Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO
THE FACULTY OF THE DIVISION OF THE HUMANITIES
IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
BY
ANDREW JAMES NICHOLSON
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
AUGUST 2005
Appendix I:
Sanskrit Edition of Chapter one of the
varagtbhya
I.1 Introduction
297
298
considered an important text by late medieval Vedntic theists. Besides Vijnabhikus
commentary, there are also extant commentaries by Bhsurnanda, Yajevarasri, and
Sabhpatimira.2
The vara (God) of the works title has generally been understood to refer to
iva, and the entire Krmapura is generally regarded as a aiva Pura.3 Perhaps the
most infamous passage of the entire varagt occurs at verse 31. Up until that point, it
is Nryaa who is praised as the highest God by the retinue of sages, and it is he whom
they ask for answers to the most profound philosophical questions (verses 26-27). But in
verse 31, just as Nryaa is about to speak, he is literally upstaged by ivawhat one
translator has called a ruse to Pupatise this text.4 Vijnabhiku will have none of
that, however. For him, this passage does not mean that iva has appeared suddenly to
teach all of the retinue the answers to these questions. Rather, Nryaa by his own
powers transforms the sage Nara into the god iva in order to act as Nryaas
spokesperson. Furthermore, Vijnabhiku goes on to say that one cannot trust iva
when he is speaking on his own, since his teachings are frequently intended to delude
instead of edify his listeners.5 Only because Nryaa is in the audience can we be sure
that the teachings iva presents in the varagt are genuine.
2
On the varagt see Dumont (1933: 5-8); on the Krmapura see Rocher (1986: 185-186).
And, according to the Skhyapravacanabhya and Padma Pura, the most well known of
these false teachings of iva are the doctrines of the Advaita Vednta school (Vijnabhiku 1895: 4).
299
The edition I have included in this appendix is based on a single manuscript,
kindly provided to me by the Benares Hindu University library.6 I regret, however, that
this manuscript only presents chapter one of Vijnabhikus 11 chapter commentary on
the varagt. The manuscript is from the mid-20th century, and I conjecture that it was
copied by a student of the late Gopinath Kaviraj, who had a complete manuscript of the
varagtbhya in his collection.7 The Benares Hindu University manuscript has a fair
number of errors. I have corrected its obvious typos and careless repetitions of words. It
also contains many lacunae, which I have called attention to in my text with dashes (- - -).
The manuscript itself contains only Vijnabhikus commentary, and none of the verses
from the varagt. I have supplied these based on the critical edition of the
Krmapura.8 When Vijnabhiku refers to one of the many variant readings listed in
the critical edition, I have put other important variants in footnotes. I have also noted
when it seems that Vijnabhikus text of the varagt corresponds to none of the
versions listed in the critical edition. I was greatly helped in the preparation of this
edition by Narayan Mishra, and could not have done it without him. Nonetheless, I have
no doubt that it contains multiple errors, which are my responsibility alone. This edition
is simply intended to give scholars a readable version of the first chapter of
6
In my text, I have also noted a few variant readings based on the first page of an
varagtbhya manuscript in the collection of the Asiatic Society, Calcutta.
It was upon Kavirajs manuscript that Dasguptas summary of the varagtbhya in his
History of Indian Philosophy is based (Dasgupta:, vol. 3, pp. 482-95). Unfortunately, this manuscript has
passed into the hands of a private collector in Varanasi, who was unwilling to allow me access. Nor,
unfortunately, was I able to obtain a legible copy of the Asiatic Society manuscript.
7
300
Vijnabhikus text. Reconstructed as it is from a single manuscript, it is only the first
step in the project of presenting a reliable text to a wider audience based on all of the
extant manuscripts of the varagtbhya.
$rgIta-a:ym!
iv}ani-]uktm!
Ig[ezay nm>,
` nmae [e,
yae mayya igu[ya ivrcYy ivm<zE> ivZy bzae=-vdek AaTma,
ySma i-mip svRmi-m ma me=pspRtu dae dyerae=saE. 1.
svRvedaNtsarawRs<aih{ya AitS)qm!,
-a:ymIrgItaya iv}anen ivtNyte9. 2.
@ten -gvItaVyaOyape]a=ip yaSyit,
zBdaid-edmae[10 gItaya11 AwRsaMyt>. 3.
9
10
zBdaid-edma[eit paQ>
11
gItyaeirit paQ>
301
302
303
AwEtainit paQ>
304
305
edition.
14
prmereit paQ>
15
Deuimit paQ>, Vijnabhikus -eumhRis is not among the variants listed in the critical
306
17
kiidit paQ>
307
- - - - - As<sairTvicNmaTvavxr[awRmev > Tv< ih teTw prm< svR}ae -gvan&i;>, n
18
ivmlimit pa0 , Vijnabhikus variant is not among those listed in the critical edition.
308
19
edition.
IvTsv]simit pa0, Vijnabhikus variant is not among those listed in the critical
309
munIzaneit pa0 , Vijnabhikus variant is not among those listed in the critical edition.
21
310
#m< smagta dezimit pa0, Vijnabhikus variant is not among those listed in the critical
23
edition
311
25
312
ggnadIrahRimit paQ>
313
314