Vātsya Varadagurus Tattvanirṇaya by Sylvia StarkReview by: Ludo RocherJournal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 115, No. 1 (Jan. - Mar., 1995), pp. 155-156Published by: American Oriental SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/605348 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 06:39

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

American Oriental Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal ofthe American Oriental Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.46 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 06:39:04 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Reviews of Books Reviews of Books

also because he believes empirical cognition to be, in some sense, svatah siddha after all. Above all, however, the self is present to itself (svatah siddha). The self, as the eternal, self- conscious witness, is the ultimate epistemological principle: just as the object is dependent on cognition in order to be known, cognition must be revealed by the self; but the self

depends on nothing else in order to be manifest. Nay, more: it is actually the consciousness of the self which, exiting through the organs of sense, comes into contact with the object and is transformed into a cognition (samvid, jinna) which bears the form of the object. (Yamuna is intent on denying, in any case, that cognition is the product merely of the interaction of the senses with the object, as the Bhftta believes.) Just how all these ideas consistently fit together in the end is not really sat- isfactorily explained by Mesquita. Yamuna's intention, how- ever, is clear enough, viz., somehow to give primacy to an

eternally conscious self in experience without making it the sole reality (qua unchanging consciousness). He is, after all, a Vedantin, just not a monist. The surprising thing revealed by this study is how precarious a balancing act that turns out to be!

The second part of the study concerns Yamuna's demonstra- tion of the reality of the world by perception, i.e., a defence of the validity of perception taken at face value, as revealing real pots, cloths, and lotuses. That leads into a discussion of Yamu- na's theory of the validity of conceptual (savikalpaka) percep- tion, which again is in many ways derivative of Kumarila's views and which is intended to counter Mandanamisra's sug- gestion that "mere being" (sanmatra) is what is directly per- ceived. The Auseinandersetzung with the Advaitins (Mandana and Prakaiatman) extends to a demonstration of the compati- bility of sense perception with scripture (the latter, on the other hand, argue that the upanisadic teaching of the oneness of be- ing overrides the deliverances of the other means of knowl-

edge) and a defence of the anyathakhyati theory of error (in opposition to the anirvacaniyakhyati theory, upon which the Advaitin cosmology is based). The latter topic in turn occa- sions an extensive discussion of Yamuna's critique of Advaita cosmology. In this second part Mesquita of necessity draws much on Ramanuja's Sribhdsya to reconstruct the lost portions of Yamuna's writings that deal with these issues. He includes at the end of the discussion of the theory of error a translation of the yathdrthakhyati section of the Sribhdsya, which presents an alternative to the anyathakhyati theory that was probably transmitted from Nathamuni to Ramanuja through Yamuna. In general, throughout the study Mesquita develops a convincing picture of the historical relationship of Yfmuna to (his prede- cessor) Nathamuni and (his successor) Ramanuja.

Roque Mesquita has committed over twenty years of his life to the study of Yamuna and early Visistadvaita philosophy. This volume-which one must note is hardly narrow in scope but covers an impressively broad range of texts and theories- is a result worthy of such an effort. Selecting Yamuna as the point of reference, it provides lucid, comprehensive, and accu-

also because he believes empirical cognition to be, in some sense, svatah siddha after all. Above all, however, the self is present to itself (svatah siddha). The self, as the eternal, self- conscious witness, is the ultimate epistemological principle: just as the object is dependent on cognition in order to be known, cognition must be revealed by the self; but the self

depends on nothing else in order to be manifest. Nay, more: it is actually the consciousness of the self which, exiting through the organs of sense, comes into contact with the object and is transformed into a cognition (samvid, jinna) which bears the form of the object. (Yamuna is intent on denying, in any case, that cognition is the product merely of the interaction of the senses with the object, as the Bhftta believes.) Just how all these ideas consistently fit together in the end is not really sat- isfactorily explained by Mesquita. Yamuna's intention, how- ever, is clear enough, viz., somehow to give primacy to an

eternally conscious self in experience without making it the sole reality (qua unchanging consciousness). He is, after all, a Vedantin, just not a monist. The surprising thing revealed by this study is how precarious a balancing act that turns out to be!

The second part of the study concerns Yamuna's demonstra- tion of the reality of the world by perception, i.e., a defence of the validity of perception taken at face value, as revealing real pots, cloths, and lotuses. That leads into a discussion of Yamu- na's theory of the validity of conceptual (savikalpaka) percep- tion, which again is in many ways derivative of Kumarila's views and which is intended to counter Mandanamisra's sug- gestion that "mere being" (sanmatra) is what is directly per- ceived. The Auseinandersetzung with the Advaitins (Mandana and Prakaiatman) extends to a demonstration of the compati- bility of sense perception with scripture (the latter, on the other hand, argue that the upanisadic teaching of the oneness of be- ing overrides the deliverances of the other means of knowl-

edge) and a defence of the anyathakhyati theory of error (in opposition to the anirvacaniyakhyati theory, upon which the Advaitin cosmology is based). The latter topic in turn occa- sions an extensive discussion of Yamuna's critique of Advaita cosmology. In this second part Mesquita of necessity draws much on Ramanuja's Sribhdsya to reconstruct the lost portions of Yamuna's writings that deal with these issues. He includes at the end of the discussion of the theory of error a translation of the yathdrthakhyati section of the Sribhdsya, which presents an alternative to the anyathakhyati theory that was probably transmitted from Nathamuni to Ramanuja through Yamuna. In general, throughout the study Mesquita develops a convincing picture of the historical relationship of Yfmuna to (his prede- cessor) Nathamuni and (his successor) Ramanuja.

Roque Mesquita has committed over twenty years of his life to the study of Yamuna and early Visistadvaita philosophy. This volume-which one must note is hardly narrow in scope but covers an impressively broad range of texts and theories- is a result worthy of such an effort. Selecting Yamuna as the point of reference, it provides lucid, comprehensive, and accu-

rate discussions of numerous issues that are of central impor- tance to classical Indian philosophy. It is, in short, a highly valuable contribution. Regrettably, since it is written in Ger- man and published in the annals of the Austrian Academy, it will not receive the attention in the English-speaking world that it deserves, especially from contemporary philosophers, who continue to puzzle over the question: what is consciousness?

JOHN TABER

UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO

Vatsya Varadagurus Tattvanirnaya. Edited and translated by SYLVIA STARK. Two vols. Beitrage zur Kultur- und Geistes-

geschichte Asiens, 4. Sitzungsberichte der Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. KI., vol. 570. Vi- enna: OSTERREICHISCHE AKADEMIE DER WISSENSCHAFTEN, 1990.

Pp. 135; 151.

The literary activity of Vatsya Varadaguru (a.k.a. Varada, Varadamisra, Varadacarya, Varadaryamisra, Varadarija, and Varadarajasuri; his Tamil name was Nadadir Ammal) falls in the period between two more famous names in south Indian Visistadvaita, Ramanuja and Venkatanatha (or Vedantadegika). According to the tradition, Varadaguru's grandfather, Vara- davisnumigra, was the son of Ramanuja's sister Kamala; he was the simhasanddhipati at Sriraigam immediately after Rnamnuja. On the other hand, Varadaguru's disciple Atreyaramanuja (the author of NydyakuliSa) was Vefikatanatha's teacher. Stark con- cludes that Varadaguru must have been born, in Kaficipuram, between 1190 and 1200 (vol. 1, p. 25); there seems to be general agreement that he died in 1275.

The Visistadvaitins in between Raimnuja and Venkatanatha have, "meiner Meinung nach zu Unrecht" (vol. 1, p. 9), received little attention. Even though many of their works are known only fragmentarily or from doxographies, their output was con- siderable, and some of it is available in print, occasionally even with commentary. As far as Varadaguru is concerned, his au- thorship of four texts is beyond dispute: the Tattvasdra (edited three times, with three different commentaries), the Prameya- mald (edited twice; the chapter on yatilirgasamarthana criti- cally by Patrick Olivelle), the Prapannapdrijata (edited with English translation), and the Tattvanirnaya, which is the object of the edition and translation under review.

This edition is based on thirteen manuscripts, eleven in Grantha, one in Telugu script, one in Devanagari; ten on palm leaf, three on paper. Each of the two earlier editions (Srikaiici, 1902; Madras, 1911) was largely based on just one of these

rate discussions of numerous issues that are of central impor- tance to classical Indian philosophy. It is, in short, a highly valuable contribution. Regrettably, since it is written in Ger- man and published in the annals of the Austrian Academy, it will not receive the attention in the English-speaking world that it deserves, especially from contemporary philosophers, who continue to puzzle over the question: what is consciousness?

JOHN TABER

UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO

Vatsya Varadagurus Tattvanirnaya. Edited and translated by SYLVIA STARK. Two vols. Beitrage zur Kultur- und Geistes-

geschichte Asiens, 4. Sitzungsberichte der Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. KI., vol. 570. Vi- enna: OSTERREICHISCHE AKADEMIE DER WISSENSCHAFTEN, 1990.

Pp. 135; 151.

The literary activity of Vatsya Varadaguru (a.k.a. Varada, Varadamisra, Varadacarya, Varadaryamisra, Varadarija, and Varadarajasuri; his Tamil name was Nadadir Ammal) falls in the period between two more famous names in south Indian Visistadvaita, Ramanuja and Venkatanatha (or Vedantadegika). According to the tradition, Varadaguru's grandfather, Vara- davisnumigra, was the son of Ramanuja's sister Kamala; he was the simhasanddhipati at Sriraigam immediately after Rnamnuja. On the other hand, Varadaguru's disciple Atreyaramanuja (the author of NydyakuliSa) was Vefikatanatha's teacher. Stark con- cludes that Varadaguru must have been born, in Kaficipuram, between 1190 and 1200 (vol. 1, p. 25); there seems to be general agreement that he died in 1275.

The Visistadvaitins in between Raimnuja and Venkatanatha have, "meiner Meinung nach zu Unrecht" (vol. 1, p. 9), received little attention. Even though many of their works are known only fragmentarily or from doxographies, their output was con- siderable, and some of it is available in print, occasionally even with commentary. As far as Varadaguru is concerned, his au- thorship of four texts is beyond dispute: the Tattvasdra (edited three times, with three different commentaries), the Prameya- mald (edited twice; the chapter on yatilirgasamarthana criti- cally by Patrick Olivelle), the Prapannapdrijata (edited with English translation), and the Tattvanirnaya, which is the object of the edition and translation under review.

This edition is based on thirteen manuscripts, eleven in Grantha, one in Telugu script, one in Devanagari; ten on palm leaf, three on paper. Each of the two earlier editions (Srikaiici, 1902; Madras, 1911) was largely based on just one of these

155 155

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.46 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 06:39:04 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Journal of the American Oriental Society 115.1 (1995) Journal of the American Oriental Society 115.1 (1995)

manuscripts; the former provides few variants of its own, the latter none.

Variants in the manuscripts are legion, so much so that the materials of the critical edition had to be presented on facing pages, the text and the identification of sources to the left, the

many variants to the right. Far-reaching contamination made it

impossible for the editor to establish families of manuscripts and, even more, to arrange the manuscripts in a realistic stemma codicum. She decided, rightly, that, while providing the reader with all known variants, the best course was "die dem Sachlichen des jeweiligen Satzes oder Kontextes ent-

sprechende oder am nachsten kommende Lesung in den Text aufzunehmen" (v. 1, p. 55).

Knowing how helpless I feel when faced with a Greek text in Roman transliteration, I wonder whether definitive or, at

least, near-definitive editions such as this one of the Tattvanir-

naya, which should be of interest to Indian scholars, ought not to be presented in Devanfgari. It is not the script of all Indians, but it is one with which they all feel more comfortable than with Roman. I also hope that I am one of very few readers whose copy has eight blank pages (vol. 1, pp. 98-99; 102-3, 106-7, 110-11).

The Tattvanirnaya is a brief work: the Sanskrit text covers

only thirty pages. Its principal goal is to demonstrate that ndra- yanah param brahma (v. 1, p. 76). Numerous quotations range from the Vedic samhitas (Rg, Kathaka, Taittiriya, Maitra-

yaniya, Vajasaneyi), brahmanas, and aranyakas, to Panini, the

Mahdbhdrata, the Manusmrti, the Mimdmsadstras, etc. Most

quotations, however, are from the upanisads, not only from the

major ones such as the Brhadaranyaka, Chandogya, Taittiriya, Katha, etc., but also from a number of minor ones including the AtharvaSikha, Atharvasiras, Ndrdyana, Mahdndrayana, and

Nrsimhapurvatapaniya. Of interest is the editor's experience that, for these later upanisads, Varadaguru offers many readings which are not attested in any of the available editions of these texts. This seems to indicate that "die zu spezifischen, theisti- schen Traditionen gehorenden Upanisaden, ahnlich wie die

episch-puranischen Texte, [scheinen] in einer weniger rigiden Form iiberliefert worden zu sein, die mbglicherweise zusatzlich auf ein bestimmtes geographisches Gebiet beschrankt war"

(v. 1, p. 34). The translation is abundantly annotated: many notes cover

the larger part of the page, or run across pages. Even so, they are only preliminary to a forthcoming study, in which the prob- lems of the Tattvanirnaya will be placed in the broader context of the Rimanuja school of philosophy. Meanwhile, in trying to follow Varadaguru's often cryptic line of argument, this re- viewer much appreciated the "analysis" prefixed to the trans- lation (vol. 2, pp. 19-48), which clearly shows the structure of the text and the alternation between the purvapaksas and their refutations. Both volumes (v. 1, pp. 123-35; v. 2, pp. 139-51) end with a number of different, useful indices.

manuscripts; the former provides few variants of its own, the latter none.

Variants in the manuscripts are legion, so much so that the materials of the critical edition had to be presented on facing pages, the text and the identification of sources to the left, the

many variants to the right. Far-reaching contamination made it

impossible for the editor to establish families of manuscripts and, even more, to arrange the manuscripts in a realistic stemma codicum. She decided, rightly, that, while providing the reader with all known variants, the best course was "die dem Sachlichen des jeweiligen Satzes oder Kontextes ent-

sprechende oder am nachsten kommende Lesung in den Text aufzunehmen" (v. 1, p. 55).

Knowing how helpless I feel when faced with a Greek text in Roman transliteration, I wonder whether definitive or, at

least, near-definitive editions such as this one of the Tattvanir-

naya, which should be of interest to Indian scholars, ought not to be presented in Devanfgari. It is not the script of all Indians, but it is one with which they all feel more comfortable than with Roman. I also hope that I am one of very few readers whose copy has eight blank pages (vol. 1, pp. 98-99; 102-3, 106-7, 110-11).

The Tattvanirnaya is a brief work: the Sanskrit text covers

only thirty pages. Its principal goal is to demonstrate that ndra- yanah param brahma (v. 1, p. 76). Numerous quotations range from the Vedic samhitas (Rg, Kathaka, Taittiriya, Maitra-

yaniya, Vajasaneyi), brahmanas, and aranyakas, to Panini, the

Mahdbhdrata, the Manusmrti, the Mimdmsadstras, etc. Most

quotations, however, are from the upanisads, not only from the

major ones such as the Brhadaranyaka, Chandogya, Taittiriya, Katha, etc., but also from a number of minor ones including the AtharvaSikha, Atharvasiras, Ndrdyana, Mahdndrayana, and

Nrsimhapurvatapaniya. Of interest is the editor's experience that, for these later upanisads, Varadaguru offers many readings which are not attested in any of the available editions of these texts. This seems to indicate that "die zu spezifischen, theisti- schen Traditionen gehorenden Upanisaden, ahnlich wie die

episch-puranischen Texte, [scheinen] in einer weniger rigiden Form iiberliefert worden zu sein, die mbglicherweise zusatzlich auf ein bestimmtes geographisches Gebiet beschrankt war"

(v. 1, p. 34). The translation is abundantly annotated: many notes cover

the larger part of the page, or run across pages. Even so, they are only preliminary to a forthcoming study, in which the prob- lems of the Tattvanirnaya will be placed in the broader context of the Rimanuja school of philosophy. Meanwhile, in trying to follow Varadaguru's often cryptic line of argument, this re- viewer much appreciated the "analysis" prefixed to the trans- lation (vol. 2, pp. 19-48), which clearly shows the structure of the text and the alternation between the purvapaksas and their refutations. Both volumes (v. 1, pp. 123-35; v. 2, pp. 139-51) end with a number of different, useful indices.

Much work remains to be done to assure Varadaguru his

rightful place in the development of Visistadvaita. Sylvia Stark has made an excellent start.

LuDO ROCHER UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

The Oldest Pali Manuscript: Four Folios of the Vinaya-Pitaka from the 'Tational Archives, Kathmandu. By OSKAR VON HINUBER. Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Abhandlungen der geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse, 1991, no. 6. Mainz: AKADEMIE DER WISSENSCHAFTEN UND DER LITERATUR; Stuttgart: FRANZ STEINER VERLAG, 1991.

Pp. 48.

In this monograph von Hiniiber presents a definitive edition of the four surviving folios, numbered 106-8 and 124, of a

unique Pali manuscript in the National Archives of Nepal con-

taining the text corresponding to p. 102, 1. 27 through p. 107, 1. 3; and p. 136, 1. 11 through p. 138, 1. 11 of Hermann Olden-

berg's edition of the Vinaya Pitaka, Culla-vagga (The Vinaya Pitakam, vol. II [London, 1880]). These portions of the text,

comprising the very end of Culla-vagga IV and the beginning of

V, plus a passage from the latter part of V, concern matters of

procedures for settling legal questions (IV) and permissible bathing practices and dress (V, beginning) and tooth-brushing procedures (V) for monks.

This is, as the monograph's title indicates, apparently the oldest known Pali manuscript, dated by Cecil Bendall on pa- leographic grounds to approximately the late 8th or early 9th

century (p. 7). While von Hiniiber discusses the paleographic features in a relative framework (pp. 7ff.), he does not propose any absolute date other than that given by Bendall, so that we

may conclude that he accepts that estimate. While a date around 800 A.D. does indeed seem reasonable, a comprehensive paleo- graphic comparison might lead to more definite results; but this would be quite difficult in light of the rarity of specimens of

manuscripts of this period, and of the lack of any convenient and up-to-date reference source or collection for the paleo- graphic study of Indian scripts of the post-classical period.

The MS. was first described by Bendall in 1899, and was

published by P. [not B. as cited by von Hiniiber, p. 6] V. Bapat in 1952 in the Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute (33:197-210). Bapat's edition, as pointed out by von Hiniiber (p. 6), was inaccurate in several respects, for instance in his failure to read the folio numbers correctly (cf. Bapat, p. 209). Moreover, the new edition contains photographs of the original MS., provided by the Nepal German Manuscript

Much work remains to be done to assure Varadaguru his

rightful place in the development of Visistadvaita. Sylvia Stark has made an excellent start.

LuDO ROCHER UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

The Oldest Pali Manuscript: Four Folios of the Vinaya-Pitaka from the 'Tational Archives, Kathmandu. By OSKAR VON HINUBER. Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Abhandlungen der geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse, 1991, no. 6. Mainz: AKADEMIE DER WISSENSCHAFTEN UND DER LITERATUR; Stuttgart: FRANZ STEINER VERLAG, 1991.

Pp. 48.

In this monograph von Hiniiber presents a definitive edition of the four surviving folios, numbered 106-8 and 124, of a

unique Pali manuscript in the National Archives of Nepal con-

taining the text corresponding to p. 102, 1. 27 through p. 107, 1. 3; and p. 136, 1. 11 through p. 138, 1. 11 of Hermann Olden-

berg's edition of the Vinaya Pitaka, Culla-vagga (The Vinaya Pitakam, vol. II [London, 1880]). These portions of the text,

comprising the very end of Culla-vagga IV and the beginning of

V, plus a passage from the latter part of V, concern matters of

procedures for settling legal questions (IV) and permissible bathing practices and dress (V, beginning) and tooth-brushing procedures (V) for monks.

This is, as the monograph's title indicates, apparently the oldest known Pali manuscript, dated by Cecil Bendall on pa- leographic grounds to approximately the late 8th or early 9th

century (p. 7). While von Hiniiber discusses the paleographic features in a relative framework (pp. 7ff.), he does not propose any absolute date other than that given by Bendall, so that we

may conclude that he accepts that estimate. While a date around 800 A.D. does indeed seem reasonable, a comprehensive paleo- graphic comparison might lead to more definite results; but this would be quite difficult in light of the rarity of specimens of

manuscripts of this period, and of the lack of any convenient and up-to-date reference source or collection for the paleo- graphic study of Indian scripts of the post-classical period.

The MS. was first described by Bendall in 1899, and was

published by P. [not B. as cited by von Hiniiber, p. 6] V. Bapat in 1952 in the Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute (33:197-210). Bapat's edition, as pointed out by von Hiniiber (p. 6), was inaccurate in several respects, for instance in his failure to read the folio numbers correctly (cf. Bapat, p. 209). Moreover, the new edition contains photographs of the original MS., provided by the Nepal German Manuscript

156 156

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.46 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 06:39:04 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions