has been normalized. e establishing of the text has resulted from the delicate balance of sometimes divergent factors: the text as transmitted by the codex unicus, internal coherence, literal citations in the PVV, paraphrases in the PVV, parallel texts. A few literal citations from the Vivrti can be found in . the footnotes of the KSTS Ed. of the PV, which have been derived from the marginal notes of an important MS of PV, that given the siglum Gh in the edition of the PV (the MS is now at the National Archives, Delhi, where I have consulted it). When the transmitted text has been modied, this has been pointed out by using three dierent expressions: emendation, conjectural emendation and tentative restoration. e rst is felt as virtually certain, the second as highly probable, the third as a mere attempt. 9 smrti, my conjectural emendation for bhta MS; cf. PVV II, p. 33, l. 13 tad avatrayati . samksepena smrtikle ca iti. . . . . 10 vrtamnika, my conjectural emendation for vnumnika MS. 11 ekatvam, my conjectural emendation for ekataram MS. 12 cit. p. 33, l. 14 as darayan. 13 smartram, my conjectural emendation for kartram MS. . . 14 the avatranik of PV follows. . 15 the PV follows. 16 p. 36, l. 8 has evam ca (tadvrttim evam ca itydikm vivrnoti), which instead is omitted in . . . . .. the citation in the Vivrti (see below), tad ha evam anubhava iti; ca also added in the MSS . TT used for my edition of the Vrtti. . . 17 a possible emendation of ucyata to ucyatm could be considered.
8

442

Mlanges tantriques la mmoire dHlne Brunner

iti | smrti ca jnarpaivety ha smrtipraka iti, smrtiprakasya . . . ttklikatvaviesanena vartamnatokty kladvaynusandhnt smartrsiddhir . . . upaksipt, na ca smrtijnasya 18 vartamnvacchinnasya visayinah . . . . . prvnubhavasahito nubhto rtho ttarpasvaklvacchinno bhinntmaiva 19 visayyabhramamnatlaksanasya visayatvasya prakd bhede saty . . . . . anupapatteh | tad ah avabhsamna iti | prakasvarpsvkre . paroksrthavat prakamnatvam na yuktam arthasya 20 , etac coktam . . . purastd vaksyate ca | [18r] 21 tad evam vartamnasmrtiprakatm . . . . vin paurvaklikrthnubhavasya arthasya ca tajjnadvaytmatm . vin smrtivisaybhva eva nopapadyata ity ukt smrtyanubhavayor . . . anusandhnamayaikarptmasiddhih | tad ha evam anubhava iti | . digrahanenotpreksdisamvid uktnubhavisyate punar artho mayeti . . . . bhavisyatklnubhavenpy utpreksbuddher anusandhnt | kevalam . . atrnubhavasmaranotpreksdnm tattadvisayavaicitryd vicitrtmatay . . . . dharmarpatm v parikalpya taddharmavn eko nya ivtm vyavahriyate, . 22 vastuta evntarmukhasynyonyam abhinntmanas tadtmatvam | tad ha sa evtm iti | svnubhavasmaranayor bhinnaklatve tadabhedino rthasypi . prvparabhvena klabheda eva atha ca smrtv arthasya 23 attatbhsenaikyam . uktam, tat katham etasya bhedbhedalaksanaviruddharpayogah syt | . . . atrocyate prvnubhavajnasya tvat smrtijnd bhedena prathaiva . nstty anantaram eva vaksyate | jnnm ca svatah klayogbhvah, . . . . kevalam jeya[18v]gato sau tatropacaryata ity etad api vaksyate | evam . . . cnubhavasmrtijnayor anubhvyasmaryamnrthbhedn na tvat . . tadapeksay prvparavyavahro vastuta cbheda evtmparanm vaksyate, . . tasyaiva tv tmanas sarvaakter varasya klaakty citrvabhsakritay tattadditydikriyskstkralaksanbhsasadasadbhym cbhsabhedapra. . . . kant kramvabhsane vaksyamnaklacintkramennubhavasmrtijnayoh . . . . . arrdyavasthbhsakramopacro vstavbhedo py 24 anayor | tadapeksam apy . arthasya paurvparyam katham viruddham syt, na ca smrtv avabhsamno . . . .
a possible emendation of vartamn to vartamnat could be considered. visayyabhraamnat, my tentative restoration for visayd bhraamnat MS. . . 20 I reproduce the passage, apparently corrupt, for which I have not been able to nd a plausible restoration: vetarpdauveevetamnayetiprasdasya. 21 cit. p. 36, l. 8 as tad eva ca. 22 vastuta evntarmukhasynyonyam abhinntmanas tadtmatvam, my conjectural emenda. tion for vastu evntarmukh anyonyam abhinntmanas tadtmatattvam MS. . 23 cit. as att p. 36, l. 22 (also possible). 24 anayoh | tad , my conjectural emendation for anayor atad MS. .
19 18

Raaele Torella

443

pi smaryamnrthah sphutkro nvabhsata ity bhsabhedd api . . . bhidyate vimarbhedd ity etad api vaksyata eva | yady api25 prvnubhavah . . prthak smrtau na prathate tathpi prvnubhtatvenrthsya prathand . . arthamayo sau prakata eva | evam bhedavyavahre pi tattvatas tadai26 kyam . evednm darayati | tath hti || . Vivrti || na ca prakamnatnyathnupapatty praknupravee pi . ghatavad grhymvasth[19r]nam prvnubhavasya grhakmoprohena . . . . . prathand ity ha || 27 [] naiva hy anubhavo bhti smrtau prvo rthavat prthak | . . prg anvabhvam aham ity tmrohena bhsant || 4 || <I.4.4> . 28 [] [19v, l. 9] Vrttih || smrtau smaryamno nubhtrtho yath . . . . prthagbhto bhti na tathnubhavah svtmana evhantpratyeyasynubhava. . mayatvena prathant | ya cnekaklo hamvedyo rthah sa evtm || . . Vivrtih || smaranajne ghatdyarthkra eva ekah prvakldyavacchinno . . . . . grhyabhvasthah prthaktvenedantnirdeyo vabhti, na tu prvnubhavkro . . 29 parah | smrtv iti | na csau yogino ttrthamtrajna iva prvnubhavo . . naiva prakate ha krspadbhta30 grhakmnupravistasyham anvabhn . .. 31 vam iti maynubhto rtha iti v prvnubhavasya smartrbodhaikyena . prakant | maynubhta 32 rtha ity atrpi artha eva prthagbhto bhti, . anubhavas tu tadnm arthopasarjanabh[20r]vena srjyamno pi taduttrna . . ivedantparmarasamsparksamo hammtravirntisatattvah, tasya tu yah . . . . . sa iti sphuta iti ca parmarah tad anubhvyadharmopacrena vyava. . . hramtram deakldyavacchedaprthagbhvd iti vaksyate | so ham evam . . . sam ity tmanah pramtur api grhyatvena buddhydidharmopacrena . . . vyavahrt | vastutas tu ntm npy anubhavajnam anubhvytiriktam . grhyapakse rpavad bhti iti | yo yam ahamprattau prathamno vedya. . bhmikvatrno nekaklagatavedyonmukhatvamtrt pratyagtmatdym . . tathnekakla33 topacropacaryamnah sa evtm drast smart ceti | tad ha . . ..
cit. p. 39 as yady api ca. in MS kyam eve corrects a previous kyeneve. 27 the avatranik of PV follows. . 28 the PV follows. 29 aparah, my conjectural emendation for apara MS. . 30 grhakm, my emendation for grhakm c MS. . . 31 iti, my conjectural addition. 32 rtha, my conjectural addition. 33 pacropacaryamnah, my emendation for pocracaryamnah MS (also possible: . . . . upacrencaryamnah or upacrcaryamnah). . . . . .
26 25

444

Mlanges tantriques la mmoire dHlne Brunner

ya cnekakla iti | vedyat atra prathamnatttparyenokt na tv anyyat. taprakratvena 34 vedanakarmatay || Vivrti || nanu praknupraveam vin prakamnat m bht, na tu . . tvataiva prakyaprakakayor aikypattir grhyabhga eva grhakd vicchinne ghatdeh prakyasya prakbhinnasypi prathant, tath yoginm . . . parapramtrbodhah paratvenaivedantay prakate nyath bhrntih syt, tat . . . katham jnasya 35 jnntargrhyatve nubhavavisayyh smrter anubhavena . . . . sahaikyam syd iti || 36 [] . [20v, l. 12] yoginm api bhasante na dro daranntare | . svasamvidekamns t bhnti meyapade pi v || 5 || <I.4.5> . 37 [] <21v, l. 2> Vrttih || sarvajnm api pramtrantaragat . . upalambhh svasamvinmtravedyasvabhvh svtmrdh eva bhseran | ata . . . . ca 38 tesm yoginm 39 paramtmatpattir eva 40 tattvam, prameyakaksyym . . . . evam v ghatdivat prtisvikena uddhabodhtman rpenvabhseran, yadi . . . tath sambhavet || 41 Vivrtih || tad atra | yoginm api parabodhah svasamvinmaya evvabh. . . . sate nyath prguktanity bodhathnih syt svasamvedanaprathmtrarpa. . tvt tasya | grhyabhmigatatvenvabhsanbhyupagame pi v tasya smr. tyanubhavavrttntavailaksanyam eva parabodhavisayayogivijnotpatteh, na . . . . tv etan42 nidarane nubhavasmrtyor grhyagrhakabhva ity ha yoginm . iti | yogitvam iha upayujyamnatvt paroksajnamtramayam nirdistam | . . .. tad ha sarvajnm iti | yogipratyaksasya anyaprasiddhatvamtre sarva. jagrahanam 43 krtam | pramtrantaragath pramtrantarasiddhh pra. . . . . mtrantartmnas tattadghatdibhinnabhvavisay ity arthah | jnnm . . . . jnntaravedyatve svabhvahnih syd iti svabhvapadam upttam npy . .
in MS vedana apparently corrects a previous vedaka. jnntargrhyatve, my conjectural emendation for jnntaragrhyatve MS. 36 the avatranik of PV follows. . 37 the PV follows. 38 MS inverts the order: yoginm tesm; all the mss. of the Vrtti read tesM yoginm. . . . . . . . 39 I accept now the reading paramtmat MS, while in my edition of the Vrtti I had preferred . partmat (the mss. of the Vrtti oscillate between the two readings). . 40 tattvam is written above the line to correct a previous na tu. . 41 vivrttih has been added in the left margin. . . 42 nidarane, my emendation for nidarano MS. e reading nidarane is also found in the fn. 121 of PV I, p. 137, which reproduces literally (with the only addition of one explanatory gloss) the above passage of the Vivrti (grhyabhmi grhyagrhakabhva). . 43 I delete na (na krtam MS), which apparently does not t the context. .
35 34

Raaele Torella

445

ubhayavedyatety pratipdanya mtragrahanam | svasamvinmtralaksanatvc . . . . copalambhasya svasamvinmtravedyatvam svabhvah [22r]44 | svasyaiva sam. . . . vit 45 svaiva samvit svasya samvid eva ca iti | jnam svasamvillaksanam, . . . . . . . param api hi tat prakayet svtmnam eva prakayan na tu 46 svtmaprakand aparam paraprakanam jnasyeti svasyaiva samvit tathbhtam ca . . . . sat | parenpi yad taj jnam prakyate tad nsya svaiva samvit, na ca . . . svasya tat samvid eva syd, api tu parpeksaprakanatvt parpy asya samvid, . . . asamvid api ca taj jadasyaivamlaksanatvt | tad tv etvat syt 47 yam . . . . . . yoginam pratyupasthitam parapramtrjnam svayam eva praketa 48 tam . . . . . praty asya evam jnalaksantikramo na syt | 49 na tv etad upapadyate parena . . . . saha sambandhyogt | jnam ca visaylambhanam srpye50 naiva bhavati . . . . nlde ca jnavilaksanarpatvt tadanukrena jnasya bhedbhedaniba. . . ndhanam srpyam upapadyate, jnayos tu dvayor visayavisayinor ekabodha. . . . mtralaksanatvd abheda eveti na srpyam lambanrtho nayor, api tu . . aikyam eva | darpanayos sarvarpavailaksanyd anyonyasrpyam syt | j. . . . nayos tu bodharpattirikto deaklayogveavieso pi hi na sambhav | . kimca yad yathbhtam tadrpenaiva jnam tadkram bhavat tadvisayam . . . . . . . bhavet, anlavyavacchinnena hi nlena nlkram j[22v]nam 51 tadvisayam, . . . tata ca grhyavyavacchinnagrhakaikasvabhvena jnena jnntaram tu. lykram eva syd | yadi hy ekabhga eva niveayet, etat pramusitasvarpam . . na kuryt | 52 evam dvayor 53 aikypattyaiva visayavisayibhvah | tad ha . . . . svtmrdh eva iti | 54 svtm jnasya grhakmah, parapramtrsam. . . . bandhi tu arrdi sarvajajne bhedena grhyma evvabhsate | tadabhi. pryenaiva tu parasattnupraveavisayam sarvajajnam iti vyavahrah | . . . . vstavena tu bodhaiktman 55 pramtr pramtrantaraikypattir eva parathe passage tvanmtram laksanam hi esm, cit. p. 44, l. 10, might be a quotation from . . . . . the Vivrti (not found in MS). . 45 svaiva, my conjectural emendation for svasya MS. 46 svtma, my emendation for svtm MS. 47 yam, my tentative restoration for param MS (which, alternatively, could simply be deleted). . . 48 cit. p. 45, l. 14 as tam yoginam prati (yoginam being most probably a gloss). . . . 49 cit. p. 45, ll. 1516 as nanu etad api. 50 naiva, my emendation for naivam MS. . . . 51 MS reads, incorrectly, na tadvisayam. . 52 evam, my emendation for eva MS (also possible, but less satisfactory: na kuryd eva . aikypattyaiva ). 53 in MS aikypattyaiva corrects a previous aikypattir eva (also possible*). 54 svtm, my conjectural emendation for svtma MS. 55 I restore pramtr, not found in MS (most probably dropped by haplography; see the
44

446

Mlanges tantriques la mmoire dHlne Brunner

mtma56 vedakatvam sarvajasya | tad ha yoginm paramtmatpattir eva . . iti | na ca pramtrantarair aikye pi sarvajasya parasukhaduhkhayogah . . sukhder vstave pramtari bodhaikalaksanhantmtraprathtmany asanni. . vet | myya eva buddhytmani pramtary ahantedantprattivisaye tasyva. sthitir iti vaksyate | ata eva grhakabhmikottrnnm vstavapramtrdasa. . . . mpannnm tattatsvahetpasthpitasukhaduhkhaskstkre pi na sukhitvdi, . . . tesm notpadyata eva v sukhdihetuvaikalyt | sahajnandvirbhvas tad . . syt | prvajanmntarapratyakskre pi yoginm janm[23r]ntarnubht. . nm arthnm prvnubhtatvena skstkre prvnubhavaikypattir eva, . . tad ca vartamnena may prvajanmany anubhtam iti prvnubhavnusandhnj janmntarnubhtena smrtir evsau | pramtrantaradrstam artham . ... . pramtrantaradaranena saha yadottaraklam skstkaroti yog, tad tatprva. . vartipramtrantaradaranaikypatty skstkarotti smrtir eva s | pramtranta. . raikypattv api ca svapratyagtmasamskrnivrttes tatpramtrantara57 svar. . papuryastakdi parapramtrtvenaivvabhsate, sarvath samskrapariksaye tv .. . . . varyamno yog sarvam tmaarram eva payati, na tasya jnapravibhgah | . . . tad evam sarvath jnnm 58 na vedyavedakabhvah, grhakabhvaikypatty . . . svaparavibhgasamskrabhrame pi vastutah svasamvedanarpatayaiva 59 bha. . . . vantti sthitam | abhyupagamypy ucyate sarvajasya pramtrantar60 nu. bhav yadi grhyabhga ev61 vabhserams tad abhedenaivha krabahirbhn . vena tatpramtrantarasambandhiarrabuddhykrottrnena bodhamtren. . tman idantay paratvenvabhseran | tad ha prameyakaksyym iti . 62 prtisvikena uddhabodhtman iti ca | esa ca pakso noktanayena sam. . . bhavatty abhyupagamavdamtram evedam | tad ha yadi tath sambhaved iti | iha tv aham 63 anvabhvam maynubhtam iti grhakmdhi. . ropenaivedam64 bhvottrnatayaiva[23v] prathand anubhavasmaranajnayor . . . .
following pramtrantara). 56 vedakatvam, my conjectural emendation for vedanam MS (quoted p. 47, l. 10 as . vedakam); cf. l. 11 tattvam paramtmavedakatvam ity arthah (contra: cf. ll. 1314 sarva. jagrahanam [] partmavedakaparyyatm eti). . . 57 svarpa (or, also possible, svarpam), my emendation for svarpah MS. . . 58 na, my conjectural addition (na, not found in MS, is strictly required by meaning). 59 bhavantti, my conjectural emendation for bhavatti MS (the only possible subject being jnni understood from the previous jnnm). 60 nubhav yadi, my emendation for nubhavya MS. 61 avabhserams tad abhedena, my conjectural emendation for anubhseran | stadbhedena MS. . 62 prtisvikena, my emendation for svikena MS. 63 anvabhvam, my emendation for anvabhyam MS. . . 64 bhvo, my conjectural emendation for bhso MS.

Raaele Torella

447

aikyam eva naitattulyateti siddha evtmavdah | tmana ca aikyamtrenpy . . audsnyn 65 ananubhavasmarandiaktimattvd aivaryam na syd, etac . . coktam vaksyate ca || . .

ananubhava, my conjectural emendation for nnubhava MS. e citation p. 53, l. 17 of yvat, not found in MS, leaves some doubt on the last sentence as transmitted in MS.

65