हेतुबिन्दुटीका: Hetubindu Tika of Bhatta Arcata

Email

Whatsapp

Facebook

Pinterest

Twitter

Copy link

Hetubindutika is a commentary by Bhatta Arcata on Hetubindu Prakarana of Acharya Dharmakirti. There is a sub-commentary named Aloka by Durveka Misra. They were first published in 1949 AD.[Gaekwad Oriental Series (CXIII)]. The Editors Pt. Sukhlalji Sanghavi and Pujya Muni Sri Jinvijayji have taken great pains in editing this work. They have also referred to the work done by different Buddhist scholars in preservation of these works in the INTRODUCTION.

Being inspired, assisted and blessed by Pujya Acharya Sri Sheelchandrasurishwarji Maharaj Saheb, we have brought out this edition without adding anything to the earlier edition. We have added nothing to the earlier edition. Nevertheless, this edition is prepared with the help of the latest printing technology available today. This will make it easy to study this work.

We hope this work will reach the scholars of Buddhist philosophy and receive their regard.

This edition contains two works : (1) Arcata's Hetubindu-tika and (2) Durveka's sub-commentary Aloka on the Hetubindu-tika. The text of the Hetubindu-tika is based on a single palm-leaf MS. In Sanskrit (called S). We collated the Sanskrit text with the Tibetan Version (called T). The text of the sub-commentary Aloka is based upon the Reprints (called P) of the Photo MS. Of the Aloka belonging to the Bihar and Orissa Research Society, Patna. We collated it with the MS. (called N) obtained from Nepal. Let us briefly describe the Critical Apparatus.

1. S. This MS. Of the Hetubindu-tika belongs to the Sanghavipada Bhandara of palm-leaf MSS. It is the MS. No. 302 as noticed in Catalogue of Manuscripts at Patten, Vol. I, p. 177 (G. O. s.., Vol. LXXVI). Size 12" x 1 Y2". Fols. 216.

This is a worn out MS. With fols. Nos. 6, 21, 27, 52, 117 and 178 completely destroyed. The page-marks of about twenty leaves from the beginning are mauled. And, in many places, along with the tearing out of the corner, a bit of the text is also damaged. In almost all the places of destruction of a portion of the text, we have supplied the lost portion in square brackets. Besides this, in some places of the MS. Some letters are lost and we have supplied them, as far as possible, in the same type of brackets. The amended readings have been placed in round brackets im- mediately after the original readings of the MS. There are on some pages marginal notes which have been given by us as foot-notes in their respective places.

An extra leaf, obviously belonging to another MS. Of the same text, has somehow been incorporated in the present MS. The content of this leaf is the same as that of the leaf No. 207 of the present MS. The extra leaf records some variants. We have collated the two texts and incorporated in our text only those readings which appeared to us to be more correct, recording the others as variants. The extra leaf has been referred to by the symbol न (=नवीन new), while the corresponding leaf of the present MS. Has been referred to by the symbol पु (=पुरातन old). The MS. That contained the extra leaf does not appear to have been either an original or a copy of the present MS. For two reasons. Firstly, there could hardly be possible so many variant readings in a single leaf if the MS. Of the extra leaf had been an original or a copy of the present MS. Secondly, and this is the stronger reason, the reading embodied in the extra leaf has closer affinities than the corresponding one embodied in our MS. With the Tibetan Version with which we have compared the text of the latter for the present edition- which leads us to presume that the original Sanskrit Manuscript on which the Tibetan Version was based and from which the MS. Containing the extra leaf might be copied must have been quite a different one from the present MS. The presence of the extra leaf, moreover, suggests that when the present MS. Was copied in Gujrat or, collected from elsewhere and treasured there, it was accompanied by another MS. And in this way perhaps a number of MSS. Of the Hetubindu-tika were prepared, distributed and preserved. This conjecture is strengthened by yet another consideration. It is this that there are long excerpts from the Hetubindu-tika in the treatises of the Digambara masters like Vidyananda of the far south as also in the compositions of a number of masters of the numerous cultural centres like Patan in Gujrat. Similarly there were translated versions of the same book in Tibet on the other side of the Himalayas.'

The present MS. Bears at the end the year of its writing. But unfortunately the first two figures are lost. Only the last two, VIZ. 75, are legible", The late Mr. C. D. Dalal has conjectured the lost digits to be 10 or 1 P. Accordingly the year 1075 or 1175 of the Vikrama era may be regarded as the time of the writing of the MS. The last date of writing is given to be Sunday, the 7th day of the dark fortnight of Margasira. Of the scribe's colophon one verse is lost and the other mutilated and so we cannot know anything about the scribe.

The present MS. Was owned by the Pandita Abhayakumara. The three verses of the colophon, which give this information, are more or less mutilated." It is beyond doubt that Pandita Abhayakumara was a Sadhu (monk) inasmuch as along with his title Pandita which is the equivalent of Ganin it is mentioned that he belonged to the Brahmana-gaccha, It has not been possible to gather any further information about this Pandita Abhayakumara of the Brahmana-gaccha".

The script of the MS. Is Devanagari. But it represents a very old form of the eastern Devanagari of the Nevari type. It was indeed a very arduous task requiring much time and labour to decipher and properly utilize the material that was available. Muni Sri Punyavijayaji, at the cost of enormous labour and patience, prepared for us a very nice and easily legible transcript on paper in Devanagari script. He offered us the transcript as a presentation copy. It has been deposited, as a beautiful specimen of the twentieth century art of writing, for preservation in the Srimad Rajacandra Jnana Sangraha of the Gujrat Puratattva Mandira. We of course got our press copy prepared on the basis of this transcript. But while editing the text we compared it with the original palm-leaf MS. It is because of this as also the help derived from the T.MS. (described below) that the discrepancies of the transcript were removed in editing the present text.

2. T. Bstan-hgyur, Mdo (Cordier; Catalogue du Fonds Tibetan, Paris, 1915) CXI. 6.

This MS. Contains the Tibetan Version of the Hetubindu-tika. This Version was procured from the Vidyabhavana Library, Visvabharati.' We have collated the S. MS. With this Tibetan Version as minutely as could be possible with the following results :-

1. Some leaves of the S.MS. Had lost their page-marks and were misplaced and consequently it was almost impossible to get a connected meaning. This difficulty was removed by the proper arrangement of the leaves with the help of this T.MS.

2. In a few places the text of the S. MS. Became discrepant on account of the illegibility of the script or the common defects of the scribe, and this could be corrected.

3. In many places we could restore variant readings. The variants restored by Mr. P. Tarkas on the basis of the Tibetan Version have been given in the footnotes in his own words.

4. The individual letters or words that were missing in the S.MS. Could be restored with the help of this MS. On the whole, we derived much facility in understanding the text while editing it with the help of the T.MS.

5. It has also been possible in few places to properly arrange the disordered leaves of the T. MS. With the help of the S.MS. Even as in many places it appeared that the translation of the T.MS. Is the true version of the original text, exactly so in other places it also seemed that the recension of the S.MS. Is nearer to the original text than that of the T.MS. It need not be stressed that the Tibetan translators were so very cautious that no new mistake was allowed to creep into their translations. The mistakes of the original text, of course, found place in the translations also. The translators knew more of the language than of the meaning. Had they been properly conversant with the meaning as well, they could have translated the proper meaning without allowing the mistakes of the original MS. Text to creep into their translations.

3. N. This is the MS. Of the Aloka, the sub-commentary of the Hetubindu- tika. The complete copy of this MS. Was obtained from Rajaguru Pt. Hemaraja of Nepal through Tripitakacarya Mahapandita Rahula Sankrtyayana. This is a copy of an almost torn off MS. It is written on paper, 19Y2" x 4W', and contains 81 leaves. The leaves were in disorder. In the absence of the help derived, in due course, from the P. MS., described below, this copy would have been of no use, and the rearrangement of the leaves, which we did with the help of the P.MS., would have been almost impossible. In spite of its being almost mutilated and abounding in incorrect readings, it helped so much in the deciphering of the P.MS. That we were not in the least harassed on that account. We should also admit that in the absence of this copy we would, perhaps, have desisted from the consultation of the P.MS. Or at least the sub-commentary could never have been published in the form in which it has been done in the present edition.