The Sutrapat.ha of the Pasupatasutra

Peter Bisschop∗

In 1943 Chintaharan Chakravarti published a short notice about variantreadings of the Pasupatasutra in a manuscript of the Pancarthabhas.ya in thecollection of the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal, Calcutta. The edition ofthe Pasupatasutra with Kaun.d. inya’s Pancarthabhas.ya had been publishedthree years earlier in the Trivandrum Sanskrit Series (No. CXLIII) on thebasis of a single manuscript discovered in Benares — now in the collectionof the University of Kerala Library (Trivandrum) —, with a missing por-tion supplied from the Calcutta manuscript.1 Chakravarti fails to mentionthat the variants he lists are not the readings of the Pasupatasutra as theyare quoted in the text of the Bhas.ya, but the readings of the Sutrapat.hapreceding the text of the Bhas.ya proper. In fact this Sutrapat.ha is alsopreserved in the manuscript on which the Trivandrum edition is based,and a number of the variants recorded by Chakravarti are found in thismanuscript’s Sutrapat.ha as well. A closer look at the Sutrapat.ha suggests arelatively separate transmission alongside the Bhas.ya. In the present paperan edition of this Sutrapat.ha of the Pasupatasutra is presented on the basisof the two mentioned manuscripts and a newly identified manuscript fromthe Sarasvatıbhavana Library in Benares.2

The text of the Sutrapat.ha is fairly consistent in all three manuscripts,with a number of noteworthy readings not present in Kaun.d. inya’s text. Thisconsistency also concerns the placement of dan. d. as, which I regard as an in-trinsic feature of the transmission of the Sutrapat.ha. It will be observed thatin a number of cases the division of the Sutras in the Sutrapat.ha, which is

∗Research for this article was made possible by a TALENT-grant from the NetherlandsOrganization for Scientific Research (NWO). I would like to thank Arlo Griffiths andHarunaga 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 discoverywas announced as usual to scholars, Dr. T.R. Chintamani m, a., ph. d., of the MadrasUniversity who was then in Calcutta saw an independent manuscript with 1 to 13 pagesonly containing 21 Sutras of the first adhyaya and Bhashya which covers in this printededition 42 pages last but one line, in the Asiatic Society of Bengal Library. On substitutingpages 8 to 13 from the above by copying I found that pages 27 and 28 are still wanting. Themissing pages might contain some important portion, say about Vidyesvara etc., whichgo to make the system a perfect one.” The text of the missing pages 27 and 28 in theTrivandrum MS is preserved in a so far unnoticed manuscript from Benares (on which seebelow). For an edition and translation of this previously unavailable passage, see Bisschopforthc. b.

2This 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

different from that given in Kaun.d. inya’s Bhas.ya, makes good sense. A strik-ing difference with Kaun.d. inya’s text of the Sutra concerns the five Brahma-mantras which conclude each of the five Adhyayas into which the Sutraand Bhas.ya are divided. On the whole it is conspicuous that Kaun.d. inya’sversion of the Brahma-mantras shows more metrical features,3 while theSutrapat.ha’s version tends to be closer to the version of these Mantras inTaittirıyaran. yaka 10 (= Mahanarayan. a-Upanis.ad). This may be due tolater rewriting of the Sutras by transmitters who were familiar with theseBrahma-mantras. It need not necessarily reflect the original Sutra reading.It is my general impression that the Sutrapat.ha was at one time extractedfrom the Bhas.ya (cf. e.g. the annotation on 1.30 and 5.24 below).4 On theother hand the present study also shows the arbitrary division of the Sutrasas we now have them. It seems likely that Kaun.d. inya had before him astring of originally larger Sutras,5 which he broke up into smaller segmentsin order to comment upon them. It is these quotations of segments whichwe have come to refer to as the Sutras.6

At the outset a peculiarity in the presentation of the Sutrapat.ha in theBenares manuscript should be noted. While the two other manuscriptsquote the entire Sutrapat.ha at the beginning of the text — with a divisioninto five parts indicated by short spaces — the Benares manuscriptintegrates the Sutrapat.ha into the text of each Adhyaya of the Bhas.ya.Thus at the spot where Kaun.d. inya would quote the first Sutra of anAdhyaya in the other two manuscripts, the Benares manuscript quotes therelevant Sutrapat.ha of that Adhyaya.

The following abbreviations are used in the apparatus and notes to theedition of the Sutrapat.ha:

3I am not sure what to make of this. Does this indicate that Kaun.d. inya’s version ismore original or is it the result of a ‘normalizing tendency,’ as Goudriaan and Hooykaasargue with respect to the likewise more metrical version of these Brahma-mantras in Stutiand Stava 360, Brahma-stava (Goudriaan & Hooykaas 1971: 225–227)? The Balineseversion of these five Brahma-mantras is closer to Kaun.d. inya’s version in several respects:cf. the annotation on 1.34 and 2.14 below.

4Cf., however, also 5.11, which suggests a different scenario.5For indications that Kaun.d. inya had access to more than one version of the Sutras,

cf. Hara 2002: 271.6In a number of cases the division as we now have it is actually not that of the

manuscripts but Sastri’s: cf. the annotation on 1.22, 2.5, 2.9, 4.14, 5.1, 5.20, 5.24 and 5.26below. From these and other silent changes made to the text by Sastri, some of which arenoted in the present paper, it will be clear that a critical edition of the Pancarthabhas.yais called for. Cf. also Bisschop forthc. a and b.

2

B Benares, Sarasvatı Bhavana Library, MS 86112. Paper, Devanagarıscript. Folios 1–76; complete; double sided; 8–11 lines a page.7

C Calcutta, Asiatic Society, MS IM-5474. Paper, Devanagarı script. 13folios; incomplete; double sided; 12–15 lines a page. Comes with fourfolios from an unidentified Alam. karasastra work.8

K Sutra as quoted by Kaun.d. inya in the Bhas.ya.

T Trivandrum, University of Kerala Library, MS 2018. Paper,Devanagarı script.9 Folios 1–87 (nos. 1, 8–13, 27, 28 missing);double-sided; 9–10 lines a page. The text for the missing folios 1 and8–13 is preserved on folios numbered 1–11 in a different hand andwritten on more recent paper. This may be the handwriting of theeditor of the Pancarthabhas.ya, who copied this part of the MS fromthe Calcutta MS (cf. n. 1 above). Alternatively someone else mayhave copied it for Sastri from the Calcutta MS. In any case I considerthese eleven folios to be an apograph of part of the Calcutta MS.

Orthographical variants in the MSS are not reported. A few commonvariants are: 1) m. for m at the end of a Sutra; 2) absence of avagraha;3) doubling of t after a preceding r. The above variants are shared byall three MSS, which may indicate their close relationship. B starts withsrıgan. esaya namah. , C with om. srı mahagan. apataye namah. , and T withharih. gan. apataye namah. . The edition and apparatus below only refer to thereading of the Sutrapat.ha. Note that the numbering does not correspondwith the Sutra numbering in the existing edition of Kaun.d. inya’s Bhas.ya.References to Kaun.d. inya’s numbering in the notes are preceded by a K.If not stated otherwise K has the adopted reading. In case there is adifference between Sastri’s edition of the Bhas.ya and what T or the othermanuscripts actually have, this is reported in the notes and the siglum K isin general avoided. In such cases ‘Sastri’ refers to the reading of the Sutrain Sastri’s edition. I have refrained from recording all the variants of theBhas.ya readings in B, because they are full of scribal errors and they donot help in reconstructing the reading of the Sutrapat.ha. In general one

7Cf. A Descriptive Catalogue of the Sanskrit Manuscripts. Acquired for and Depositedin the Sampurnanand Sanskrit University (Sarasvati-Bhavana) Library Varanasi duringthe years 1951–1981. Vol. VI, part II. Tantra Manuscripts. Varanasi 1991, p. 84.

8I am grateful to Dr Abhijit Ghosh for providing me with a copy of the Calcuttamanuscript.

9A copy of this manuscript was provided to me by Dr Dominic Goodall and DrS.A.S. Sarma.

3

gets the impression that the text of the Sutrapat.ha is better preserved inthis manuscript than the text of the Bhas.ya’s Sutras.

Edition

1.1 athatah. pasupateh. pasupatam. yogavidhim. vyakhyasyamah. |pasupatam. yogavidhim. ] B Tpc, pasupatayogavidhim. C Tac.

K reads pasupatam. yogavidhim. with B and Tpc. The variant reading of

C and Tac also occurs in the Bhas.ya in B (f. 2r, ll. 5–6) and in the Sar-

vadarsanasam. graha (p. 162, ll. 1–2): tatredam adisutram—athatah. pasupateh.

pasupatayogavidhim. vyakhyasyama iti | . Note in this connection also the

compound pasupatayogavidhanam in RT. p. 21, l. 19.

1.2 bhasmana tris.avan. am. snayıta |tris.avan. am. ] Bpc C T, sis.avan. am. Bac • snayıta ] C T, snayıt B.

Chakravarti erronously transcribes C as reading snayat.

1.3 bhasmani sayıta |sayıta ] C T, sayıt B.

1.4 anusnanam |T connects this Sutra with the next one (i.e. by omitting the dan. d. a).

1.5 nirmalyam |For testimonia for this and/or the following Sutras, cf. the annotation to 1.8 and

1.9.

1.6 lingadharı |

1.7 ayatanavası |

1.8 hasitagıtanr.tyahud.um. karanamaskarajapyopaharen. opatis.t.het |◦nr.tyahud.um. karanamaskara◦ ] B C, ◦nr.ttad.um. d.um. karanamaskara◦ Tpc,

◦nr.tta-

d.um. d.um. kara◦ Tac.

Chakravarti erronously transcribes C as reading ◦huhum. kara◦. C connects this

Sutra with the following one. K agrees with the reading of Tpc. However, external

evidence suggests that B and C’s ◦hud. um. kara◦ reflects the original reading.

Sanderson (2002: 30, n. 32) has argued that the intended vocalization must be

hud.d.un. Cf. also Ratnat. ıka p. 19, ll. 4–6 tad evam. nirvartyopaharam. dhyayann

ısam. hasitagıtanr. tyahud. ukkaranamaskarajapyaih. s.ad. angopaharam. , Nisvasamukha

f. 5v, l. 4 hud. ukkarasya nr. tyasya mukhavadyat.t.ahasayoh. | tris.kalam. caiva kurvan. o

bhaved gan. a[h. ] sa cottamah. ‖ , and Nisvasamukha f. 17r, l. 3 lingasyayatane

vaso hud. d. unkarastavais tatha | gıtanr. tyanamaskarair brahmabhir japasam. yutah. ‖ .

4

◦nr. tyahud. um. kara◦ is also the reading of B (f. 10v, ll. 3–4.) and C (f. 6r, l. 14) in the

quotation of the Sutra in the Bhas.ya. Instead of ◦namaskarajapyopaharen. opatis. t.het

B wrongly reads ◦namaskaram. tathopaharen. a upatis. t.het there.

1.9 mahadevasya daks.in. amurtim |daks.in. amurtim ] B C, daks.in. amurteh. T.

Sastri agrees with T. The accusative daks. in. amurtim also occurs in the Bhas.ya’s

quotation of this Sutra in B (f. 11v, l. 2) and C (f. 6v, l. 11) and at the end of the

commentary on this Sutra 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 &

Griffiths 2003 (p. 327, n. 61) — the accusative is supported by two external sources:

Tırthavivecanakan. d. a p. 106, ll. 15–17 linganirmalyadharı ca yatih. svayatane vaset |upagıtahud. um. karastutikr. tyaparah. sada | bhavanad devadevasya daks. in. am. murtim

asthitah. | and Nisvasamukha f. 17r, l. 3 ekavaso hy avaso va daks. in. amurtim asritah. .

Moreover, the reading of this Sutra in the Sutrapat.ha and Bhas.ya in T may very well

be the editor’s own handwriting (see introduction above), while the final reference to

this Sutra at the end of the commentary on K 1.9, for which the original Trivandrum

MS is available again, in fact has daks. in. amurt[t]im as well. A second hand appears

to have tried to correct it to daks. in. amurtteh. (T f. 23r, l. 8). The evidence for the

reading adopted by Sastri is thus rather weak indeed.

1.10 ekavasah. |ekavasah. ] T, ekavasa B C.

K agrees with T.

1.11 avasa va |

1.12 mutrapurıs.am. naveks.et |This and the following Sutra are reminiscent of BaudhDhS 3.8.17 strısudrair

nabhibhas.eta mutrapurıs.e naveks.eta.

1.13 strısudram. nabhibhas.et |For parallels to this Sutra, see Bisschop & Griffiths 2003: 338, n. 121.

1.14 yady aveks.ed yady abhibhas.et |

1.15 upaspr.sya |C reads this Sutra together with 1.16, while B takes 1.15–17 together.

1.16 pran. ayamam. kr.tva |

1.17 raudrım. gayatrım. bahurupım. va japet |

5

1.18 akalus.amates caratas tato ’sya yogah. pravartate |tato ’sya ] B Cpc T, tasyato Cac (‘2’ above ‘sya’; ‘1’ above ‘to’).

K divides akalus.amateh. | caratah. | tato ’sya yogah. pravartate | (K 1.18–20).

1.19 durad darsanasravan. amananavijnanani casya pravartante |Instead of durad darsana◦ K has duradarsana◦. This Sutrapat.ha variant is not

reported by Sastri or Chakravarti. For the ablative construction, cf. Nisvasamula

f. 22v, l. 4 durac chravan. avijnanam. mananam. tatha, and Yogabhas.ya ad Yogasutra

2.43 tathendriyasiddhir durac chravan. adarsanadyeti. After this Sutra C is not avail-

able for the text of the Bhas.ya anymore.

1.20 sarvajnata |B connects this Sutra with the following.

1.21 manojavitvam |

1.22 kamarupitvam. vikaran. adharmitvam. ca |Sastri has kamarupitvam | vikaran. ah. | dharmitvam. ca | (K 1.25–26). However, T

(f. 17v, ll. 3–4) in fact reads yasmad aha vikaran. eti in the Bhas.ya, indicating that

Kaun.d. inya commented upon the first member of a compound? The compound

vikaran. adharmitva is supported by PBh p. 50, l. 10 and l. 18, and RT. p. 10, ll. 4–5;

cf. also Schultz 1958: 133 and Hara 2002: 256. T punctuates after kamarupitvam.

(in agreement with K).

The three kriyasaktis listed in 1.21–22 are also found in a verse transmitted

in the Old Javanese Jnanasiddhanta (JnaSi 9.11.5), with vikaran. adharmitva

changed to avikaradharmitva: yugapad manojavitvam. kamarupitvam eva ca |avikaradharmitvam. tu trisakty etad ucyate ‖ (hypometr.); cf. also the enumeration

of five jnanasaktis and three kriyasaktis at the end of chapter 9 of the same

work (p. 134, ll. 8–12): Pancasakti naranya: yugapat darsana, yugapat sravanam,

yugapat mananam, yugapat vijnanam, mahasarvajnata. Nahan ta n pancasakti

na. Trisakti na: yugapat manojavitvam, yugapat kamarupitvam, yugapat

avikaradharmitvan. Nahan ta n trisakti na. Yogasutra 3.48 has a different list:

tato manojavitvam. vikaran. abhavah. pradhanajayas ca.

1.23 sarve casya vasya bhavanti |

1.24 sarves.am. cavasyo bhavati |cavasyo ] Bpc C T, cava〈dhyo〉syo B.

As can be deduced from Sastri’s note on p. 46, this Sutra is absent in T in the

Bhas.ya. The preceding and following commentary are Sastri’s own reconstruction.

The commentary is also lacking in B.

6

1.25 sarvam. s cavisati |

1.26 sarves.am. canavesyo bhavati |canavesyo ] B C, ca navesyo T.

K agrees with B and C.

1.27 sarve casya vadhya bhavanti |

1.28 sarves.am. cavadhyo bhavati |

1.29 abhıto ’ks.ayo ’jaro ’marah. sarvatra capratihatagatir bhavati |Sastri divides this into five separate Sutras: abhıtah. | aks.ayah. | ajarah. |amarah. | sarvatra capratihatagatir bhavati | (K 1.33–37). The Bhas.ya upon the

words sarvatra up to atredam. brahma japet (1.31) was previously unavailable

due to loss of two folios (33–34) in T: it is, however, preserved in the Benares

manuscript (see n. 1 above).

1.30 ity etair †ebhir† gun. air yukto bhagavato mahadevasya mahagan. apatirbhavati |Sastri omits the redundant ebhir in the edition. ebhir is absent in the Bhas.ya’s

quotation of the Sutra in B; in fact ebhih. is Kaun.d. inya’s gloss of etaih. : etair

ebhir ity anukrantaih. purvoktair duradarsanadyair vikaran. antaih. na dos.air asar-

vajnatvadibhir ity arthah. (f. 34r, l. 1). This suggests that the Sutrapat.ha was at

one time extracted from the commentary. This Sutra (= K 1.38) is quoted and com-

mented upon in four segments in the Bhas.ya only preserved in B: ity etair gun. air

yuktah. | *bhagavatah. (em.; bhagavatıh. B) | mahadevasya | mahagan. apatir bhavati | .It seems to be referred to in Paramoks.anirasakarika 3a (mahagan. o mahesasya), de-

scribing the goal of yogimahesvarah. (= mahesvarayoginah. ?).

1.31 atredam. brahma japet |This Sutra reads slightly differently in the Bhas.ya preserved in B: atra cedam.

brahma japet. The ca is original, for Kaun.d. inya comments upon it: casabdah.

*sabahyabhyantarakriyasamuccayartho (em.; sabahyo bhyam. tara◦ B) dras.t.avyah.

(f. 34v, l. 10).

1.32 sadyojatam. prapadyami sadyojataya vai namah. |sadyojatam. ] Bpc C T, 〈pratihata〉sadyojatam. B • namah. ] B, namo namah. C T.

The single namah. (metrical!) in B is also the reading of the Sutra in K, who divides

sadyojatam. prapadyami | sadyojataya vai namah. | (K 1.40–41). Thus also Stuti and

Stava 360 (Goudriaan & Hooykaas 1971: 225–227). For the Brahma-mantra in

1.32–1.34, cf. Taittirıyaran. yaka 10.43 (≈ Mahanarayan. a-Upanis.ad 277–278).

7

1.33 bhave bhave natibhave bhavasva mam |natibhave ] B C, (na)tibhave T.

B connects this Sutra with the following. Sastri reads bhave bhave

natibhave | bhajasva mam | (K 1.42–44). However, B (f. 36r, l. 3) and T

(f. 36r, l. 5) in fact omit natibhave in the Bhas.ya quotation. The Sutrapat.ha

reading bhavasva agrees with the Taittirıyaran. yaka version of this Brahma-mantra

(TA 10.43), while K’s bhajasva is found in the Mahanarayan. a-Upanis.ad (MNaUp

278) and is recorded as a variant reading to TA 10.43 as well. After the first bhave

T starts on a new folio in the original hand. Consequently, for the next Sutras I

have given more weight to the readings of T.

1.34 bhavodbhavaya namah. |K has bhavodbhavah. | (K 1.44) instead and thus constitutes a regular sloka (1.32–

34). TA 10.43 agrees with the reading of the Sutrapat.ha. Stuti and Stava 360

(Goudriaan & Hooykaas 1971: 225–227) corresponds to K’s version, except that it

has a vocative bhavodbhava.

2.1 vamadevasya jyes.t.hasya sres.t.hasya rudrasya kalitasanam |vamadevasya ] B C, vamadeva˘ T • kalitasanam ] B Cpc T, kalitasanam. Cac.

Sastri reads differently: vamah. | devasya | jyes. t.hasya | rudrasya | kalitasanam | (K2.1–4). The reading of K constitutes a metrical hemistich of a Sloka. This may

indicate that sres. t.hasya in the Sutrapat.ha is not original, but influenced by the

Taittirıyaran. yaka Brahma-mantra (cf. 2.14). The text of the Bhas.ya for K 2.1 is

not secure: in T vamadeveti is written in the margin in a different 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

Sutra, after iti, in the edition on p. 56, l. 7, the MS adds vamah. (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: atrapi

taddharmitve s.as. t.hı) that the genitive is original.

2.2 sarvakamika ity acaks.ate |Instead of sarvakamika Sastri has sarvakamika (K 2.6), but this is the editor’s silent

emendation.

2.3 amangalam. catra mangalam. bhavati |

2.4 apasavyam. ca pradaks.in. am |apasavyam. ] B C, ˘ ˘ savyam. T.

2.5 tasmad ubhayatha yas.t.avyo devavat pitr.vac ca |Sastri divides tasmad ubhayatha yas.t.avyah. | devavat pitr.vac ca | (K 2.9–10). This is

8

the editor’s divison: tasmad (B f. 38v, l. 10; T f. 41r, l. 4) and ubhayatha yas.t.avyah.

(B f. 49r, ll. 2–3; T f. 41r, ll. 7–8) are commented upon separately in T as well.

2.6 ubhaye tu rudre devah. pitaras ca |Instead of ubhaye K has ubhayam. .

2.7 hars.apramadı |

2.8 caryayam. caryayam. mahatmyam avapnoti |K starts a new Sutra after the second caryayam (K 2.13–14).

2.9 atidattam atigud. ham |Instead of atigud. ham K has atıs. t.am (K 2.15). Contrary to what Sastri suggests, T

(and B) read this Sutra together with the next one (T f. 44v, ll. 3–4). Instead of

the short i in atigud. ham we need a long ı (as transmitted in atıs. t.am) to retrieve

the underlying Sloka in 2.9–12. Probably atigud. ham — the lectio facilior — is not

original. It seems more likely that a relative yat after K’s atıs. t.am has dropped out.

2.10 atitaptam. tapas tatha |atitaptam. ] C T, atitapta◦ B • tapas ] B C, (ta)pas T.

2.11 atyagatim. gamayate |Na-vipula. atyagatim. instead of the more common atigatim. is presumably metri

causa.

2.12 tasmad bhuyas tapas caret |K divides tasmat | bhuyas tapas caret | (K 2.18–19).

2.12 nanyabhaktis tu sam. kare |

2.13 atredam. brahma japet |

2.14 vamadevaya namo jyes.t.haya namah. sres.t.haya namo rudraya namah.kalaya namah. kalavikaran. aya namo balavikaran. aya namo balayanamo balapramathanaya namah. sarvabhutadamanaya namo manon-manaya namah. |vamadevaya ] B C, va(ma)devaya T • sres.t.haya namo ] C T, sres.t.haya namo

balapramathanaya nama B • kalavikaran. aya ] B C, kala˘ (ka)ran. aya T • namo

manonmanaya namah. ] B C, +na+(mo) manonma[. . . ] T.

Sastri reads and separates quite differently: vamadevaya namo jyes.t.haya

namo rudraya namah. | kalaya namah. | kalavikaran. aya namah. | balapramathanaya

namah. | sarvabhutadamanaya namah. |mano’manaya namah. | (K 2.22–27). Note

that this is the second time that K omits the word sres. t.ha (cf. the annotation

9

on 2.1). Taittirıyaran. yaka 10.44 has sres. t.haya namah. , but lacks balaya namah. ,

this in agreement with K. The Mahanarayan. a-Upanis.ad recension, however, has

sres. t.haya namah. as well as balaya namah. , but reads the latter invocation before

balavikaran. aya namah. (MNaUp 280). Stuti and Stava 360, finally, is again closer

to K, in that it omits both sres. t.haya namah. and balavikaran. aya namah. , although

it includes balaya namah. . According to Goudriaan & Hooykaas (1971: 225) “[t]he

words sres. t.haya namah. are omitted also in Indian Sivaite manuals.” The last Sutra

(K 2.27) is a silent conjecture by the editor: T (and B) reads yan manonmanaya

namah. (f. 47r, l. 8). On the other hand, Kaun.d. inya indeed seems to comment

upon mano’manaya in the commentary (PBh p. 77, l. 2 = T 47v, ll. 5–6). On

f. 66r, l. 10, however, where Kaun.d. inya refers to this mantra, T reads manonmana

and not mano’mana as Sastri has it (p. 109, l. 19); also on f. 68r, l. 7 (= p. 113,

l. 15).

3.1 avyaktalingı vyaktacarah. |vyaktacarah. ] B, avyaktacarah. C T.

The reading of B is also the reading of K: avyaktalingı | vyaktacarah. | (K 3.1–2). For

the significant variant in C and T, cf. Vasis.t.hadharmasastra 10.18 (avyaktalingo

’vyaktacarah. ). Note also the next line of the same text: anunmatta unmattaves.ah.

(VasDhS 10.19). This is related to a passage in the Jabala-Upanis.ad (quoted in

Oberlies 2000: 175): avyaktalinga avyaktacara anunmatta unmattavad acarantah. .

Instead of avyaktalingı iti (PBh p. 78, ll. 1–2), T (f. 50r, l. 4) and B (f. 43v,

l. 8) in fact have avyaktalingeti, suggesting that K comments upon a compound

avyaktalingavyaktacarah. .

3.2 avamatah. sarvabhutes.u |B reads this together with the following Sutra. Kaun.d. inya comments upon two

separate Sutras (K 3.3–4).

3.3 paribhuyamanas caret |

3.4 apahatapapma pares.am. parivadat |apahatapapma pares.am. parivadat ] B C, apa(ha)ta [. . . ] rivadat T.

T drops the t (in parivadat) in the Bhas.ya quotation of this Sutra (f. 51v, l. 6),

while B (f. 47r, l. 1) reads parivadasta (sic).

3.5 papam. ca tebhyo dadati |

3.6 sukr.tam. ca tes.am adatte |sukr.tam. ] B T, sukr.ta C (anusvara possibly lost due to damage).

10

3.7 tasmat pretavac caret |K divides after tasmat (K 3.10–11). Oberlies (2000: 178) has pointed out the par-

allel to this and the following Sutras in Taittirıyabrahman. a II 3.9.9: tasmad evam.

vidv ´a n v´ı va nr. tyet | preva calet | vyasyevaks.yau bhas.eta | man. t.ayed iva krathayed

iva sr. ng ´a yeteva | uta mopavadeyuh. uta papm ´a nam apahanyur ´ı ti.

3.8 kratheta va |kratheta va ] B C T, last two syllables damaged in T.

3.9 spandeta va |spandeta va ] B C, spam. [. . . ] T.

3.10 man. t.eta va |man. t.eta ] em., madeta B, mat.heta Cac, mat.eta Cpc (anusvara above ‘ma’ possibly

lost due to damage); ill. T.

K has man. t.eta.

3.11 sr.ngareta va |

3.12 apitatkuryat |

3.13 apitadbhas.et |

3.14 yena parebhyah. paribhavam. gacchet |K omits parebhyah. (K 3.18). Note that K alone shows metrical features.

3.15 paribhuyamano hi vidvan kr.tsnatapa bhavati |paribhuyamano hi vidvan ] B C, paribhuya [. . . ] T.

3.16 atredam. brahma japet |

3.17 aghorebhyo ’tha ghorebhyo ghoraghoratarebhyah. |ghoraghoratarebhyah. ] C T, ghoratarebhyah. B.

Sastri reads and divides differently: aghorebhyah. | atha ghorebhyah. | ghoraghorata-rebhyas ca | (K 3.21–23). However, ca is a silent addition by the editor, presum-

ably because Kaun.d. inya comments upon it. As noted by Bisschop & Griffiths

(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 Taittirıyaran. yaka 10.45, but it is present in Maitrayan. ısam. hita 2.9.10:130.1–2.

3.18 sarvebhyah. sarvasarvebhyo namas te astu rudrarupebhyah. |sarvebhyah. sarvasarvebhyo ] B C, sa [. . . ] sarvebhyo T.

Sastri reads and divides differently: sarvebhyah. | sarva sarvebhyah. | namas te astu

rudrarupebhyah. | (K 3.24–26), which is closer to the reading of TA 10.45, except

11

that TA 10.45 has sarvatah. instead of the first 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 Sutra. Sastri does not report K 3.26 correctly either: Kaun.d. inya

comments separately upon namas te ’stu (T f. 56v, ll. 4–5) and rudrarupebhya[h. ]

(T f. 56v, ll. 6–7): the editor has left out rudrarupebhyah. before Kaun.d. inya’s remark

atra rudra iti karan. apadese | (PBh p. 91, l. 10).

4.1 gud.havidya taponantyaya prakasate |gud.havidya taponantyaya ] B Cpc T, gud.havidyaya taponityaya Cac.

Sastri transcribes tapa anantyaya instead of taponantyaya, but B (f. 50v, l. 5) and

T (f. 57r, l. 6) read taponantyaya in the Bhas.ya’s quotation of the Sutra. Moreover,

instead of prakasate both MSS have prakasyate. Note that Kaun.d. inya considers

tapo ’nantyaya as a variant reading in his commentary on K 4.1 (p. 92, l. 16).

4.2 gud.havrato gud.hapavitravan. ih. |gud.hapavitravan. ih. ] B C, gud.hapavi [. . . ] h. T.

4.2 and 4.3 together constitute a hemistich of an Indravajra. K divides

gud. havratah. | gud. hapavitravan. ih. | (K 4.2–3).

4.3 sarvan. i dvaran. i pidhaya buddhya |K divides sarvan. i dvaran. i pidhaya | buddhya | (K 4.4–5). The words of this Sutra

have a parallel in pran. ayama descriptions. Cf. e.g. pidhaya buddhya dvaran. i

in Vayupuran. a 17.4c (≈ Markan. d. eyapuran. a 41.20c), pidhaya sarvadvaran. i in

Sardhatrisatikalottara 11.13a (= Sarvajnanottara Yogapada 19a, = Agnipuran. a

2.214.22a) and Wr.haspatitattwa 56a (= Gan. apatitattwa 6a, ≈ Jnanasiddhanta

15.4a). For a possible allusion to this Sutra in the Madhyamakahr.dayakarika, see

the annotation on 5.17.

4.4 unmattavad eko vicareta loke |This is also the reading of K, but it seems likely that this Sutra goes back to an

original unmatta eko vicareta loke (a regular Indravajra pada).

4.5 kr.tannam utsr.s.t.am upadadıta |upadadıta ] C, upadadıt B, upada˘ ta T.

This is an Upendravajra pada.

4.6 unmatto mud.ha ity evam. manyante itare janah. |ity evam. ] B Cpc T, ityes.avam. Cac.

4.6 and 4.7 together constitute a Sloka.

4.7 asam. mano hi jantunam. sarves.am uttamah. smr.tah. |Instead of jantunam. K has yantran. am. , which is probably original (cf. PBh ad

12

PS 4.9). Additional support comes from two verses in the original Skandapuran. a

(ca. sixth century AD), which contain a reference to this Sutra. Siva is teaching

the gods the Pasupata observance (vrata): yantran. am. paramam. yantram anyad

yasman na vidyate | s.ad. angam. sarvakamıyam. sarvalokanamaskr. tam ‖ (SPBh

122.81); tasmat sarvaprahan. artham. yantram etat samacaret ‖ asam. matah. sada

loke yena jıryen na karhicit | (SPBh 122.83cd–84ab).

4.8 indro va agre asures.u pasupatam acarat |

4.9 sa tes.am is.t.apurttam adatta mayaya sukr.taya samavindata |adatta ] B C Tpc, adatte Tac.

Sastri divides sa tes. am is. t.apurttam adatta |mayaya sukr. taya samavindata | (K4.11–12). However, instead of K 4.12, T (f. 63r, l. 5) actually reads mayaya

sukr. taya | adatta | . B has the same reading, except that it has payaya (sic) instead

of mayaya (f. 55v, l. 2).

4.10 ninda hy es.am aninda |K reads differently: ninda hy es. aninda tasmat (K 4.13). The variant in the

Sutrapat.ha has not been recorded by Chakravarti. Note that in the Bhas.ya

tasmat belongs to this Sutra, while in the Sutrapat.ha it is part of the following

Sutra. Cf. however Kaun.d. inya’s remark: atra tasmacchabdah. purvottaram.

capeks.ate | (p. 104, l. 2).

4.11 tasman nindyamanas caret |As mentioned above, K omits tasman, connecting it with the preceding Sutra. After

this Sutra K adds an additional Sutra aninditakarma | (K 4.15), which is not in the

Sutrapat.ha.

4.12 sarvavisis.t.o ’yam. panthah. satpathah. |K divides sarvavisis. t.o ’yam. panthah. | satpathah. | (K 4.16–17).

4.13 kupathas tv anye |

4.14 anena vidhina rudrasamıpam. gatva na kascid brahman. ah. punaravartate |Sastri divides this into two Sutras: anena vidhina rudrasamıpam. gatva | na kascid

brahman. ah. punar avartate | (K 4.19–20), but this is not done in B (f. 56v, l. 2) or

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 Sutra and the corresponding commentary are missing in

the Bhas.ya. I can add that this is also the case in B.

13

4.16 tatpurus.aya vidmahe mahadevaya dhımahi |K divides tatpurus. aya vidmahe |mahadevaya dhımahi | (K 4.22–23). For the

Brahma-mantra in 4.16–17, cf. Taittirıyaran. yaka 10.46.

4.17 tan no rudrah. pracodayat |

5.1 asangayogı nityatma ajo maitro ’bhijayate |nityatma ajo ] B C, nitya˘ ˘ ˘ jo T.

Sastri divides this into six Sutras and reads differently: asangah. | yogı | nit-

yatma | ajah. | maitrah. | abhijayate | (K 5.1–6), but in fact B (f. 58v, l. 8) and T

(f. 66v, l. 8) have asam. gayogı in place of K 5.1. Note that the Sutrapat.ha reading

constitutes a metrically correct hemistich of a ma-vipula (syncopation in the first

half and caesura after the 5th syllable). Cf. Oberlies (2000: 181, n. 29), who

observes that K 5.4–6 constitute a pada if one dissolves the sandhi, but who does

not mention the metrical problem in K 5.1–3.

5.2 indriyan. am abhijayat |

5.3 rudrah. provaca tavat |

5.4 sunyagaraguhavası |5.4–6 together constitute a Sloka.

5.5 devanityo jitendriyah. |K divides devanityah. | jitendriyah. | (K 5.10–11).

5.6 s.an.masan nityayuktasya bhuyis.t.ham. sampravartate |K divides s.an. masan nityayuktasya | bhuyis. t.ham. sampravartate | (K 5.12–13).

With this Sutra compare Mahabharata 12.232.30cd (s.an. masan nityayuktasya

sabdabrahmativartate) and 14.19.60cd (s.an. masan nityayuktasya yogah. partha

pravartate). Note that in contrast to these two Epic passages the present Sutra

has no subject; in his commentary ad K 5.12 Kaun.d. inya argues for a ‘remote

connection’ (durasthah. sambandhah. ) with K 1.21 (vijnanani casya pravartante)

and K 1.38 (ity etair gun. air yuktah. ).

5.7 bhaiks.yam. patragatam. mam. sam adus.yam. lavan. ena va |5.7 and 5.8 together constitute a Sloka. K divides bhaiks.yam | patragatam | mam. sam

adus.yam. lavan. ena va | (K 5.14–16).

5.8 apo vapi yathakalam asnıyad anupurvasah. |

5.9 godharma mr.gadharma va |5.9–12 together constitute a Sloka.

14

5.10 adbhir eva sucir bhavet |

5.11 siddhayogı na lipyeta |K connects this with the following Sutra (= K 5.20). Instead of lipyeta K has

lipyate. The Sutrapat.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 confirmed by a quotation — identi-

fied by Sanderson (*1998) — of this and the following Sutra in the 9th chapter

(Mımam. satattvanirn. ayavatarah. ) of Bhavya/Bha(va)viveka’s Madhyamakahr.daya-

karika (MHK 9.62): siddhiyogo [sic] na lipyeta karman. a patakena va | iti bruvan. aih.

sanmargan nas.t.air anye ’pi nasitah. ‖ . That lipyate is not just a scribal error in

K is suggested by Kaun.d. inya’s 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 Sutrapat.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 patakena va |

5.13 r.cam is.t.am adhıyıta |K connects this with the following Sutra (= K 5.21). 5.13–16 together constitute a

Sloka.

5.14 gayatrım atmayantritah. |B omits 5.14–5.17.

5.15 raudrım. va bahurupım. va |C omits the dan. d. a.

5.16 ato yogah. pravartate |

5.17 om. karam abhidhyayıta |abhidhyayıta ] T, abhidhyaıta C.

5.17–19 together constitute a Sloka. As has been observed by Sanderson

(*1998), this and the following Sutra, along with 5.24 and 5.26, are para-

phrased in Madhyamakahr.dayakarika 9.114–115: [sam. yamitamatidva]rah.

sthapayitva sive manah. | tathom. karam abhidhyayan dharayan dharan. am. hr.di ‖ks. ityadidharan. abhyasat praksamahitamanasah. | ıse prasanne duh. khantam. gac-

chatıty etad apy asat ‖ . The compound sam. yamitamatidvarah. (‘having restrained

the doors of his mind’) is Lindtner’s 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. yamakabuddhidva]rah. on the

15

basis of Tibetan blo yi sgo rnams legs bsdams la. Both reconstructions suggest

a paraphrase of 4.3 (sarvan. i dvaran. i pidhaya buddhya) above, but they suffer

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 buddhya sam. yamitadvarah.

(‘having restrained the doors with the buddhi ’). On the other hand, the Tarkajvala

commentary in the Derge (sDe dge) edition of the Buddhist canon has the shorter

form of the genitive blo’i, which makes confusion with the instrumental less likely.

In addition, the commentary’s blo’i sgo dban po thams cad (Derge f. 303r, l. 7)

could be glossing buddhidvara(-an. i?) with sarvendriyan. 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 prefix such as su- or sam-, a

reconstruction supihita- may also be considered. The latter reconstruction would

take us close to the probable Pasupatasutra source of this verse. The view refuted

in MHK 9.114–115 is ascribed to the Siva or Saiva tantra (si ba’i rgyud) in the

Tarkajvala (Derge f. 303r, ll. 5–6). There is no parallel for the hemistich MHK

9.115ab in the Pasupatasutra.

5.18 tat sad iti hr.di kurvıta dharan. am |dharan. am. ] Bpc C T, dharan. am. Bpc.

K omits the words tat sad iti. The reading of the Sutrapat.ha is hypermetrical; only

K is metrically correct. For an exposition of the mantra om. tat sat, referred to in

the Sutrapat.ha, cf. e.g. Mahabharata 6.39.23–28.

5.19 r.s.ir vipro mahan es.a vagvisuddho mahesvarah. |K separates three Sutras: r.s. ir vipro mahan es.ah. | vagvisuddhah. |mahesvarah. | .

5.20 smasanavası dharmatma yathalabdhopajıvakah. |5.20–22 together constitute a Sloka (ma-vipula). Sastri separates three Sutras:

smasanavası | dharmatma | yathalabdhopajıvakah. | (K 5.30–32). However, in place

of K 5.30 (smasanavası), B (f. 66v, ll. 1–2) and T (f. 76r, ll. 9–10) in fact read

smasanavası dharmatma yathalabdhopajıvakah. .

5.21 labhate rudrasayujyam |

5.22 sada rudram anusmaret |Probably the original reading of this last pada of a Sloka (5.20–5.22) was sada

rudram anusmaran. As such it is transmitted in the Bhas.ya in B (f. 67v, l. 5).

16

T reads anusmarat there (f. 77v, l. 9), which has been silently emended to anus-

maret by Sastri, presumably on the basis of the Sutrapat.ha. Cf. the parallel in

the ‘Lingapuran. a’ quoted by Laks.mıdhara (Tırthavivecanakan. d. a p. 107, ll. 4–

5): smasanavası dharmatma yathalabdhena vartate | labheta rudrasayujyam. sada

rudram anusmaran ‖ .

5.23 chittva dos.an. am. hetujalasya mulam |5.23–5.26 together constitute a Vaisvadevı. For parallels, see the annotation on

5.24.

5.24 buddhya sam. cintya sthapayitva tu rudre |Sastri reads and divides differently: buddhya | sam. cittam | sthapayitva ca rudre | (K5.36–38). 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. adivislis. t.am. svayam eva svagun. atvena

parigr.hyate. Cf. also Ratnat. ıka p. 20, ll. 9–11: yo vidyanugr. hıtaya buddhya svam.

cittam. niralambanam. karoti so ’mud. ha ity ucyate. taya dharan. aya nirmalıkr. tam.

cittam. rudratattve sthapitam. sudırghakalam. na cyavate. Additional support comes

from Pampamahatmya 11.61cd–62ab (Filliozat 2001, p. 145): tasmad asmin svakam.

cittam. *sam. sthapyatyantaniscalam (sam. sthapya◦ conj.; susthapya◦ Ed.) ‖ idam. va-

pus tyajamıti tasya buddhir bhavet sada | , which probably goes back to a passage

from the Ratnat. ıka (p. 16, ll. 4–5): dos.ahetujalebhyas chinnasya mulakhyanivr. ttau

cittasya rudre ’vasthanam atyantaniscalatvam. sthitir ucyate.

The present passage has a parallel in the Atharvasiras-Upanis.ad, with some in-

teresting variants. The variant sam. cintya of the Sutrapat.ha corresponds with the

version with Sam. karananda’s commentary: tr.s.n. am. chittva hetujalasya mulam. bud-

dhya sam. cintya sthapayitva tu rudre (ASiUp p. 37, ll. 4–5), while sam. cittam (K)

corresponds more closely with Narayan. a’s version: tr.s.n. am. hitva hetujalasya mulam.

buddhya sam. citam. sthapayitva tu rudre (ASiUp p. 17, ll. 1–2). There are other vari-

ants; cf. Hara 2002: 151–152. The tu of the Sutrapat.ha (instead of ca) is present

in both versions. Lingapuran. a 2.18.40cd (tr.s.n. am. chittva hetujalasya mulam. bud-

dhya cintyam. sthapayitva ca rudre), on the other hand, is closer in this respect to

K. In the Lingapuran. a the verse has been rewritten to form a Salinı. This wide

variation suggests that the passage from the Atharvasiras-Upanis.ad may go back

to an early corruption of svam. → sam. , repaired in different ways. In the process of

repairing the original metre was lost. The presence of sam. cintya — the reading of

Sam. karananda’s version — in the Sutrapat.ha indicates a contaminated tradition.

For an allusion to this Sutra in the Madhyamakahr.dayakarika, see the annotation

on 5.17.

17

5.25 ekah. †ks.emyam. sam. † vıtasokah. |Instead of ks.emyam. sam. (?) Sastri has ks.emı san, but Tac (f. 82r, l. 7) and B

(f. 72v, l. 1) have ks.emyasan in the Bhas.ya’s quotation of this Sutra. A second hand

(Sastri?) seems to have tried to correct this to ks.emı san in Tpc, presumably be-

cause of Kaun.d. inya’s interpretation: tatha suks.masthulasabahyabhyantaralaks.an. a-

vilaks.an. asu kriyasu vinivr. ttasu rudre sthitacitto nis.kriyah. san ity abhidhıyate (PBh

p. 139, ll. 14–15). The Sutra bears a partial resemblance to Svetasvatara-Upanis.ad

2.14d: ekah. kr. tartho bhavate vıtasokah. .

5.26 apramadı gacched duh.khanam antam ısaprasadat |gacched duh.khanam ] B Cpc, gacche duh.khanam Cac, gacche [. . . ] -anam T.

Instead of Sastri’s K 5.40, which is identical with this Sutra, B (f. 73r, ll. 1–2) and

T (f. 82, l. 10) actually only have apramadı. The entire Sutra is quoted later in

the Bhas.ya: K p. 141, l. 3 = B f. 73r, ll. 4–5 / T f. 83, ll. 2–3, where T does not

read apramadad, as Sastri has it, but apramada (w.r. for apramadı). In order to

retrieve the Vaisvadevı metre underlying 5.23–5.26, sandhi between vıtasokah. and

apramadı must be applied. For the Madhyamakahr.dayakarika testimonium of this

Sutra, see the annotation on 5.17 above.

5.27 atredam. brahma japet |

5.28 ısanah. sarvavidyanam ısvarah. sarvabhutanam |K divides ısanah. sarvavidyanam | ısvarah. sarvabhutanam | . C omits the dan. d. a after

sarvabhutanam.

5.29 brahmadipatir brahman. o ’dhipatir brahma sivo me astu sadasivom |brahmadipatir ] B C, bra [. . . ] tir T • sadasivom. ] C T, sadasivo B.

K reads and divides differently: brahman. o ’dhipatir brahma | sivo me

astu | sada | sivah. | (5.44–47). Note that K alone constitutes a regular Sloka

(applying Sandhi): ısanah. sarvavidyanam ısvarah. sarvabhutanam | brahman. o

’dhipatir brahma sivo me ’stu sada sivah. | . The latter reading is also that of

Nisvasaguhya f. 109v, l. 1. The reading of the Sutrapat.ha, on the other hand, is

identical with Taittirıyaran. yaka 10.47.

iti pasupatasutran. i sam. purn. ani |

Bibliography

Agnipuran. a(AgnP) Agnipuran. a of Mahars.i Vedavyasa. Ed. by Acharya Baladeva Upadhyaya.

The Kashi Sanskrit Series 174. Varanasi 1966.

18

Atharvasiras-Upanis.ad(ASiUp) [Published in] Srı-Narayan. a-Sam. karananda-viracitadıpikasametanam

Atharvasikhadyana[m. ] Ham. sopanis.adantanam. Dvatrim. sanmitanamUpanis.adam. Samuccayah. . Anandasramasam. skr.tavalih. 29. [Poona] 1895.

Baudhayanadharmasutra(BaudhDhS) [Published in] Dharmasutras. The Law Codes of Apastamba, Gautama,

Baudhayana, and Vasis.t.ha. Annotated Text and Translation [by] PatrickOlivelle. Delhi 2000.

Bhasarvajna(RT. ) Gan. akarika [with Ratnat. ıka] of Acarya Bhasarvajna (With four

appendices including the Karavan. a-Mahatmya). Edit. by ChimanlalD. Dalal. Gaekwad’s Oriental Series 15. Baroda 1920.

Bisschop, Peterforthc. a Review of ‘Minoru Hara, Pasupata Studies. Edited by Jun Takashima.

Vienna 2002. Publications of the De Nobili Research Library XXX.’ Toappear in the Indo-Iranian Journal.

forthc. b ‘Pancarthabhas.ya on Pasupatasutra 1.37–39. Recovered from a newlyidentified manuscript.’ To appear in the Journal of Indian Philosophy.

Bisschop, Peter & Arlo Griffiths2003 ‘The Pasupata Observance (Atharvavedaparisis.t.a 40).’ In: Indo-Iranian

Journal 46, pp. 315–348.Chakravarti, Chintaharan

1943 ‘Pasupatasutra.’ In: Indian Historical Quarterly 19, pp. 270–271.Filliozat, Vasundhara

2001 Kalamukha and Pasupata Temples in Dharwar. Chennai.Gan. apatitattwa

(GT) Gan. apati-Tattwa. An Old Javanese philosophic text. Critically edited andtranslated by Sudarshana Devi Singhal. Dvıpantara-Pit.aka 3. New Delhi1958.

Goudriaan, T. and C. Hooykaas1971 Stuti and Stava (Bauddha and Vais.n. ava) of Balinese Brahman priests.

Verhandelingen der KNAW, afd. Letterkunde, Nieuwe Reeks 76.Amsterdam, London.

Hara, Minoru2002 Pasupata Studies. Edited by Jun Takashima. Publications of the De Nobili

Research Library XXX. Vienna.Jnanasiddhanta

(JnaSi) Jnanasiddhanta. Edited and translated by Haryati Soubadio. BibliothecaIndonesica 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, Shinjo1988 The Mımam. sa Chapter of Bhavya’s Madhyamaka-hr.daya-karika. Sanskrit

and Tibetan Texts. From Studies 1976, 1987, 1988, Institute of Philosophy,The University of Tsukuba.

Laks.mıdhara

19

(TVK) Bhat.t.a-srı-Laks.mıdhara-viracite Kr.tyakalpatarau As.t.amo bhagah. .Tırthavivecanakan. d. am. Edit. by K.V. Rangaswami Aiyangar. Gaekwad’sOriental Series XCVIII. Baroda 1942.

Lindtner, Christian1997 ‘Bhavya on Mımam. sa.’ in: Studia Indologiczne 4. Aspects of Buddhism.

Proceedings of the International Seminar on Buddhist Studies, Liw 25June 1994. Warsaw, pp. 91–123.

Lingapuran. a(LiP) Srı-Vyasa-mahars.iproktam. Srı-Lingamahapuran. am. , with the Sanskrit

commentary Sivatos.in. ı by Gan. esa Natu. [Edit. by] Gangavis.n. u (son ofKr.s.n. adasa). Venkatesvara Press, Bombay V.S. 1981 [= AD 1924].[Reprinted, with a Slokanukraman. ı by Nagasaran. a Sim. ha, by NagPublishers, Delhi 1989 (2nd ed. 1996)]

Madhyamakahr.dayakarika(MHK) See Kawasaki 1988 and Lindtner 1997.

Mahabharata(MBh) The Mahabharata. For the first time critically edited by V. S. Sukthankar

and others. Poona 1927–59. 19 vols.Mahanarayan. a-Upanis.ad

(MNaUp) La Maha Narayan. a Upanis.ad. Edition critique, avec une traductionfrancaise, une etude, des notes et, en annexe, la Pran. agnihotra Upanis.ad.par Jean Varenne. 2 tomes. Paris 1960.

Maitrayan. ısam. hita(MaiS) Maitrayan. ı Sam. hita. Die Sam. hita der Maitrayan. ıya-Cakha. [Edit. by]

Leopold von Schroeder. 4 vols. Leipzig 1881–1886.Markan. d. eyapuran. a

(MkP) The Marcan. d. eya Puran. a in the original Sanscrit edited by K. M. Banerjea.Bibliotheca Indica 29. Calcutta 1855–62. [Reprinted by Biblio Verlag,Osnabruck 1988.]

Nisvasatattvasam. hitaElectronic transcription of the codex of the Nisvasatattvasam. hita in theNational Archives, Kathmandu, MS 1–227 (= A 41/4) supplemented withreadings from its Kathmandu apograph MS (NGMPP 159/18), by DominicGoodall. Includes the Nisvasamukha, Nisvasamula, Nisvasottara,Nisvasanaya and Nisvasaguhya.

Oberlies, Thomas2000 ‘Kriegslisten und ungeziemendes Benehmen: Die Askesepraktiken der

Pasupatas.’ In: Ryutaro Tsuchida and Albrecht Wezler (eds.),Haranandalaharı. Volume in Honour of Professor Minoru Hara on hisSeventieth Birthday (Reinbek), pp. 175–191.

Pancarthabhas.yaSee Kaun.d. inya.

Paramoks.anirasakarika[Published in] As.t.aprakaran. am. Edit. by Vrajavallabha Dvivedı.Yogatantra-granthamala vol. 12. Varanasi 1998.

Sanderson, Alexis*1998 ‘Lakulas and Somasiddhantins. Hilary Term 1998. Handout 5.’

[Unpublished lecture handout.]

20

2002 ‘History through Textual Criticism in the study of Saivism, the Pancaratraand the Buddhist Yoginıtantras.’ In: Francois Grimal (ed.), Les Sources etle Temps. Sources and Time. A Colloquium. Pondicherry 11–13 January1997 (Pondicherry), pp. 1–47.

*2004 ‘The Yoga of Dying. The Saiva Atimarga. Week 5: Handout, 9 November,2004.’ [Unpublished lecture handout.]

Sardhatrisatikalottara(STK) Sardhatrisatikalottaragama with commentary (-vr.tti) of Bhat.t.a

Ramakan. t.ha. Edit. by N.R. Bhatt. Publications de l’Institut Francaisd’Indologie 61. Pondicherry 1979.

Sarvadarsanasam. graha(SDS) Sarva-Darsana-Samgraha of Sayan. a=Madhava. Edited with an original

commentary in Sanskrit by Mahamahopadhyaya Vasudev ShastriAbhyankar. Government Oriental (Hindu) Series Vol. I. Poona 1924.

Schultz, Friedrich August1958 Die philosophisch-theologischen Lehren des Pasupata-Systems nach dem

Pancarthabhas.ya und der Ratnat. ıka. Beitrage zur Sprach- undKulturgeschichte des Orientes 10. Walldorf-Hessen.

Skandapuran. a(SPBh ) Skandapuran. asya Ambikakhan. d. ah. , sam. padakah. Kr.s.n. aprasada Bhat.t.araı.

Mahendraratnagranthamala 2. Kathmandu 1988.Svetasvatara-Upanis.ad

(SvUp) [Published in] Eighteen Principal Upanis.ads. Vol. I. Upanis.adic Text withParallels from extant Vedic Literature, Exegetical and Grammatical Notesby V.P. Limaye & R. D. Vadekar. Gandhi Memorial Edition. Poona 1958.

Taittirıyabrahman. a(TBr) Taittirıyabrahman. am. Srımad-Sayan. acarya-viracita-Bhas.ya-sametam.

[Edit. by] V.S.R. Narayan. a Sastri ‘God.bole’.Anandasramasam. skr.tagranthavalih. 37 [3 Vols.]. Poona 1898.

Taittirıyaran. yaka(TA) Taittirıyaran. yakam. [Edit. by] V.S.R.R. Baba Sastrı ‘Phad. ake’.

Anandasramasam. skr.tagranthavalih. 36 [2 Vols.]. Poona 1897.Vayupuran. a

(VaP) The Vayumahapuran. am. Edit. by Khemaraja. Delhi 1983. Nag Publishers.[Reprint of the Venkatesvara edition of AD 1895]

Vasis.t.hadharmasastra(VasDhS) [Published in] Dharmasutras. The Law Codes of Apastamba, Gautama,

Baudhayana, and Vasis.t.ha. Annotated Text and Translation [by] PatrickOlivelle. Delhi 2000.

Wr.haspatitattwa(Wr.T) Wr.haspati-Tattwa. An Old Javanese philosophical text. Critically edited

and translated by Sudarshana Devi. Dvıpantara-Pit.aka 1. New Delhi 1957.Yogasutra

(YS) Vacaspatimisraviracitat.ıkasametasrıvyasabhas.yasametaniPatanjalayogasutran. i. Anandasramasam. skr.tagranthavalih. 47. [Poona]1904.

21