A new edition of Vyadi's 'Paribhasavrtti.' (new critical edition based on four ancient Sanskrit manuscripts)

• Author: Cardona, George

The strengths and weaknesses of Wujatyk's welcome edition are here examined.

The Vyadiyaparibhasavrtti, alias Paribhasasucana, has been the source of scholarly debate concerning its antiquity; see Cardona 1976: 168 for work done to that date. Dominik Wujastyk has now given us a critical edition of this work along with an annotated translation.

The critical edition is based on four manuscripts, all in Devanagari script, two from the Bhandarkar Oriental Institute (Pune), one from Sri Ranbir Sanskrit Research Institute (Jammu and Kashmir), and one from the Staatsbibliothek (Berlin). The first volume contains the text with apparatus criticus (pp. 1-85), followed by an appendix (p. 87), containing an interpolated text, and four indexes: alphabetical index of paribhasas (pp. 89-92), page index to paribhasas (p. 93), paribhasas cross-referenced in the text (p. 93), texts cited in the Vyadiparibhasavrtti (pp. 94-96). In an introduction to the text (pp. xiii-xxiv), Wujastyk deals with the discovery of the Paribhasavrtti, the editio princeps of K. V. Abhyankar (1967: 1-38: Vyadikrtam paribhasasucanam; pp. 39-43: Vyadiparibhasapathah), and details concerning the manuscripts used and the apparatus criticus. This ends with a list of sigla. The first volume also contains a brief foreword (pp. ix-x) and acknowledgments (pp. xi-xii). The major part of volume two consists of Wujastyk's annotated translation (pp. 1-274). This volume also contains a bibliography (pp. 275-82), followed by indexes of citations (pp. 283-301) and of word forms discussed (pp. 302-4). In the introduction to this volume (pp. xi-xxxi), Wujastyk takes up the relation to Panini's Astadhyayi of paribhasas contained in the Paribhasavrtti and comparable works, the authorship of the Vyadiparibhasavrtti, Vyadi as referred to by various authors (what he calls "the various Vyadis"), the nature of the Vyadiparibhasavrtti, and his method of translating and explaining the text.

Wujastyk states in clear terms what he views as the purposes of his study: ". . . to present as good a text of the Paribhasavrtti as can be established on the basis of the available manuscripts" and ". . . to identify the Vyadi commentator's sources and affiliations, and to locate him intellectually and temporally" (vol. 1, p. x). He also clarifies what his study is not: "It is not a general examination of the paribhasa literature. Nor is it intended to be a completely general study of this paribhasa text." I think Wujastyk has accomplished his major aims. The text he presents shows improvements over the editio princeps, as he demonstrates on several occasions in notes within his apparatus criticus. He has also given us a very good discussion on the authorship of Vyadiyaparibhasavrtti, including a thorough treatment of references to a Vyadi (or Vyali) in sources from Katyayana on.(1) After Wujastyk's study, I think there can be little doubt that the Vyadiyaparibhasavrtti, that is, the commentary, is later than Patanjali's Mahabhasya. This does not, however, settle the question whether the paribhasa collection to which this vrtti is a commentary is earlier or later. I agree with Wujastyk that the term Vyadiyaparibhasavrtti is best interpreted as referring to a vrtti on the Vyadiyaparibhasa. Consequently, the author of the paribhasas can be an ancient Vyadi. In the present state of knowledge, the question may in fact be unanswerable.

The translation of each text section is accompanied by an explanation and comments. As Wujastyk notes (vol. 2, p. xxxi), these reflect the oral commentary he received when he read the text with Pt. V. B. Bhagavat and Prof. S. Bhate in 1979. In notes to his translation and comments, Wujastyk also supplies information concerning where paribhasas are used in the Mahabhasya, the Kasika, and other Paniniya works, as well as their inclusion in other paribhasa collections. The latter is also available in Abhyankar 1967: 466-93. Wujastyk's references are not exhaustive. For example, in connection with paribhasa 57 (arthavasad vibhaktiviparinamo bhavati), he says (vol. 2, p. 205, n. 313): "The maxim is used five times by Patanjali, each time accompanied by the laukika examples of the argument. . . . It is not quoted in the Kasika or Siddhantakaumudi. It does appear in the Nyasa (KV VI.124: 26-27). It is discussed by Purusottamadeva (no. 88), Siradeva (no. 120) and Haribhaskara (no. 122)." It is literally true that the Kasika does not cite the paribhasa in the form noted. It does, however, speak of change in endings (vibhaktiviparinamah) by the same principle. Thus, commenting on 3.2.106 (litah kanaj va), the Kasika asks why the term lit is used again in this sutra (litah 'in place of lit'): will not the ending of the nominative lit stated previously (3.2.105: chandasi lit) be changed to a genitive in a provision for a replacement?(2) The Nyasa comments: yady api lid iti prathamantam prakrtam tathapy arthad vibhaktiviparinamo bhavisyati 'although lit, ending in a first-triplet ending, is given, there will be a change in ending due to the meaning intended.' The wording of the paribhasa in this Nyasa passage - arthat and not arthavasat - is the one found in the Nyasa passage to which Wujastyk refers: Nyasa on Kas. 7.3.120: ana iti sthanyantaranirdesad iharthad vibhaktiviparinamo bhavati. . . .(3)

Wujastyk explains (vol. 2, pp. xxix-xxx) the principles he has followed in his translation. He also rejects in fairly strong language the practice, followed by many, of including large amounts of material in parentheses, and singles out Kielhorn's translation of the Paribhasendusekhara as an especially noteworthy example of what should be avoided. I agree with Wujastyk that the sentence should be the unit for translation, and that "[i]t is wholly unacceptable for a translator to place syntactically essential parts of the sentence within parentheses, unless the Sanskrit text itself is genuinely incomplete." Wujastyk's practice results in very smooth translations. Consider for example, his translation (vol. 2, p. 3) of paribhasa [I.sup.a]: "When a meaningful item is mentioned, that item should not be mentioned without meaning." The Sanskrit this translates is arthavadgrahane nanarthakasya. Kielhorn's translation (1960: 81-82) of the equivalent paribhasa (no. 14) in Nagesa's...