the sutrapath of the pashupata sutras - peter bisschop

of 21 /21
The S¯ utrap¯ at . ha of the P¯ supatas¯ utra Peter Bisschop * In 1943 Chintaharan Chakravarti published a short notice about variant readings of the 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 supatas¯ utra with Kaun . d . inya’s Pa˜ nc¯ arthabh¯ as . 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 por- tion supplied from the Calcutta manuscript. 1 Chakravarti fails to mention that the variants he lists are not the readings of the 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 . ya proper. In fact this S¯ utrap¯ at . ha is also preserved in the manuscript on which the Trivandrum edition is based, and a number of the variants recorded by Chakravarti are found in this manuscript’s S¯ utrap¯ at . ha as well. A closer look at the S¯ utrap¯ at . ha suggests a relatively separate transmission alongside the Bh¯ as . ya. In the present paper an edition of this S¯ utrap¯ at . ha of the supatas¯ utra is presented on the basis of the two mentioned manuscripts and a newly identified manuscript from the Sarasvat¯ ıbhavana Library in Benares. 2 The text of the S¯ utrap¯ at . ha is fairly consistent in all three manuscripts, with a number of noteworthy readings not present in Kaun . d . inya’s text. This consistency also concerns the placement of dan . d . a s, which I regard as an in- trinsic feature of the transmission of the S¯ utrap¯ at . ha. It will be observed that in a number of cases the division of the S¯ utras in the S¯ utrap¯ at . ha, which is * Research for this article was made possible by a TALENT-grant from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO). I would like to thank Arlo Griffiths and Harunaga Isaacson for their comments upon an earlier version of this paper. 1 Cf. Sastri’s remark on p. 19 of the introduction to the edition: “When this discovery was announced as usual to scholars, Dr. T.R. Chintamani m, a., ph. d., of the Madras University who was then in Calcutta saw an independent manuscript with 1 to 13 pages only containing 21 S¯ utras of the first adhy¯ aya and Bh¯ ashya which covers in this printed edition 42 pages last but one line, in the Asiatic Society of Bengal Library. On substituting pages 8 to 13 from the above by copying I found that pages 27 and 28 are still wanting. The missing pages might contain some important portion, say about Vidyesvara etc., which go to make the system a perfect one.” The text of the missing pages 27 and 28 in the Trivandrum MS is preserved in a so far unnoticed manuscript from Benares (on which see below). For an edition and translation of this previously unavailable passage, see Bisschop forthc. b. 2 This manuscript (MS 86122) was first brought to my attention by Dominic Goodall. Dr S.A.S. Sarma (EFEO, Pondicherry) kindly provided me with a copy of this manuscript. 1

Author: tantrabooks

Post on 28-Nov-2014

754 views

Category:

Documents


12 download

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

The Sutrapath of the Pashupata Sutras - Peter Bisschop

TRANSCRIPT

The Straptha of the Pupatastra u a. as uPeter Bisschop In 1943 Chintaharan Chakravarti published a short notice about variant readings of the Pupatastra in a manuscript of the Pacrthabhsya in the as u n a a. collection of the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal, Calcutta. The edition of the Pupatastra with Kaundinyas Pacrthabhsya had been published as u n a a. .. 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 Pupatastra as they as u are quoted in the text of the Bhsya, but the readings of the Straptha a. u a. preceding the text of the Bhsya proper. In fact this Straptha is also a. u a. 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 Straptha as well. A closer look at the Straptha suggests a u a. u a. relatively separate transmission alongside the Bhsya. In the present paper a. an edition of this Straptha of the Pupatastra is presented on the basis u a. as u of the two mentioned manuscripts and a newly identied manuscript from the Sarasvat bhavana Library in Benares.2 The text of the Straptha is fairly consistent in all three manuscripts, u a. with a number of noteworthy readings not present in Kaundinyas text. This .. consistency also concerns the placement of dandas, which I regard as an in.. trinsic feature of the transmission of the Straptha. It will be observed that u a. in a number of cases the division of the Stras in the Straptha, which is u u a.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 Stras of the rst adhyya and Bhshya which covers in this printed u a a 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.

1

dierent from that given in Kaundinyas Bhsya, makes good sense. A strika. .. ing dierence with Kaundinyas text of the Stra concerns the ve Brahmau .. mantras which conclude each of the ve Adhyyas into which the Stra a u and Bhsya are divided. On the whole it is conspicuous that Kaundinyas a. .. version of the Brahma-mantras shows more metrical features,3 while the Strapthas version tends to be closer to the version of these Mantras in u a. Taittir aranyaka 10 (= Mahnryana-Upanisad). This may be due to y . a aa . . later rewriting of the Stras by transmitters who were familiar with these u Brahma-mantras. It need not necessarily reect the original Stra reading. u It is my general impression that the Straptha was at one time extracted u a. from the Bhsya (cf. e.g. the annotation on 1.30 and 5.24 below).4 On the a. other hand the present study also shows the arbitrary division of the Stras u as we now have them. It seems likely that Kaundinya had before him a .. string of originally larger Stras,5 which he broke up into smaller segments u in order to comment upon them. It is these quotations of segments which we have come to refer to as the Stras.6 u At the outset a peculiarity in the presentation of the Straptha in the u a. Benares manuscript should be noted. While the two other manuscripts quote the entire Straptha at the beginning of the text with a division u a. into ve parts indicated by short spaces the Benares manuscript integrates the Straptha into the text of each Adhyya of the Bhsya. u a. a a. Thus at the spot where Kaundinya would quote the rst Stra of an u .. Adhyya in the other two manuscripts, the Benares manuscript quotes the a relevant Straptha of that Adhyya. u a. a The following abbreviations are used in the apparatus and notes to the edition of the Straptha: u a.3 I am not sure what to make of this. Does this indicate that Kaundinyas 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 Kaundinyas 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 Kaundinya had access to more than one version of the Stras, u .. 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 Pacrthabhsya n a a. is called for. Cf. also Bisschop forthc. a and b.

2

B Benares, Sarasvat Bhavana Library, MS 86112. Paper, Devangar a script. Folios 176; complete; double sided; 811 lines a page.7 C Calcutta, Asiatic Society, MS IM-5474. Paper, Devangar script. 13 a folios; incomplete; double sided; 1215 lines a page. Comes with four folios from an unidentied Alamkrastra work.8 . a sa K Stra as quoted by Kaundinya in the Bhsya. u a. .. T Trivandrum, University of Kerala Library, MS 2018. Paper, Devangar script.9 Folios 187 (nos. 1, 813, 27, 28 missing); a 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 Pacrthabhsya, who copied this part of the MS from n a a. 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 for m at the end of a Stra; 2) absence of avagraha; u . 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 r . eya namah, C with om r mahganapataye namah, and T with s gan sa a . . . s . harih ganapataye namah. The edition and apparatus below only refer to the . . . reading of the Straptha. Note that the numbering does not correspond u a. with the Stra numbering in the existing edition of Kaundinyas Bhsya. u a. .. References to Kaundinyas 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 Bhsya and what T or the other a. 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 Stra u in Sastris edition. I have refrained from recording all the variants of the Bhsya readings in B, because they are full of scribal errors and they do a. not help in reconstructing the reading of the Straptha. In general one u a.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

3

gets the impression that the text of the Straptha is better preserved in u a. this manuscript than the text of the Bhsyas Stras. a. u Edition 1.1 athtah paupateh pupatam yogavidhim vykhysymah | a . s a a a . . as . .pupatam yogavidhim ] B Tpc , pupatayogavidhim C Tac . as as . . . K reads pupatam yogavidhim with B and Tpc . as The variant reading of . . C and Tac also occurs in the Bhsya in B (f. 2r, ll. 56) and in the Sara. vadaranasamgraha (p. 162, ll. 12): tatredam distramathtah paupateh s a u a . s . . pupatayogavidhim vykhysyma iti | . as a a a . Note in this connection also the compound pupatayogavidhnam in RT p. 21, l. 19. as a .

1.2 bhasman trisavanam sny | a . a ta . .trisavanam ] Bpc C T, isavanam Bac sny ] C T, sny B. s. a ta a t . . . . . Chakravarti erronously transcribes C as reading snyt. a a

1.3 bhasmani ay | s taay ] C T, ay B. s ta s t

1.4 anusnnam | aT connects this Stra with the next one (i.e. by omitting the danda). u ..

1.5 nirmlyam | aFor testimonia for this and/or the following Stras, cf. the annotation to 1.8 and u 1.9.

1.6 lingadhr | a 1.7 yatanavs | a a 1.8 hasitag . tyahudumkranamaskrajapyopahrenopatisthet | tanr a a . . . a ..

nrtyahudumkranamaskra ] B C, nrttadumdumkranamaskra Tpc , nrttaa a . . . a . . . . . a . dumdumkra Tac . a . . . . Chakravarti erronously transcribes C as reading huhumkra . C connects this . a Stra with the following one. K agrees with the reading of Tpc . However, external u evidence suggests that B and Cs hudumkra reects the original reading. . . a Sanderson (2002: 30, n. 32) has argued that the intended vocalization must be huddun. Cf. also Ratnat a p. 19, ll. 46 tad evam nirvartyopahram dhyyann a . a .. . k .

sam hasitag . tyahudukkranamaskrajapyaih . adangopahram, Nivsamukha . tanr a a a . s a . . s . f. 5v , l. 4 hudukkrasya nrtyasya mukhavdy.. ahsayoh | trisklam caiva kurvno a a att a a. . . . . a . bhaved gana[h] sa cottamah , and Nivsamukha f. 17r , l. 3 lingasyyatane s a a . . . vso huddunkrastavais tath | g . tyanamaskrair brahmabhir japasamyutah . a a tanr a .. a . .

4

nrtyahudumkra is also the reading of B (f. 10v, ll. 34.) and C (f. 6r, l. 14) in the . . . a quotation of the Stra in the Bhsya. Instead of namaskrajapyopahrenopatis. het u a. a a . .t B wrongly reads namaskram tathopahrena upatis. het there. a . a . .t

1.9 mahdevasya daksinmrtim | a . .a udaksinmrtim ] B C, daksinmrteh T. . .a u . .a u . Sastri agrees with T. The accusative daksinmrtim also occurs in the Bhsyas a. . .a u quotation of this Stra in B (f. 11v, l. 2) and C (f. 6v, l. 11) and at the end of the u commentary on this Stra in B (f. 23v, l. 1) and C (f. 11v, l. 5). Although this u 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 rthavivecanaknda p. 106, ll. 1517 linganirmlyadhr ca yatih svyatane vaset | a. . a a . a upag tahudumkrastutikrtyaparah sad | bhvand devadevasya daksinm mrtim a a a a u . . . . . .a. a sthitah | and Nivsamukha f. 17r , l. 3 ekavso hy avso v daksinmrtim ritah. s a a a a as . . .a u . Moreover, the reading of this Stra in the Straptha and Bhsya in T may very well u u a. a. be the editors own handwriting (see introduction above), while the nal reference to this Stra at the end of the commentary on K 1.9, for which the original Trivandrum u MS is available again, in fact has daksinmrt[t]im as well. A second hand appears . .a u to have tried to correct it to daksinmrtteh (T f. 23r, l. 8). The evidence for the . .a u . reading adopted by Sastri is thus rather weak indeed.

1.10 ekavsh | a a.ekavsh ] T, ekavs B C. a a. a a K agrees with T.

1.11 avs v | aa a 1.12 mtrapur. am nvekset | u s . a .This and the following Stra are reminiscent of BaudhDhS 3.8.17 strsudrair u nbhibh. eta mtrapur. e nvekseta. a as u s a .

1.13 strsudram nbhibhset | a. . aFor parallels to this Stra, see Bisschop & Griths 2003: 338, n. 121. u

1.14 yady aveksed yady abhibhset | a. . 1.15 upasprya | .sC reads this Stra together with 1.16, while B takes 1.1517 together. u

1.16 prnymam krtv | a.a a . . a 1.17 raudr . gyatr . bahurp . v japet | m a m u m a

5

1.18 akalusamate caratas tato sya yogah pravartate | s . .tato sya ] B Cpc T, tasyato Cac (2 above sya; 1 above to). K divides akalusamateh | caratah | tato sya yogah pravartate | (K 1.1820). . . . .

1.19 drd daranaravanamananavijnni csya pravartante | ua s s na a a .Instead of drd darana K has dradarana . This Straptha variant is not u a s u s u a. reported by Sastri or Chakravarti. For the ablative construction, cf. Nivsamla s a u f. 22v , l. 4 drc chravanavijnam mananam tath, and Yogabhsya ad Yogastra u a na . a a. u . . 2.43 tathendriyasiddhir drc chravanadarandyeti. After this Stra C is not availu a s a u . able for the text of the Bhsya anymore. a.

1.20 sarvajat | n aB connects this Stra with the following. u

1.21 manojavitvam | 1.22 kmarpitvam vikaranadharmitvam ca | a u . . .Sastri has kmarpitvam | vikaranah | dharmitvam ca | (K 1.2526). a u . . . However, T (f. 17v, ll. 34) in fact reads yasmd ha vikaraneti in the Bhsya, indicating that a a a. . Kaundinya commented upon the rst member of a compound? The compound .. vikaranadharmitva 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 kmarpitvam a u . (in agreement with K). The three kriyaktis listed in 1.2122 are also found in a verse transmitted as in the Old Javanese Jnasiddhnta (JSi 9.11.5), with vikaranadharmitva na a na . changed to avikradharmitva: yugapad manojavitvam kmarpitvam eva ca | a u . a avikradharmitvam tu triakty etad ucyate (hypometr.); cf. also the enumeration a s . of ve jnaaktis and three kriyaktis at the end of chapter 9 of the same na s as work (p. 134, ll. 812): Pacaakti naranya: yugapat darana, yugapat ravanam, n s s s yugapat mananam, yugapat vijnam, mahsarvajat. Nahan ta n pacaakti na a n a n s na. Triakti na: s yugapat manojavitvam, yugapat kmarpitvam, yugapat a u avikradharmitvan. Nahan ta n triakti na. Yogastra 3.48 has a dierent list: a s u tato manojavitvam vikaranabhvah pradhnajaya ca. a . a s . .

1.23 sarve csya vay bhavanti | a s a 1.24 sarvesm cvayo bhavati | .a . a scvayo ] Bpc C T, cva dhyo yo B. a s a s As can be deduced from Sastris note on p. 46, this Stra is absent in T in the u Bhsya. The preceding and following commentary are Sastris own reconstruction. a. The commentary is also lacking in B.

6

1.25 sarvm cviati | a.s a s 1.26 sarvesm cnveyo bhavati | .a . a a scnveyo ] B C, ca nveyo T. a a s a s K agrees with B and C.

1.27 sarve csya vadhy bhavanti | a a 1.28 sarvesm cvadhyo bhavati | .a . a 1.29 abh ksayo jaro marah sarvatra cpratihatagatir bhavati | to . a .Sastri divides this into ve separate Stras: u abh . | aksayah | ajarah | tah . . . amarah | sarvatra cpratihatagatir bhavati | (K 1.3337). The Bhsya upon the a a. . 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 gunair yukto bhagavato mahdevasya mahganapatir a a . . bhavati |Sastri omits the redundant ebhir in the edition. ebhir is absent in the Bhsyas a. quotation of the Stra in B; in fact ebhih is Kaundinyas gloss of etaih: etair u . .. . ebhir ity anukrntaih prvoktair dradarandyair vikaranntaih na dosair asara u s a . u .a . . vajatvdibhir ity arthah (f. 34r, l. 1). This suggests that the Straptha was at n a u a. . one time extracted from the commentary. This Stra (= K 1.38) is quoted and comu mented upon in four segments in the Bhsya only preserved in B: ity etair gunair a. . yuktah | *bhagavatah (em.; bhagavat. B) | mahdevasya | mahganapatir bhavati | . h a a . . . It seems to be referred to in Paramoksanirsakrik 3a (mahgano maheasya), dea a a a . s . scribing the goal of yogimahevarh (= mhevarayoginah?). s a. a s .

1.31 atredam brahma japet | .This Stra reads slightly dierently in the Bhsya preserved in B: atra cedam u a. . brahma japet. The ca is original, for Kaundinya comments upon it: caabdah s .. . *sabhybhyantarakriysamuccayrtho (em.; sabhyo bhyamtara B) dras. avyah a a a a a . .t . (f. 34v, l. 10).

1.32 sadyojtam prapadymi sadyojtya vai namah | a . a aa .sadyojtam ] Bpc C T, pratihata sadyojtam B namah ] B, namo namah C T. a . a . . . The single namah (metrical!) in B is also the reading of the Stra in K, who divides u . sadyojtam prapadymi | sadyojtya vai namah | (K 1.4041). Thus also Stuti and a . a aa . Stava 360 (Goudriaan & Hooykaas 1971: 225227). For the Brahma-mantra in 1.321.34, cf. Taittir aranyaka 10.43 ( Mahnryana-Upanisad 277278). y . a a a . .

7

1.33 bhave bhave ntibhave bhavasva mm | a antibhave ] B C, (n)tibhave T. a a B connects this Stra with the following. u ntibhave | bhajasva mm | (K 1.4244). a a Sastri reads bhave bhave However, B (f. 36r, l. 3) and T

(f. 36r, l. 5) in fact omit ntibhave in the Bhsya quotation. The Straptha a a. u a. reading bhavasva agrees with the Taittir aranyaka version of this Brahma-mantra y . (TA 10.43), while Ks bhajasva is found in the Mahnryana-Upanisad (MNUp a a a . a . 278) and is recorded as a variant reading to TA 10.43 as well. After the rst bhave T starts on a new folio in the original hand. Consequently, for the next Stras I u have given more weight to the readings of T.

1.34 bhavodbhavya namah | a .K has bhavodbhavah | (K 1.44) instead and thus constitutes a regular loka (1.32 s . 10.43 agrees with the reading of the Straptha. Stuti and Stava 360 34). TA u a. (Goudriaan & Hooykaas 1971: 225227) corresponds to Ks version, except that it has a vocative bhavodbhava.

2.1 vmadevasya jyesthasya resthasya rudrasya kalitsanam | a s .. a ..vmadevasya ] B C, vmadeva T kalitsanam ] B Cpc T, kalitsnam Cac . a a a a a . Sastri reads dierently: vmah | devasya | jyes. hasya | rudrasya | kalitsanam | (K a . a .t 2.14). The reading of K constitutes a metrical hemistich of a Sloka. This may indicate that res. hasya in the Straptha is not original, but inuenced by the s .t u a. Taittir aranyaka Brahma-mantra (cf. 2.14). The text of the Bhsya for K 2.1 is y . a. not secure: in T vmadeveti is written in the margin in a dierent hand, but these a 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 Stra, after iti, in the edition on p. 56, l. 7, the MS adds vmah (not reported by u a . 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: atrpi a taddharmitve . as. h that the genitive is original. s . t )

2.2 sarvakmika ity caksate | a a .Instead of sarvakmika Sastri has srvakmika (K 2.6), but this is the editors silent a a a emendation.

2.3 amangalam ctra mangalam bhavati | . a . 2.4 apasavyam ca pradaksinam | . . .apasavyam ] B C, savyam T. . .

2.5 tasmd ubhayath yastavyo devavat pitrvac ca | a a .. .Sastri divides tasmd ubhayath yas. avyah | devavat pitrvac ca | (K 2.910). This is a a .t . .

8

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

2.6 ubhaye tu rudre devh pitara ca | a. sInstead of ubhaye K has ubhayam. .

2.7 harspramd | a .a 2.8 caryym caryym mhtmyam avpnoti | a a. a a. a a aK starts a new Stra after the second caryym (K 2.1314). u a a

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

2.10 atitaptam tapas tath | a .atitaptam ] C T, atitapta B tapas ] B C, (ta)pas T. .

2.11 atygatim gamayate | a .Na-vipul. atygatim instead of the more common atigatim is presumably metri a a . . causa.

2.12 tasmd bhyas tapa caret | a u sK divides tasmt | bhyas tapa caret | (K 2.1819). a u s

2.12 nnyabhaktis tu amkare | a s . 2.13 atredam brahma japet | . 2.14 vmadevya namo jyesthya namah resthya namo rudrya namah a a a .. a . s .. a . klya namah kalavikaranya namo balavikaranya namo balya aa a a a . . . namo balapramathanya namah sarvabhtadamanya namo manona u a . manya namah | a .vmadevya ] B C, v(ma)devya T resthya namo ] C T, resthya namo a a a a s .. a s .. a balapramathanya nama B kalavikaranya ] B C, kala (ka)ranya T namo a .a .a manonmanya namah ] B C, +na+(mo) manonma[. . .] T. a . Sastri reads and separates quite dierently: vmadevya namo jyes. hya a a .t a namo rudrya namah | klya namah | kalavikaranya namah | balapramathanya a a . aa . .a . namah | sarvabhtadamanya namah | manomanya namah | (K 2.2227). Note u a a . . . that this is the second time that K omits the word res. ha (cf. the annotation s .t

9

on 2.1). Taittir aranyaka 10.44 has res. hya namah, but lacks balya namah, y . s .t a a . . this in agreement with K. The Mahnryana-Upanisad recension, however, has a a a . . res. hya namah as well as balya namah, but reads the latter invocation before s .t a a . . balavikaranya namah (MNUp 280). Stuti and Stava 360, nally, is again closer a .a . to K, in that it omits both res. hya namah and balavikaranya namah, although s .t a . .a . it includes balya namah. According to Goudriaan & Hooykaas (1971: 225) [t]he a . words res. hya namah are omitted also in Indian Sivaite manuals. The last Stra s .t a u . (K 2.27) is a silent conjecture by the editor: T (and B) reads yan manonmanya a namah (f. 47r, l. 8). On the other hand, Kaundinya indeed seems to comment . .. upon manomanya in the commentary (PBh p. 77, l. 2 = T 47v, ll. 56). On a f. 66r, l. 10, however, where Kaundinya 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 vyaktcrah | a a .vyaktcrah ] B, avyaktcrah C T. a a . a a . The reading of B is also the reading of K: avyaktaling | vyaktcrah | (K 3.12). For a a . the signicant variant in C and T, cf. Vsisthadharmastra 10.18 (avyaktalingo a .. sa vyaktcrah). Note also the next line of the same text: anunmatta unmattavesah a a . . . (VsDhS 10.19). This is related to a passage in the Jbla-Upanisad (quoted in a a a . Oberlies 2000: 175): avyaktaling avyaktcr anunmatt unmattavad carantah. a a a a a a . 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 avyaktalingavyaktcrah. a a .

3.2 avamatah sarvabhtesu | u . .B reads this together with the following Stra. Kaundinya comments upon two u .. separate Stras (K 3.34). u

3.3 paribhyamna caret | u a s 3.4 apahatappm paresm parivdt | a a a a .a .apahatappm paresm parivdt ] B C, apa(ha)ta [. . .] rivdt T. a a a a a a .a . T drops the t (in parivdt) in the Bhsya quotation of this Stra (f. 51v, l. 6), a a a. u while B (f. 47r, l. 1) reads parivdsta (sic). a a

3.5 ppam ca tebhyo dadti | a . a 3.6 sukrtam ca tesm datte | . . .a asukrtam ] B T, sukrta C (anusvra possibly lost due to damage). a . . .

10

3.7 tasmt pretavac caret | aK divides after tasmt (K 3.1011). Oberlies (2000: 178) has pointed out the para allel to this and the following Stras in Taittir u yabrhmana II 3.9.9: tsmd evm a a a a. . vidv n v va nrtyet | prva calet | vysyevksy`u bh. eta | man. yed iva krthyed a e a a . a as a a . . ta iva rng yeteva | ut mpavadeyuh ut ppm nam pahanyur ti. s. a a o a a a a .

3.8 krtheta v | a akrtheta v ] B C T, last two syllables damaged in T. a a

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

3.10 manteta v | a ..manteta ] em., madeta B, matheta Cac , mateta Cpc (anusvra above ma possibly a .. . . lost due to damage); ill. T. K has man. eta. .t

3.11 rngreta v | s. a a 3.12 apitatkuryt | a 3.13 apitadbhset | a. 3.14 yena parebhyah paribhavam gacchet | . .K omits parebhyah (K 3.18). Note that K alone shows metrical features. .

3.15 paribhyamno hi vidvn krtsnatap bhavati | u a a . aparibhyamno hi vidvn ] B C, paribhya [. . .] T. u a a u

3.16 atredam brahma japet | . 3.17 aghorebhyo tha ghorebhyo ghoraghoratarebhyah | .ghoraghoratarebhyah ] C T, ghoratarebhyah B. . . Sastri reads and divides dierently: aghorebhyah | atha ghorebhyah | ghoraghorata. . rebhya ca | (K 3.2123). However, ca is a silent addition by the editor, presums ably because Kaundinya 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 aranyaka 10.45, but it is present in Maitryan . hit 2.9.10:130.12. y . a . sam a

3.18 sarvebhyah sarvaarvebhyo namas te astu rudrarpebhyah | s u . .sarvebhyah sarvaarvebhyo ] B C, sa [. . .] arvebhyo T. s s . Sastri reads and divides dierently: sarvebhyah | arva sarvebhyah | namas te astu . s . rudrarpebhyah | (K 3.2426), which is closer to the reading of TA 10.45, except u .

11

that TA 10.45 has sarvatah 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 Stra. Sastri does not report K 3.26 correctly either: Kaundinya u .. comments separately upon namas te stu (T f. 56v, ll. 45) and rudrarpebhya[h] u . (T f. 56v, ll. 67): the editor has left out rudrarpebhyah before Kaundinyas remark u . .. atra rudra iti kranpadee | (PBh p. 91, l. 10). a .a s

4.1 gdhavidy taponantyya prakate | u. a a asgdhavidy taponantyya ] B Cpc T, gdhavidyya taponityya Cac . u. a a u. a a Sastri transcribes tapa nantyya instead of taponantyya, but B (f. 50v, l. 5) and a a a T (f. 57r, l. 6) read taponantyya in the Bhsyas quotation of the Stra. Moreover, a a. u instead of prakate both MSS have prakyate. Note that Kaundinya considers as as .. tapo nantyya as a variant reading in his commentary on K 4.1 (p. 92, l. 16). a

4.2 gdhavrato gdhapavitravnih | u. u. a. .gdhapavitravnih ] B C, gdhapavi [. . .] h T. u. a. . u. . 4.2 and 4.3 together constitute a hemistich of an Indravajr. a gdhavratah | gdhapavitravnih | (K 4.23). u. a. . . u. K divides

4.3 sarvni dvrni pidhya buddhy | a. a a. a aK divides sarvni dvrni pidhya | buddhy | (K 4.45). The words of this Stra a. a a. a a u have a parallel in prnayma descriptions. Cf. e.g. pidhya buddhy dvrni a. a a a a a. in Vyupurna 17.4c ( Mrkandeyapurna 41.20c), pidhya sarvadvrni in a a. a a. a a a. .. Srdhatriatiklottara 11.13a (= Sarvajnottara Yogapda 19a, = Agnipurna a s a na a a. 2.214.22a) and Wrhaspatitattwa 56a (= Ganapatitattwa 6a, Jnasiddhnta na a . . 15.4a). For a possible allusion to this Stra in the Madhyamakahrdayakrik, see u a a . the annotation on 5.17.

4.4 unmattavad eko vicareta loke |This is also the reading of K, but it seems likely that this Stra goes back to an u original unmatta eko vicareta loke (a regular Indravajr pda). a a

4.5 krtnnam utsrstam updad | a ta . a ...updad ] C, updad B, upda ta T. a ta a t a This is an Upendravajr pda. a a

4.6 unmatto mdha ity evam manyante itare janh | u. a. .ity evam ] B Cpc T, ityesavam Cac . . . . 4.6 and 4.7 together constitute a Sloka.

4.7 asammno hi jantnm sarvesm uttamah smrtah | u a. . a .a . . .Instead of jantnm K has yantrnm, which is probably original (cf. PBh ad u a. a. a .

12

PS 4.9). Additional support comes from two verses in the original Skandapurna a. (ca. sixth century AD), which contain a reference to this Stra. Siva is teaching u the gods the Pupata observance (vrata): yantrnm paramam yantram anyad as a. a . . yasmn na vidyate | . adangam sarvakm . sarvalokanamaskrtam (SPBh a s . . a yam . 122.81); tasmt sarvaprahnrtham yantram etat samcaret a a. a a . loke yena j ryen na karhicit | (SPBh 122.83cd84ab). asammatah sad a . .

4.8 indro v agre asuresu pupatam acarat | a as . 4.9 sa tesm istprttam datta myay sukrtay samavindata | a a a .a . .a u . aa datta ] B C Tpc , datte Tac . a Sastri divides sa tesm is. prttam datta | myay sukrtay samavindata | (K a a a .a . ta u . a 4.1112). However, instead of K 4.12, T (f. 63r, l. 5) actually reads myay a a sukrtay | datta | . B has the same reading, except that it has pyay (sic) instead a a . a a of myay (f. 55v, l. 2). a a

4.10 nind hy esm anind | a a .aK reads dierently: nind hy esnind tasmt (K 4.13). The variant in the a a a .a Straptha has not been recorded by Chakravarti. Note that in the Bhsya u a. a. tasmt belongs to this Stra, while in the Straptha it is part of the following a u u a. Stra. u Cf. however Kaundinyas remark: .. atra tasmcchabdah prvottaram a . u . cpeksate | (p. 104, l. 2). a .

4.11 tasmn nindyamna caret | a a sAs mentioned above, K omits tasmn, connecting it with the preceding Stra. After a u this Stra K adds an additional Stra aninditakarm | (K 4.15), which is not in the u u a Straptha. u a.

4.12 sarvaviisto yam panthh satpathah | s .. a. . .K divides sarvaviis. o yam panthh | satpathah | (K 4.1617). s .t a. . .

4.13 kupaths tv anye | a 4.14 anena vidhin rudrasam . gatv na kacid brhmanah punar a pam a s a . . a vartate |Sastri divides this into two Stras: anena vidhin rudrasam . gatv | na kacid u a pam a s brhmanah punar vartate | (K 4.1920), but this is not done in B (f. 56v, l. 2) or a a . . 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 Stra and the corresponding commentary are missing in u the Bhsya. I can add that this is also the case in B. a.

13

4.16 tatpurusya vidmahe mahdevya dh a a mahi | .aK divides tatpurusya vidmahe | mahdevya dh a a mahi | (K 4.2223). .a Brahma-mantra in 4.1617, cf. Taittir aranyaka 10.46. y . For the

4.17 tan no rudrah pracodayt | a . 5.1 asangayog nitytm ajo maitro bhijyate | a a anitytm ajo ] B C, nity jo T. a a a Sastri divides this into six Stras and reads dierently: u asangah | yog | nit .

ytm | ajah | maitrah | abhijyate | (K 5.16), but in fact B (f. 58v, l. 8) and T a a a . . (f. 66v, l. 8) have asamgayog in place of K 5.1. Note that the Straptha reading u a. . constitutes a metrically correct hemistich of a ma-vipul (syncopation in the rst a half and caesura after the 5th syllable). Cf. Oberlies (2000: 181, n. 29), who observes that K 5.46 constitute a pda if one dissolves the sandhi, but who does a not mention the metrical problem in K 5.13.

5.2 indriynm abhijayt | a.a a 5.3 rudrah provca tvat | a a . 5.4 unygraguhvs | s a a a a 5.46 together constitute a Sloka.

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

5.6 sanmsn nityayuktasya bhyistham sampravartate | u .. . . . aaK divides . anmsn nityayuktasya | bhyis. ham sampravartate | (K 5.1213). s . a a u .t . With this Stra compare Mahbhrata 12.232.30cd (sanmsn nityayuktasya u a a . . a a abdabrahmtivartate) and 14.19.60cd (sanmsn nityayuktasya yogah prtha s a . . a a . a pravartate). Note that in contrast to these two Epic passages the present Stra u has no subject; in his commentary ad K 5.12 Kaundinya argues for a remote .. connection (drasthah sambandhah) with K 1.21 (vijnni csya pravartante) u na a a . . and K 1.38 (ity etair gunair yuktah). . .

5.7 bhaiksyam ptrgatam mmsam adusyam lavanena v | a . . a a . a. . . . 5.7 and 5.8 together constitute a Sloka. K divides bhaiksyam | ptrgatam | mmsam a a a. . adusyam lavanena v | (K 5.1416). a . . .

5.8 po vpi yathklam an ad anuprvaah | a a a a s y u s . 5.9 godharm mrgadharm v | a . a a 5.912 together constitute a Sloka.

14

5.10 adbhir eva ucir bhavet | s 5.11 siddhayog na lipyeta | K connects this with the following Stra (= K 5.20). Instead of lipyeta K has u lipyate. The Straptha variant is not reported by Sastri or Chakravarti. Note u a. 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 Stra in the 9th chapter u (M amstattvanirnayvatrah) of Bhavya/Bh(va)vivekas Madhyamakahrdayam . a a . a a . . krik (MHK 9.62): siddhiyogo [sic] na lipyeta karman ptakena v | iti bruvnaih a a a a a a. . . sanmrgn nas. air anye pi nith . That lipyate is not just a scribal error in a a as a . .t K is suggested by Kaundinyas commentary ad loc.: na lipyate na samyujyata ity .. . arthah | ha: kena lipyate | tad ucyate karman | . This would seem to suggest that . a .a the shared reading of the MHK and the Straptha goes back to an older tradition, u a. unless it is assumed that both sources independently changed lipyate to lipyeta for metrical reasons.

5.12 karman ptakena v | a .a a 5.13 rcam istm adh ta | y . . .aK connects this with the following Stra (= K 5.21). 5.1316 together constitute a u Sloka.

5.14 gyatr tmayantritah | a m a .B omits 5.145.17.

5.15 raudr . v bahurp . v | m a u m aC omits the danda. ..

5.16 ato yogah pravartate | . 5.17 omkram abhidhyy | a ta . aabhidhyy ] T, abhidhy C. a ta ata 5.1719 together constitute a Sloka. phrased in As has been observed by Sanderson

(*1998), this and the following Stra, along with 5.24 and 5.26, are parau Madhyamakahrdayakrik 9.114115: a a [samyamitamatidv ]rah a . . . sthpayitv ive manah | tathomkram abhidhyyan dhrayan dhranm hrdi a a s a a a .a. . . . a ksitydidhranbhyst prksamhitamnasah | se prasanne duhkhntam gaca .a a a a a a . a . . a . chat etad apy asat . The compound samyamitamatidvrah (having restrained ty a . . 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 [samyamakabuddhidv ]rah on the a . .

15

basis of Tibetan blo yi sgo rnams legs bsdams la. Both reconstructions suggest a paraphrase of 4.3 (sarvni dvrni pidhya buddhy ) above, but they suer a. a a. a a 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 samyamitadvrah a a . . (having restrained the doors with the buddhi). On the other hand, the Tarkajvl aa 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 buddhidvra(-ni?) with sarvendriyni. As to what root lies a a. a. 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 Pupatastra source of this verse. The view refuted as u in MHK 9.114115 is ascribed to the Siva or Saiva tantra (i bai rgyud ) in the s Tarkajvl (Derge f. 303r , ll. 56). There is no parallel for the hemistich MHK aa 9.115ab in the Pupatastra. as u

5.18 tat sad iti hrdi kurv dhranm | ta a . a .dhranm ] Bpc C T, dhranam Bpc . a .a . a . . K omits the words tat sad iti. The reading of the Straptha is hypermetrical; only u a. K is metrically correct. For an exposition of the mantra om tat sat, referred to in . the Straptha, cf. e.g. Mahbhrata 6.39.2328. u a. a a

5.19 rsir vipro mahn esa vgviuddho mahevarah | a . a s s .. .K separates three Stras: r. ir vipro mahn esah | vgviuddhah | mahevarah | . u a . . a s s .s . .

5.20 manavs dharmtm yathlabdhopaj s sa a a a a vakah | . 5.2022 together constitute a Sloka (ma-vipul). Sastri separates three Stras: a u manavs | dharmtm | yathlabdhopaj s sa a a a a vakah | (K 5.3032). However, in place . of K 5.30 (manavs B (f. 66v, ll. 12) and T (f. 76r, ll. 910) in fact read s sa a ), manavs dharmtm yathlabdhopaj s sa a a a a vakah. .

5.21 labhate rudrasyujyam | a 5.22 sad rudram anusmaret | a Probably the original reading of this last pda of a Sloka (5.205.22) was sad a a rdram anusmaran. As such it is transmitted in the Bhsya in B (f. 67v, l. 5). u a.

16

T reads anusmarat there (f. 77v, l. 9), which has been silently emended to anusmaret by Sastri, presumably on the basis of the Straptha. Cf. the parallel in u a. the Lingapurna quoted by Laksm a. rthavivecanaknda p. 107, ll. 4 a. . . dhara (T 5): manavs dharmtm yathlabdhena vartate | labheta rudrasyujyam sad s sa a a a a a a . rudram anusmaran .

5.23 chittv dosnm hetujlasya mlam | a .a . a . a u5.235.26 together constitute a Vaivadev For parallels, see the annotation on s . 5.24.

5.24 buddhy samcintya sthpayitv tu rudre | a a a .Sastri reads and divides dierently: buddhy | samcittam | sthpayitv ca rudre | (K a a a . 5.3638). Actually B and T divide K 5.37 (samcittam) 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 samcittam to svam cittam; cf. PBh ad K . . 5.37: atra *svam (em.; sam Ed.) iti dosdivilis. am svayam eva svagunatvena a s .t . . . parigrhyate. Cf. also Ratnat a p. 20, ll. 911: yo vidynugrh a buddhy svam a a . . k . tay . cittam nirlambanam karoti so mdha ity ucyate. tay dhranay nirmal . tam a u. a a . a kr . . . cittam rudratattve sthpitam sud a rghaklam na cyavate. Additional support comes a . . . from Pampmhtmya 11.61cd62ab (Filliozat 2001, p. 145): tasmd asmin svakam a a a a . cittam *samsthpytyantanicalam (samsthpy conj.; susthpy Ed.) idam vaa a s a a a a . . . . pus tyajm tasya buddhir bhavet sad | , which probably goes back to a passage a ti a from the Ratnat a (p. 16, ll. 45): dosahetujlebhya chinnasya mlkhynivrttau a s ua a . . k . cittasya rudre vasthnam atyantanicalatvam sthitir ucyate. a s . The present passage has a parallel in the Atharvairas-Upanisad, with some ins . teresting variants. The variant samcintya of the Straptha corresponds with the u a. . . version with Samkarnandas commentary: tr. nm chittv hetujlasya mlam buda s. a . a a u . . dhy samcintya sthpayitv tu rudre (ASiUp p. 37, ll. 45), while samcittam (K) a a a . . corresponds more closely with Nryanas version: tr. nm hitv hetujlasya mlam a a . s. a . a a u . . buddhy samcitam sthpayitv tu rudre (ASiUp p. 17, ll. 12). There are other varia . a a . ants; cf. Hara 2002: 151152. The tu of the Straptha (instead of ca) is present u a. in both versions. Lingapurna 2.18.40cd (tr. nm chittv hetujlasya mlam bud a. a a u . . s. a . dhy cintyam sthpayitv ca rudre), on the other hand, is closer in this respect to a a a . a . K. In the Lingapurna the verse has been rewritten to form a Slin This wide a. variation suggests that the passage from the Atharvairas-Upanisad may go back s . to an early corruption of svam sam, repaired in dierent ways. In the process of . . repairing the original metre was lost. The presence of samcintya the reading of . . Samkarnandas version in the Straptha indicates a contaminated tradition. a u a. For an allusion to this Stra in the Madhyamakahrdayakrik, see the annotation u a a . on 5.17.

17

5.25 ekah ksemymsam v sokah | a. . ta . . .Instead of ksemymsam (?) Sastri has ksem san, but Tac (f. 82r, l. 7) and B a. . . . (f. 72v, l. 1) have ksemysan in the Bhsyas quotation of this Stra. A second hand a a. u . (Sastri?) seems to have tried to correct this to ksem san in Tpc , presumably be. cause of Kaundinyas interpretation: tath sksmasthlasabhybhyantaralaksanaa u . u a a .. . . vilaksansu kriysu vinivrttsu rudre sthitacitto niskriyah san ity abhidh a yate (PBh . .a . a . . as p. 139, ll. 1415). The Stra bears a partial resemblance to Svetvatara-Upanisad u . 2.14d: ekah krtrtho bhavate v sokah. ta . . a .

5.26 apramd gacched duhkhnm antam saprasdt | a a a . a agacched duhkhnm ] B Cpc , gacche duhkhnm Cac , gacche [. . .] -nm T. a a . a a . a a Instead of Sastris K 5.40, which is identical with this Stra, B (f. 73r, ll. 12) and u T (f. 82, l. 10) actually only have apramd The entire Stra is quoted later in a . u the Bhsya: K p. 141, l. 3 = B f. 73r, ll. 45 / T f. 83, ll. 23, where T does not a. read apramdd, as Sastri has it, but apramd (w.r. for apramd In order to a a a a a ). retrieve the Vaivadev metre underlying 5.235.26, sandhi between v sokah and s ta . apramd must be applied. For the Madhyamakahrdayakrik testimonium of this a a a . Stra, see the annotation on 5.17 above. u

5.27 atredam brahma japet | . 5.28 snah sarvavidynm svarah sarvabhtnm | a . a a ua a .K divides snah sarvavidynm |svarah sarvabhtnm | . C omits the danda after a . a a ua a . .. sarvabhtnm. ua a

5.29 brahmdipatir brahmano dhipatir brahm ivo me astu sadivom | a as as .brahmdipatir ] B C, bra [. . .] tir T sadivom ] C T, sadivo B. a as as . K reads and divides dierently: astu | sad | ivah | (5.4447). a s . (applying Sandhi): brahmano dhipatir brahm | ivo me a s . Note that K alone constitutes a regular Sloka The latter reading is also that of

snah sarvavidynm svarah sarvabhtnm | brahmano a . a a ua a . .

dhipatir brahm ivo me stu sad ivah | . a s a s . identical with Taittir aranyaka 10.47. y .

Nivsaguhya f. 109v , l. 1. The reading of the Straptha, on the other hand, is s a u a.

iti pupatastrni samprnni | as u a. . u .a BibliographyAgnipurna a. a (AgnP) Agnipurna of Maharsi Vedavysa. Ed. by Achrya Baladeva Updhyya. a. a a a . The Kashi Sanskrit Series 174. Varanasi 1966.

18

Atharvairas-Upanisad s . -N a . . (ASiUp) [Published in] Sr aryana-Samkarnanda-viracitad asametnm a pik a a Atharvaikhdyn[m] Hamsopanisadantnm Dvtrimanmitnm s a a a . a a. a .s a a . . Upanisadm Samuccayah. Anandramasamskrtvalih 29. [Poona] 1895. as . a. . . . a . Baudhyanadharmastra a u (BaudhDhS) [Published in] Dharmastras. The Law Codes of Apastamba, Gautama, u Baudhyana, and Vasistha. Annotated Text and Translation [by] Patrick a .. Olivelle. Delhi 2000. Bhsarvaja a n a (RT) Ganakrik [with Ratnat a] of Acrya Bhsarvaja (With four a n . . a a . k appendices including the Kravana-Mhtmya). Edit. by Chimanlal a a a . D. Dalal. Gaekwads Oriental Series 15. Baroda 1920. Bisschop, Peter forthc. a Review of Minoru Hara, Pupata Studies. Edited by Jun Takashima. as Vienna 2002. Publications of the De Nobili Research Library XXX. To appear in the Indo-Iranian Journal. forthc. b Pacrthabhsya on Pupatastra 1.3739. Recovered from a newly n a a. as u identied manuscript. To appear in the Journal of Indian Philosophy.

Bisschop, Peter & Arlo Griths 2003 The Pupata Observance (Atharvavedapariista 40). In: Indo-Iranian as s .. Journal 46, pp. 315348. Chakravarti, Chintaharan 1943 Pupatastra. In: Indian Historical Quarterly 19, pp. 270271. as u Filliozat, Vasundhara 2001 Klmukha and Pupata Temples in Dharwar. Chennai. aa as Ganapatitattwa . (GT) Ganapati-Tattwa. An Old Javanese philosophic text. Critically edited and . translated by Sudarshana Devi Singhal. Dv antara-Pitaka 3. New Delhi p . 1958. Goudriaan, T. and C. Hooykaas 1971 Stuti and Stava (Bauddha and Vaisnava) of Balinese Brahman priests. .. Verhandelingen der KNAW, afd. Letterkunde, Nieuwe Reeks 76. Amsterdam, London. Hara, Minoru 2002 Pupata Studies. Edited by Jun Takashima. Publications of the De Nobili as Research Library XXX. Vienna. Jnasiddhnta na a (JSi) na Jnasiddhnta. Edited and translated by Haryati Soubadio. Bibliotheca na a Indonesica 7. The Hague 1971. Kaundinya .. (PBh) Pasupata Sutras with Pancharthabhashya of Kaundinya. Edit. by R. Ananthakrishna Sastri. Trivandrum Sanskrit Series CXLIII. Trivandrum 1940. Kawasaki, Shinjo 1988 The M ams Chapter of Bhavyas Madhyamaka-hrdaya-krik. Sanskrit m . a a a . and Tibetan Texts. From Studies 1976, 1987, 1988, Institute of Philosophy, The University of Tsukuba. Laksm . dhara

19

Bhatta-r a . . . s -Laksm . dhara-viracite Krtyakalpatarau Astamo bhgah. . .. T rthavivecanakndam. Edit. by K.V. Rangaswami Aiyangar. Gaekwads a. . Oriental Series XCVIII. Baroda 1942. Lindtner, Christian 1997 Bhavya on M ams. in: Studia Indologiczne 4. Aspects of Buddhism. m . a Proceedings of the International Seminar on Buddhist Studies, Liw 25 June 1994. Warsaw, pp. 91123. Lingapurna a. -Vysa-maharsiproktam Sr ngamahpurnam, with the Sanskrit (LiP) Sr a a a. . . . -Li commentary Sivatosin by Ganea Ntu. [Edit. by] Gangvisnu (son of a a .. . . . s Krsnadsa). Venkatesvara Press, Bombay V.S. 1981 [= AD 1924]. a .. . a [Reprinted, with a Sloknukraman by Ngaarana Simha, by Nag a s . . . Publishers, Delhi 1989 (2nd ed. 1996)] Madhyamakahrdayakrik a a . (MHK) See Kawasaki 1988 and Lindtner 1997. Mahbhrata a a (MBh) The Mahbhrata. For the rst time critically edited by V. S. Sukthankar a a and others. Poona 192759. 19 vols. Mahnryana-Upanisad a a a . . (MNUp) La Mah Nryana Upanisad. Edition critique, avec une traduction a a a a . . franaise, une tude, des notes et, en annexe, la Prngnihotra Upanisad. c e a. a . par Jean Varenne. 2 tomes. Paris 1960. Maitryan . hit a . sam a (MaiS) Mitryan Samhit. Die Samhit der Mitryan kh. [Edit. by] a a . a a a a . ya-Ca a . . Leopold von Schroeder. 4 vols. Leipzig 18811886. Mrkandeyapurna a a. .. (MkP) The Mrcandeya Purna in the original Sanscrit edited by K. M. Banerjea. a .. a. Bibliotheca Indica 29. Calcutta 185562. [Reprinted by Biblio Verlag, Osnabrck 1988.] u Nivsatattvasamhit s a a . Electronic transcription of the codex of the Nivsatattvasamhit in the s a a . National Archives, Kathmandu, MS 1227 (= A 41/4) supplemented with readings from its Kathmandu apograph MS (NGMPP 159/18), by Dominic Goodall. Includes the Nivsamukha, Nivsamla, Nivsottara, s a s a u s a Nivsanaya and Nivsaguhya. s a s a Oberlies, Thomas 2000 Kriegslisten und ungeziemendes Benehmen: Die Askesepraktiken der Pupatas. In: Ryutaro Tsuchida and Albrecht Wezler (eds.), as Harnandalahar Volume in Honour of Professor Minoru Hara on his a . Seventieth Birthday (Reinbek), pp. 175191. Pacrthabhsya n a a. See Kaundinya. .. Paramoksanirsakrik a a a . [Published in] Astaprakaranam. Edit. by Vrajavallabha Dvived . .. . Yogatantra-granthaml vol. 12. Varanasi 1998. aa Sanderson, Alexis *1998 Lkulas and Somasiddhntins. Hilary Term 1998. Handout 5. a a [Unpublished lecture handout.]

(TVK)

20

2002

*2004

History through Textual Criticism in the study of Saivism, the Pacartra n a and the Buddhist Yogin tantras. In: Franois Grimal (ed.), Les Sources et c le Temps. Sources and Time. A Colloquium. Pondicherry 1113 January 1997 (Pondicherry), pp. 147. The Yoga of Dying. The Saiva Atimrga. Week 5: Handout, 9 November, a 2004. [Unpublished lecture handout.]

Srdhatriatiklottara a s a (STK) Srdhatriatiklottargama with commentary (-vrtti) of Bhatta a s a a . .. Rmakantha. Edit. by N.R. Bhatt. Publications de lInstitut Franais a c .. dIndologie 61. Pondicherry 1979. Sarvadaranasamgraha s . (SDS) Sarva-Darana-Samgraha of Syana=Mdhava. Edited with an original s a . a 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 Pupata-Systems nach dem as Pacrthabhsya und der Ratnat a. Beitrge zur Sprach- und n a a. a . k Kulturgeschichte des Orientes 10. Walldorf-Hessen. Skandapurna a. (SPBh ) Skandapurnasya Ambikkhandah, sampdakah Krsnaprasda Bhattar a. a a .. . . a . .. . . . a. Mahendraratnagranthaml 2. Kathmandu 1988. aa as Svetvatara-Upanisad . (SvUp) [Published in] Eighteen Principal Upanisads. Vol. I. Upanisadic Text with . . Parallels from extant Vedic Literature, Exegetical and Grammatical Notes by V.P. Limaye & R. D. Vadekar. Gandhi Memorial Edition. Poona 1958. Taittir yabrhmana a . mad-Syancrya-viracita-Bhsya-sametam. (TBr) Taittir yabrhmanam. Sr a a .a a a. . [Edit. by] V.S.R. Nryana Sstri Godbole. a a . a . Anandramasamskrtagranthvalih 37 [3 Vols.]. Poona 1898. as a . . . Taittir aranyaka y . (TA) Taittir aranyakam. [Edit. by] V.S.R.R. Bb Sstr Phadake. y . a a a . Anandramasamskrtagranthvalih 36 [2 Vols.]. Poona 1897. as a . . . Vyupurna a a. (VP) a The Vyumahpurnam. Edit. by Khemarja. Delhi 1983. Nag Publishers. a a a. a [Reprint of the Venkatevara edition of AD 1895] s Vsisthadharmastra a .. sa (VsDhS) [Published in] Dharmastras. The Law Codes of Apastamba, Gautama, a u Baudhyana, and Vasistha. Annotated Text and Translation [by] Patrick a .. Olivelle. Delhi 2000. Wrhaspatitattwa . (WrT) Wrhaspati-Tattwa. An Old Javanese philosophical text. Critically edited . . and translated by Sudarshana Devi. Dv antara-Pitaka 1. New Delhi 1957. p . Yogastra u (YS) Vcaspatimiraviracitat asametar asabhsyasametni a s s vy a. a . k Ptajalayogastrni. Anandramasamskrtagranthvalih 47. [Poona] a n u a. as a . . . 1904.

21