Text Emendation - Dwellers in the Sea

Introduction (Dominik Wujastyk)

The following post illustrates the creative philological process that can lead to an emendation to a text in spite of the transmitted readings of the manuscript witnesses.

During an online reading seminar, we were puzzled by the Nepalese manuscript readings of passage SS 3.1.3. In the vulgate version, the passage reads (Ācārya & Ācārya, 1938, p. 338):

tad ekam anekeṣāṃ kṣetrajñānām adhiṣṭhānaṃ samudra ivaudakanāṃ bhāvānām

That One is the foundation of the many Witnesses, just like the ocean for aquatic (audaka) beings.

The Nepalese witnesses N and H both read ivodakaujasāṃ “for beings who have water as their energy (ojas).” This is an unusual use of the word ojas and the meaning of the simile is not clear.

Philipp Maas, project collaborator (ORCID), was able to suggest a compelling solution to this conundrum.

Reflections (Philipp Maas)

Following our online meeting, the illustration in Śā 1.3 continued to puzzle me. Even if the phrase tad ekam anekeṣāṃ kṣetrajñānām adhiṣṭhānaṃ samudra ivodakaujasāṃ bhāvānām makes some sense, it is hardly correct because the technical term -ojas as a final part of a bahuvrīhi compound does not fit the context. It remains unclear what kind of entities or beings could be described as “having water as their power” and how such a characterisation can be understood in a comparison (which should be clear without specialist knowledge) of the role of avyakta for the kṣetrejñas.

In this situation, an editor could either mark the edited text as corrupt or suggest an emendation. However, my suggestion to read ivodakajānāṃ instead of ivodakaujasāṃ was unsatisfactory because there is no reason why the unobjectionable and easy reading ivodakajānāṃ could be changed in the course of the transmission into the more difficult but apparently incorrect ivodakaujasāṃ in the Nepalese version. I have now found a better solution to this problem and propose a different emendation, namely to emend udakaujasāṃ to udakaukasāṃ “having water as their house or habitat, living in water, aquatic,” which involves the change of the single akṣara ja to ka, making okas out of ojas.

Admittedly, I have not yet been able to detect an occurrence of the word udakaukas in Sanskrit literature, but jalaukas is quite common, meaning “leech” or “aquatic being” as, for example, in MBh 12.195.22: śubhāśubhaṃ karma kṛtaṃ yad asya tad eva pratyādadate svadehe / mano ‘nuvartanti parāvarāṇi jalaukasaḥ srota ivānukūlam // (22.2). Since jalaukas is a substantivised adjective, nothing prevents the usage of the parallel formation udakaukas as a bahuvrīhi meaning “aquatic.”

The passage

tad ekam anekeṣāṃ kṣetrajñānām adhiṣṭhānaṃ samudra ivodakaukasāṃ bhāvānām

would then translate as

This is the single abode of the multiple Selves (“knowers of the field”) like the ocean for aquatic beings.

Emending the text from ivodakaujasāṃ bhāvānām to ivodakaukasāṃ bhāvānām satisfies both requirements of emendations.

• First, the emendation resolves the issue of meaning. The dṛṣṭānta compares the single avyakta in which multiple Selves lead their existences with the single ocean, in which multiple aquatic animals exist.
• Moreover, it is possible to explain how the textual corruption occurred in the Nepalese version. A scribe, who did not follow the text or who was unfamiliar with the word okas as a final part of a compound, wrongly corrected what he saw as a scribal error in his exemplar from -aukasāṃ to -aujasāṃ. This scenario is especially probable if one considers the similarity between ja (𑐖) and ka (𑐎) in some Nepalese scripts (see, for example, these characters in the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka ms. dated to 1082 and the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā ms. dated to 550-650).

As is the case with all emendations, there is no way to attain certainty, except by consulting new manuscript materials. However, one should keep in mind that in the course of the transmission from the earliest examples of Suśruta’s to the Nepalese version, scribal errors will definitely have occurred, which will make minor amendments necessary here and there to reach a satisfactory text.

1. श्रीडल्हणाचार्यविरचितया निबन्धसंग्रहाख्यव्याख्यया निदानस्थानस्य श्रीगयदासाचार्यविरचितया न्यायचन्द्रिकाख्यपञ्जिकाव्याख्यया च समुल्लसिता महर्षिणा सुश्रुतेन विरचिता सुश्रुतसंहिता

   Yādavaśarma Trivikrama Ācārya and Nārāyaṇa Rāma Ācārya

   1938

   URL