Some Observations On Manuscript Transmission Of Nyayabhasya

This article, "Some Observations On Manuscript Transmission Of Nyayabhasya" by Yasutaka Muroya, published in the Journal of Indological Studies (formerly Studies in the History of Indian Thought), focuses on the critical analysis of the textual transmission of the Nyāyabhāṣya (NBh), the foundational commentary on the Nyāyasūtras.

The author begins by noting the proliferation of editions of the NBh since its first publication in the 19th century, but laments that many lack critical scholarly value due to insufficient reliance on manuscript materials. Muroya highlights the importance of critical editions based on manuscript research to understand the historical development and accurate rendition of classical texts like the NBh.

The core of the paper revolves around the Trivandrum manuscript (T) of the NBh, preserved at the Oriental Research Institute and Manuscripts Library, University of Kerala. This manuscript, originating from the Paliyam family, is presented as a significant primary witness that appears to have been largely overlooked in previous editions. Muroya details the physical characteristics of this manuscript, written in Malayālam script, and its dating, alongside another important manuscript, GOML(1), which is a transcript of a Paliyam manuscript.

Muroya then proceeds to analyze specific sections of the NBh, particularly the trisūtrībhāṣya (commentary on the first three sūtras), to demonstrate the value of the Trivandrum manuscript and its relationship with other textual witnesses. His analysis focuses on:

• NS 1.1.2: The Trivandrum manuscript (T) presents a reading where the sūtra ends with tadanantarābhāvāt, differing from the commonly accepted apavargah. Muroya discusses the implications of this variant and its support from other independent testimonies, contrasting it with readings found in established editions and the commentaries of later scholars like Vacaspati Miśra.
• NS 1.1.5: T omits the initial atha in this sūtra, presenting it as athānumānam tatpūrvakam. This variant is also supported by several secondary testimonies, suggesting a potentially different early transmission of the text of the Nyāyasūtras themselves, which then influenced the NBh. The author notes how later commentators like Vacaspati Miśra I and II incorporated atha, indicating a shift in the tradition.
• Traikālyagrahaṇāt in NS 1.1.5: The Trivandrum manuscript marks this phrase as a sūtra, a designation also supported by other manuscript traditions. Muroya examines its interpretative significance, particularly in distinguishing inference from perception based on temporal scope, and its relationship with Dignāga's critique.
• Comparative Analysis of Manuscript Groups: Muroya categorizes available manuscripts into two main groups (MSSA and MSSB) and the Jaisalmer manuscript. He argues that the Jaisalmer and Trivandrum manuscripts often exhibit closer readings to each other and are supported by earlier secondary sources, suggesting they represent a textual tradition closer to the original NBh than other manuscripts (MSSB) that often align with later printed editions. He cautiously suggests that MSSA might preserve more original readings compared to MSSB.
• Influence of Later Commentaries: Muroya highlights how the commentaries of Uddyotakara (NV) and Vacaspati Miśra (NVTT) appear to have influenced the textual transmission of the NBh, sometimes leading to "corrections" or adaptations that deviate from earlier manuscript traditions.
• The case of adhigantavyah in NS 1.1.1: Muroya discusses a problematic passage where the word adhigantavyah appears in the NBh but is absent in some manuscripts of the NV. He contrasts this with the common manuscript tradition of the NBh which includes it. He speculates that the omission of adhigantavyah in some manuscripts might be due to the later philosophical interpretations of Uddyotakara and Vacaspati, and that the Trivandrum and Jaisalmer manuscripts, along with Bhasarvajña's indirect reference, might preserve a text of the NBh from a period before these later influences significantly altered the textual stream.

In conclusion, Muroya emphasizes the critical importance of manuscript studies for understanding the NBh. He posits that the Trivandrum manuscript and the Jaisalmer tradition represent a distinct and potentially older textual transmission of the NBh. He also warns against assuming identical wording between the NBh and later commentaries like the NV indicates direct copying, as it might reflect a later harmonizing influence. The article underscores the ongoing need for meticulous textual criticism to reconstruct the most accurate representation of classical Indian philosophical texts.