**3.** *D. ak¯ arn ¯ . ava* **15: Materials, Peculiarities of the Language and Meter, and Editorial Policy**

### **3.1. Materials Employed**

I have consulted copies (digital and paper) of 22 Sanskrit manuscripts of the *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* from Kathmandu, Tokyo, Kyoto, and New York. I consider that, currently, they are all of the available Sanskrit manuscripts of the *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava*. <sup>48</sup> (I have excluded fragmentary documents that appear to have been copied in the recent centuries.) All of the Sanskrit manuscripts were copied in Nepal. Of them, I have selected and used the following four Sanskrit manuscripts to edit the *D. ak¯ arn ¯ . ava* 15:


<sup>48</sup> For the other 18 of the 22 Sanskrit manuscripts that I consulted, see footnote 57 in this monograph. I have microfilm-copies, photocopies, or digital versions of those Sanskrit manuscripts. I collected many of them in Nepal and Japan in and after 2008, when I was given the first fund to study Chapter 15 of the *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava*, and some of them from Dr. Tanemura, who visited Nepal to collect Sanskrit manuscripts of various Buddhist texts. In 2016, I obtained digital versions of many of them from Dr. Serbaeva. These digital versions were extremely helpful.

<sup>49</sup> NGMPP A138/6 (paper, dated "*sa[m]vat* 894, *jyes. t.ha ´sukla* 10," in Newar script) and Matsunami 144 (paper, dated "*samvat* 917 *miti karttika k ¯ r. s.n. apañcamidine*," in Newar script) are similar to manuscript B (Matsunami 145); they may be copies of manuscript B. They are newer than manuscript B, and particularly, the former manuscript contains many scribal errors. Therefore, I have not used them in this monograph, although they are older than manuscripts C (NGMPP A142/2) and D (Goshima and Noguchi 41). In (Sugiki 2018a, 2018b), I also used NGMPP A138/6.

<sup>50</sup> Manuscript D is perhaps a direct copy of NGMPP B113/6 (paper, 147 folios, Newar script, dated NS 983, *paus. a*, *´sukla* 15), which was produced three years before manuscript D. However, some of the folios of B113/6 are out of focus and illegible. Therefore, I have used manuscript D and not NGMPP B113/6. There appear to be no major text differences between them.

I used manuscript A as the base. Manuscript A is most likely the oldest among the available Sanskrit manuscripts of the *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava*. Manuscript B is the second oldest, although it was copied in the 17th century and is not too old. Manuscript C contains variant readings that are more in accordance with the orthographical and morphological rule of the standard Sanskrit; however, it also contains more scribal errors. The same thing is said of manuscript D to a certain degree, and, as I mention below, the *Man. d. alarcanavidhi ¯* , whose authorship is ascribed to Ratnasena, seems to have been produced from the transmissional line to which manuscript D belongs. These constitute the criteria of the selection of the four manuscripts. Maeda used none of manuscripts A, B, or C, nor discussed the relationship of manuscript D to the *Man. d. alarcanavidhi ¯* .

The relationship between the four manuscripts must also be considered from the following perspective: It seems that including manuscripts B, C, and D, all the Sanskrit manuscripts of the *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* that I could consult, are direct or indirect copies of manuscript A. In other words, there is a high possibility that all the available Sanskrit manuscripts belong to the transmissional lines that are derived from manuscript A.

Some leaves in manuscript A are partially damaged. Some of the damaged parts are not transcribed in manuscripts B, C, or D. This means the following: the damage to those leaves in manuscript A had occurred before manuscripts B, C, and D were produced; manuscripts B, C, and D were produced based on manuscript A (or some manuscript produced based on manuscript A); therefore, those damaged parts in manuscript A were not transcribed in manuscripts B, C, or D.<sup>51</sup> In manuscript B, blank spaces are made for many of those parts. Manuscript B is very close to manuscript A; it appears to have been copied directly from manuscript A. Manuscripts C and D have words for some of those parts that are not transcribed in manuscript B. However, in many of the passages where they are present, those words do not naturally fit the context or do not make sense. Probably, they were interpolated to supplement the lost parts of the text by the scribes of manuscripts C and D, or scribes of other manuscripts on which manuscripts C and D were based. As mentioned previously, some cases can also be found where manuscripts C and D have variant readings that are more faithful to the rule of Classic Sanskrit than manuscript A. However, this does not necessarily mean that older texts are preserved in manuscripts C and D. Those variant readings in manuscript C and D seem to be emendations by the scribes of the two manuscripts or scribes of other manuscripts on which they relied, although it

<sup>51</sup> Some of the damaged parts in manuscript A are transcribed in manuscripts B, C, and/or D: This means that the damage to those parts occurred after manuscripts B, C, and D (or some manuscript on which they were based) had been produced.

could mean that some of the variant readings in manuscripts C and D are, by chance, identical to the readings in unknown older texts, which the scribes did not consult. The same things that I mentioned of manuscripts B, C, and D can be said of the other Sanskrit manuscripts that I consulted.<sup>52</sup> I do not mean that the text preserved in manuscript A is the original one of the *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava*. I suggest a high possibility that manuscript A is a version of the *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* from which many Sanskrit manuscripts were produced in Nepal. Additionally, as I suggested in Chapter 2, manuscript A may be relatively near to the original text(s) of the extant version of the *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava*.

<sup>52</sup> For example, see the *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava*, 32.13cb (according to manuscript A [my unpublished edition]): *t. eti vajraprabhav¯ akhya ¯ m. vi*++++++*ngati ˙ h. pura¯h.* (: "++" means an illegible letter because of damage to the leaf). Of the letters *vi*++++++, a portion of the left part of the letter that follows *vi* is visible, but it is hard to determine what that letter is. The letter *nga ˙* also looks slightly like *n´sa ˙* . However, that letter is certainly *nga ˙* in manuscript A. The Tibetan translation of this line is as follows: /*t. i ni rdo rje'i nus par grags/ /yul rnams kyi ni grong du bgrod//*. This line is a part of the discourse to explain the etymology of the name of the holy site Dev¯ıkot.a. The line in question explains the meaning of the letter *t. a*, the last word of Dev¯ıkot.a. Therefore, the *pada ¯* , which is partially illegible because of damage to the leaf (viz., *vi*++++++*ngati ˙ h. pura¯h.* ), must contain the letter *t.* . The Tibetan translation is *bgrod* ("travel"). This suggests that some form of the verb *at.* or *pat.* ("go," "travel," "roam," or equivalent) was present in the original *pada ¯* . Alternatively, the word *-gatih.* ("going" of *vi*++++++*ngati ˙ h.* ), which is equivalent to the Tibetan *bgrod*, is used to imply *at.* or *pat.* ("go"). Based on manuscript A and with reference to the Tibetan translation, I propose to restore the text as follows: *t. eti vajraprabhav¯ akhya ¯ m. vis. aya¯n. a¯n gati ˙ h. \*pura¯h.* (for *pur¯ıh.* , *pura¯n. am¯* , *pures.u*, or either of their singular forms), "[The letter] *t. a* is proclaimed to be the adamantine power. [With this power he] goes to the multitude of sensory objects (also meaning towns in local places)." This makes sense.

For that *pada ¯* , *vi*++++++*ngati ˙ h. pura¯h.* , the two accidents that occurred in manuscript A mentioned above, namely, the damage to the leaf (viz., *vi*++++++) and the letter *nga ˙* slightly resembling *n´sa ˙* , appear to have affected the readings in the other Sanskrit manuscripts. The readings in manuscripts B, C, and D are as follows: *vim*(a blank space for about one letter)*´satih. pura¯h.* B; *vim. ´sati ca sahah. pura¯h.* C; and (a blank space for about three letters)*vim. ´satih. vara¯h.* D. In manuscripts C and D, the part *vi*++++++*ngati ˙ h.* was changed to *vim. ´satih.* ("twenty"), which does not naturally fit the context. It is evidently an (incorrect) emendation as *vi* and *ngati ˙ h.* (resembling *n´sati ˙ h.* ) were forcibly combined to create *vim. ´satih.* , despite the existence of some letters between them. In manuscript C, the words *ca sahah.* ("and powerful," or equivalent) were also added, perhaps to accommodate the meter. The word *pura¯h.* was changed to *vara¯h.* ("supreme") in manuscript D. The readings in the other 20 Sanskrit manuscripts that I consulted are as follows: (1) Those similar to the readings in manuscripts A and B: *vi*(a blank space for about three letters)*n´sati ˙ h. pura¯h.* (NGMPP C42/9=NGMPP C94/2, 141v1–2); *vi´satih. pura¯h.* (NGMPP E419/15, 109r5); *vim. ´satih.* (a blank space for three letters) *pura¯h.* (NGMPP E650/16, 100r1); *vim. ´satih. pura¯h.* (NGMPP D40/6, 53v4; NGMPP D15/4, 75r2; and NGMPP E1729/4, 76r2); and *vim. ´satih.* (a blank space for about three letters) *pura¯* (NGMPP A1275/17, 105r6); (2) Those similar to the reading in manuscript D: (a blank space for about three letters)*vim. ´satih. vara¯h.* (NGMPP B113/6, 89v5); *vim. ´satih. vara¯* (NGMPP E3350/1, 114r6); (a blank space for three letters)*vim. ´satih. para¯h.* (NGMPP B113/3, 61v10); and *vi´satih. para¯h.* (NGMPP E1476/3=IASWR MBB-I-66, 82v6); (3) Those that contain *sahah.* , which are, in this respect, similar to the reading in C: (a blank space for about three letters)*vim. ´satih. para¯h.* (ac) and (a blank space for about three letters)*vim. ´satim. ca sahah. para¯h.* (pc) (Matsunami 144, 144r1); *vim. ´sati ca sahah. para¯h.* (NGMPP A141/4, 97v1); *vim. ´satim. ca sahah. para¯h.* (NGMPP D15/6=NGMPP E1841/2, 105r1); *vi´sati ce sahah. para¯h.* (NGMPP E1555/9, 102v6); and *yim. ´satti ca sahah.* (NGMPP G238/16, 119v4). This suggests a possibility that the interpolation of *sahah.* originally occurred in Matsunami 144, which is a Sanskrit manuscript older than manuscript C (see footnote 49 in this monograph); (4) The other: (a blank space for about two letters)*vim. ´satih.* (NGMPP E422/11, 105r2). The leaf that contains this *pada ¯* is lost in NGMPP A138/6.

Notably, although its language is highly non-standard, which I will clarify in Chapter 3.2, there are not too many corruptions that do not make sense in manuscript A, and the peculiarities of the language in manuscript A are also preserved in the parallel passages found in the texts that were developed on the basis of the *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava*. In my previous papers (Sugiki 2018a, 2018b), I analyzed manuscripts A and B and manuscripts C and D to belong to different lines of transmission. Now, I have reached a different conclusion.

For the reason discussed above, I focus on the version of the *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* preserved in manuscript A, the oldest manuscript, which was produced and transmitted in Nepal, and presents a critical edition and translation of that version. Variant readings found in manuscripts B, C, and D and the other related materials that I have reported in the critical apparatus also serve as information of how the text preserved in manuscript A has been transmitted and transformed.

I have also edited a text of the Tibetan translation of the *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15 as supporting material. The Tibetan text is useful for those studying the transmission of the *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* in Tibet. I have used the two Tibetan translations (Tib) below. Of them, D is the base text:

D: Sde dge edition, Tohoku university catalogue no. 372. Chapter 15: 169r4–179v5. P: Peking edition, Otani University catalogue no. 19. Chapter 15: 35v4–46v1.

Although only the Tibetan translations are available, I consulted Padmavajra's *Bohita¯*, a commentary on the *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* (Tib, D 1419, Chapter 15: 130v5–156r2), and Jayasena's *Ratnapadmaraganidhi ¯* (D 1516, my edition presented in Chapter 9 in this monograph). A fragment of a Sanskrit manuscript of the former work is extant (NGMPP A48/9, palm leaf, date unknown), but it does not include the part that explains Chapter 15.<sup>53</sup> The latter work teaches deities' individual mantras, in which every deity's individual Sanskrit name is transliterated.

The *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15 contains various deities' names and ritual terms; it includes the names of many deities, phrases, and passages that resemble those found in other scriptures and commentaries.<sup>54</sup> Among those whose Sanskrit manuscripts

<sup>53</sup> NGMPP A48/9 contains three leaves, all of which are partially damaged. The first leaf (whose folio number appears as 133rv) includes a commentary on the last verses of Chapter 22 and the opening verses of Chapter 23 of the *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava*; the second leaf (whose folio number appears as 173rv?), a commentary on some verses in Section 1 of Chapter 50; and the third leaf (whose folio number is illegible due to damage to leaf), a commentary on some verses of Chapter 27. From NGMPP A48/9, we can collect some *prat¯ıka*s or quotations in Sanskrit from the *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava*. With this handful of *prat¯ıka*s, it is difficult to decide whether there is any significant difference between the quoted text in NGMPP A48/9 and the text preserved in manuscript A. However, some peculiarities found in the latter are also present in the former.

<sup>54</sup> As discussed in Chapter 2, the *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* was composed in the latest stage of the history of Indian Buddhism in the area (east India or Nepal) where both Buddhism and Saivism flourished. It is natural ´

are extant, the texts that contain major parallels are Vajrapa¯n. i's *Laghutantrat. ¯ıka¯* (Skt ed., (Cicuzza 2001)), the *Kalacakra ¯* (Skt ed., (Dwivedi 1994)), Pun. d. ar¯ıka's *Vimalaprabha¯* (Skt ed., (Dwivedi 1994)),<sup>55</sup> Umapatideva's ¯ *Vajravar¯ ah¯ ¯ısadhana ¯* (Skt ed., (English 2002)),<sup>56</sup> and some others that are mentioned in Chapter 4 and the Primary Sources Section in this monograph. Chapters 10 and 29 of the *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* also include major parallels. The texts that are most resembled are Chapter 20 of the *Sr´ ¯ıvajravar¯ ah¯ ¯ıkalpamahatantrar ¯ aja ¯* (abbreviated to *Var¯ ah¯ ¯ıkalpa*: Skt ms., Matsunami 346, 74r1–92r7, paper, Newar script, dated NS 937, *phalgu ¯ n. a*, *´sukla* 10)<sup>57</sup> and Ratnasena's *Sr´ ¯ımahasa ¯ m. varasaparikaraman. d. alarcanavidhi ¯* (abbreviated to Ratnasena's *Man. d. alarcanavidhi ¯* : Skt ms., NGMPP B24/52, 1v1–34r6 [the whole manuscript except for its colophon, 34r6–r7], palm leaf [19rv missing], Newar script, undated). The entire text of Chapter 20 of the *Var¯ ah¯ ¯ıkalpa* is almost identical to the discourse on the Heruka man. d. ala in the *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15. Although partially emended and reorganized to make it a ritual manual for actual performance, the entire text of Ratnasena's *Man. d. alarcanavidhi ¯* is also similar to the *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15.<sup>58</sup> They were composed based

that the *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* has many deities and ideas in common with other Buddhist and Saiva texts. In ´ this monograph, I have not pointed out minor parallels; I have noted only texts that include major parallels.

<sup>55</sup> The compilation of the *Laghutantrat. ¯ıka¯* is datable to around the end of the 10th or the beginning of the 11th century. The *Kal¯ acakra ¯* was completed in the early 11th century. The *Vimalaprabha¯* was also composed around the early 11th century: it may be contemporaneous with or is slightly later than the *Kalacakra ¯* . For the chronology of these texts, see (Newman 1998, p. 343; Wallace 2001, pp. 3–4; Cicuzza 2001, p. 13; Isaacson and Sferra 2014, p. 97, footnote 18; Sferra 2015, p. 341, 343; Isaacson and Sferra 2015b, p. 477).

<sup>56</sup> (English 2002, pp. 12–13) said that Umapatideva may have been active between the 11th and 12th ¯ centuries.

<sup>57</sup> In Matsunami 346, this chapter is scribed as "the 18th chapter" (*-pat. ala as. t. ada´sa ¯ h.* ; 95v5). However, this is actually the 20th chapter.

<sup>58</sup> The collation between the *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15, Ratnasena's *Man. d. alarcanavidhi ¯* ("R"), and the *Var¯ ah¯ ¯ıkalpa* 20 ("V") is presented below. The sign "—" means that no parallel lines can be found because they were not originally included or because the text is so much changed or reorganized that it is hard to deem it as a parallel line: *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15.1–2 (manuscript A 13r10) = R — = V 74r1–r2 ♦ *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15.3–5 (A 13r10–r11) = R 1v1–v3 = V 74r2–r4 ♦ *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15.6–12b (A 13r11–v1) = R 1v3–2r1 = V 74r4–v1 ♦ *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15.12c–15 (A 13v1–v3) = R (19rv missing)–20r2 = V 74v1–v3 ♦ *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15.16–23 (A 13v3–v5) = R 20r2–r7 = V 74v3–v7 ♦ *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15.24 (A 13v5) = R 20v1–v2 = V 4v7–75r1 ♦ *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15.25–28 (A 13v5–v7) = R 20v2–v5 = V 75r1–r4 ♦ *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15.29–45b (A 13v7–v12) = R 20v5–21v3 = V 75r4–v7 ♦ *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15.45c–51b (A 13v12–14r1) = R 9r6 and 21v3–v7 = V 75v7–76r2 ♦ *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15.51c–60 (A 14r1–r3) = R 9r6–v6 and 21v7–22r6 = V 76r2–r6 ♦ *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15.61–68b (A 14r3–r6) = R 9v6–10v5 and 22r6–v4 = V 76r6–v4 ♦ *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15.68c–72 (A 14r6–r7) = R 23r4 = V 76v4–v7 ♦ *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15.73–78b (A 14r7–r9) = R 10v5–11v4 and 23r4–23v1 = V 77r2–r5 ♦ *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15.78c–80b (A 14r9) and 89 (A 14r12) = R 23v7 = V 77r5–r7 ♦ *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15.80c–84 (A 14r10–r11) = R — = V 77r7–v2 ♦ *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15.85 (A 14r11) = R 23v7 = V 77v4 ♦ *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15.86–91 (A 14r11–v1) = R 11v4–12v2 and 23v7–24r5 = V 77v5–78r1 ♦ *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15.92–94b (A 14v1–v2) = R 24v2–v3 = V 78r1–r3 ♦ *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15.94c–98b (A 14v2–v3) = R 12v2–v6 and 24v3–v7 = V 78r3–r5 ♦ *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15.98c–102b (A 14v3–v4) = R — = V 78r5–v1 ♦ *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15.102c–112 (A 14v4–v7) = R 24v7–25r3 = V 78v1–79r2 ♦ *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15.113–117 (A 14v7–v9) = R 12v6–13v1 and 25r3–r6 = V 79r2–r5 ♦ *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15.118–123 (A

on the *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15. Although its palm leaf manuscript exists as mentioned above, Ratnasena's *Man. d. alarcanavidhi ¯* does not appear so old a work; it was produced from the transmissional line from Sanskrit manuscript A to manuscript D of the *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava*, as it contains a passage that only the Sanskrit manuscripts belonging to this transmissional line have.<sup>59</sup> The *Var¯ ah¯ ¯ıkalpa* and Ratnasena's *Man. d. alarcanavidhi ¯* were not translated into Tibetan. They were most likely composed in Nepal, where the *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* flourished to a certain degree. I consider Jayasena's *Ratnapadmaraganidhi ¯* (12th century) to be older than Ratnasena's *Man. d. alarcanavidhi ¯* (and it appears that Jayasena had a better understanding of the *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15 than Ratnasena did). Although both are manuals for visualizing the Heruka man. d. ala in the *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15, no close relationship can be found between Jayasena's *Ratnapadmaraganidhi ¯* and Ratnasena's *Man. d. alarcanavidhi ¯* . Jayasena's *Ratnapadmaraganidhi ¯* is probably older than the *Var¯ ah¯ ¯ıkalpa*.

#### **3.2. The Language of the** *D. ak¯ arn ¯ . ava* **15**

The *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15 consists of Sanskrit passages (15.1–24, 29–285, 288–290, and the chapter title), most of which are verses, and Apabhram. ´sa verses (15.25–28 and

<sup>14</sup>v9–v11) = R 25v5–v6 = V 79r5–v1 and 79v7 ♦ *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15.124–129b (A 14v11–v12) = R 13v1–14r3 and 25v6–26r2 = V 79v7–80r4 ♦ *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15.129c–133 (A 14v12–15r2) = R 26v1–v2 = V 80r2–r6 and 81r3–r4 ♦ *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15.134–138 (A 15r2–r3) = R 14r3–v5 and 26v2–v5 = V 81r4–r7 ♦ *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15.139–141b (A 15r3–r4) = R 26v5–v6 and 27r2–r4 = V 81r7–v2 ♦ *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15.141c–151 (A 15r4–r7) = R 14v5–15r2 and 27r4–v2 = V81v2–82r3 ♦ *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15.152–160 (A 15r7–r10) = R 15r2–v6 and 27v2–v7 = V 82r3–v2 ♦ *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15.161–165 (A 15r10–r12) = R 28r5–r7 = V 82v2–v5 and 83v3–v4 ♦ *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15.166–170b (A 15r12–v1) = R 15v6–16r7 and 28r7–28v4 = V 83v4–v7 ♦ *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15.170c–176 (A 15v1–v3) = R 29r3–r4 = V 83v7–84r3 and 84v5 ♦ *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15.177–182b (A 15v3–v5) = R 16r7–17r2 and 29r4–v1 = V 84v5–85r2 ♦ *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15.182c–184 (A 15v5–v6) = R 29v6 = V 85r2–r3 ♦ *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15.185–194 (A 15v6–v9) = R 17r2–r6 and 29v6–30r4 = V 85r3–v2 and 85v6–v7 ♦ *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15.195–200b (A 15v9–v11) = R 17r6–v7 and 30r4–r7 = V 85v7–86r4 ♦ *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15.200c–205 (A 15v11–v12) = R 30v5 = V 86r3–r6 and 87v4 ♦ *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15.206–213 (A 16r1–r3) = R 17v7–18v1 and 30v6–31r2 = V 87v4–88r2 ♦ *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15.214–215 (A 16r3) = R 31r7–v1 = V 88r2–r3 and 89v7 ♦ *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15.216–223 (A 16r3–r5) = R 18v1– (19rv missing) and 31v1–32r1 = V 89v7–90r2 ♦ *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15.224–226b (A 16r5–r6) = R 32v1 = V 90r2–r3 ♦ *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15.226c–229 (A 16r6–r7) = R (19rv missing) and 32v1–v7 = V 90r3–r5 ♦ *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15.230–232b (A 16r7–r8) = R — = V 90r5–r7 ♦ *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15.232c–237b (A 16r8–r9) = R 9v6–10v5 and 22v4–23r3 = V 90r7–v3 ♦ *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15.237c–238 (A 16r9) = R 10v5–11v4 and 23v1–v6, 11v4–12v2 and 24r5–v2, 12v6–13v1 and 25r7–v4, 13v1–14r3 and 26r3–v1, 14r3–v5 and 26v6–27r2, 15r2–v6 and 27v7–28r5, 15v6–16r7 and 28v5–29r3, 16r7–17r2 and 29v1–v6, 17r6–v7 and 30r7–v5, 17v7–18v1 and 31r2–r7, 18v1– (19rv missing) and 32r1–v1 = V 90v3–v4 ♦ *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15.239–242c (A 16r9–r11) = R — = V 90v4–v6 ♦ *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15.242d–260 (A 16r11–v4) = R (19rv missing), 32v7–33r3, and 33r4–r5 = V 90v6–91r3 and 92r6–r7 (the end of the text) ♦ *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15.261–272 (A 16v4–v8) = R — = V — ♦ *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15.273–279 (A 16v8–v10) = R — = V — ♦ *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15.280–283b (A 16v10–v11) = R 33r6–v1 = V — ♦ *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15.283c–289 (A 16v11–17r1) = R 33v2–34r6 (the end of the text) ♦ *D. ak¯ arn ¯ . ava* 15.290 (the end of the text) (A 17r1–r2)= R — = V —. <sup>59</sup> That passage can be found in the *D. ak¯ arn ¯ . ava*, 15.46–49.

286–287).<sup>60</sup> The Sanskrit passages also include Middle-Indic terms. In Chapters 3.2.1, I examine the language in the Sanskrit passages, and in Section 3.2.3, I explore the Apabhram. ´sa verses.

#### *3.2.1. Morphological and Orthographical Peculiarities*

Some morphological and orthographical peculiarities are present in the Sanskrit passages in manuscript A in the *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15. Similar peculiarities can also be partially found in the Buddhist tantras such as the *Catus.p¯ıt.hatantra* (hereafter *Catus.p¯ıt.ha*), the *Buddhakapalatantra ¯* (hereafter *Buddhakapala ¯* ), and the *Vajram¯ r. tatantra* (hereafter *Vajram¯ r. ta*) <sup>61</sup> as well as the Saiva ´ *Siddhayoge´svar¯ımata*, *Ni´svasatattvasa ¯ m. hita¯*, and *Brahmayamalatantra ¯* . <sup>62</sup> For example, whether the meter requires it or not, the *pratipadika ¯* s or stem-forms without case-endings are often used as equivalent to inflected forms.<sup>63</sup> Most of the words without case-endings that occur when the meter does not require the loss of case-ending are used in the sense of either nominative or accusative.

I speculate about possible reasons why stem-forms without case-endings are often used in manuscript A of the *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15 as follows: (1) They are scribal errors that occurred during transmission. Originally, they had case-endings; (2) They occurred to accommodate the meter; (3) They were influenced by the same words that are without case-endings (or the same words that appear to be without case-endings)

<sup>60</sup> Tagare questions whether the language of these verses in the *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* should be called "Apabhram. ´sa": The language of these verses in the *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava*, which is different in several respects from the language used in the *Dohako ¯ s. a*s of Ka¯n. ha and Saraha, may rather be classified as a form of Eastern Prakrit (Tagare 1948, p. 20). However, this is associated with the controversial topic of the definition of "Apabhram. ´sa". In this monograph, I do not deal with this topic, and I call the language "Apabhram. ´sa" for convenience, following Chaudhuri.

<sup>61</sup> See (Luo 2010, pp. xxxviii–xlv) for the grammar in the *Buddhakapala ¯* ., (Szántó 2012a, pp. 60–67) for the *Catus.p¯ıt.ha*, and (Sferra 2017, pp. 415–17) for the *Vajramr ¯ . ta*.

<sup>62</sup> See (Törzsök 1999, pp. xxvi–lxix) for the grammar in the *Siddhayoge´svar¯ımata*, (Goodall 2015, pp. 113–36) for the grammar in the *Ni´svasatattvasa ¯ m. hita¯*, and (Kiss 2015, pp. 73–86; Hatley 2018b, pp. 28–38) for the grammar in the *Brahmayamalatantra ¯* .

<sup>63</sup> For the cases in which the loss of case-ending occurs whether the meter requires it or not, see (Szántó 2012a, p. 65) for the *Catus.p¯ıt.ha*, "The Dative is almost completely absent, the most common 'case' being that of the stem form (*pratipadika ¯* ), in other words the nil-suffix. This can stand for any case."; (Kiss 2015, p. 78) for the *Brahmayamala ¯* , "Stem-forms (*pratipadika ¯* ) of nominal forms used as though they were inflected forms: This is probably one of the key factors in the language of the BraYa ( ¯ *Brahmayamala ¯* )."; and (Goodall 2015, p. 126) for the *Ni´svasatattvasa ¯ m. hita¯*, "the *pratipadika ¯* s used instead of inflected forms (particularly nominative)". For the cases in which the loss of case-ending occurs only when the meter requires it, see (Törzsök 1999, pp. xxvi–lxix) for the *Siddhayoge´svar¯ımata*, "Nominative and accusative endings are often elided if the metre requires Sandhi without them."; (Luo 2010, p. xl) for the *Buddhakapalatantra ¯* (only the cases induced for metrical reason); and (Sferra 2017, p. 416) for the *Vajram¯ r. ta*, "Furthermore, we observe the use of morphological irregularities, such as the loss of case ending etc., in order to fit the metre". In manuscript A of the *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava*, the loss of case-ending also occurs when it is not induced metrically.

in the previous lines;<sup>64</sup> (4) They were influenced by the morphology of Apabhram. ´sa. According to Tagare, in Apabhram. ´sa, some forms of the direct cases (nominative, accusative, and vocative) are devoid of case-endings: "The frequent use of zero as a term of the direct case in EAp (Eastern Apabhram. ´sa) deserves attention;"<sup>65</sup> (5) Words without case-endings were already present in the source texts, based on which the *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* was composed;<sup>66</sup> (6) The authors of the *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava*, who had thorough knowledge of its contents, deliberately removed the case-endings so as to make the text more esoteric; (7) The authors of the *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* had only insufficient knowledge of Sanskrit. These seven reasons, some aspects of which may be overlapping, can be roughly grouped into two: (1) scribal errors, which should be emended; and (2)–(7) those not being scribal errors, which do not necessarily need emendation. Perhaps some words without case-endings occurred for the first reason, and the others for the other reasons. It is often difficult to discern them. The same is said of the other peculiarities found in manuscript A.

Peculiarities presented below can be found in manuscript A. Many of those peculiarities are also preserved in manuscripts B, C, and D, and parallel passages found in the other chapters of the *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* and the other texts that were composed on the basis of the *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15, i.e., Ratnasena's *Man. d. alarcanavidhi ¯* and Chapter 20 of the *Var¯ ah¯ ¯ıkalpa*. Perhaps Chapter 20 of the *Var¯ ah¯ ¯ıkalpa* was also composed based on manuscript A of the *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava*, or they were produced from the same source manuscript that is not extant. The peculiarities presented below were influential in the transmissional lines of manuscript A. Some of the peculiarities might have originally occurred as scribal errors. However, they became normal in these transmissional lines.

In the list of the peculiarities presented below, those that seem to have occurred to accommodate the meter are indicated with "*m.c.*" (metri causa). As I explain in detail below, in editing the text, I have emended all or many of the peculiarities that are marked with "•" (mostly orthographical peculiarities), and some without that mark that I consider scribal errors. I have thus emended many orthographical peculiarities (in bold as I explain below). However, I have done so just for the readers' convenience in searching words: Probably many of the orthographical peculiarities are authorial and not transmissional. In Chapter 16 of the *D. ak¯ arn ¯ . ava*, 67 which teaches the encoding of the letters constituting the fundamental mantra, the

<sup>64</sup> For example, see the *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava*, 15.104ab: *at. t. at. t. ahasa ¯ ¯ı´sany ¯ a lak ¯ s.m¯ıvana huta´sane ¯* . The loss of case-ending of *laks.m¯ıvana* (used for *laks.m¯ıvano*) has occurred influenced by the previous *at. t. at. t. ahasa ¯* , whose form of ending (caused by the correct *sandhi*) appears as being devoid of case-ending.

<sup>65</sup> (Tagare 1948, p. 108). For the possibility of the influence from Apabhram. ´sa, see also (Törzsök 1999, p. xxxvii).

<sup>66</sup> For the fifth reason, see also (Sugiki 2018a, p. 43), where I described some examples of this.

<sup>67</sup> My unpublished edition of the *D. ak¯ arn ¯ . ava* 16.

orthographical peculiarities in question are encoded, i.e., *tribhuvan. a* for *tribhuvana*; *parus.u* for *para´su*; *´sma´sa¯n. a* for *´sma´sana ¯* ; *gat.va¯m. ga* for *khat.va¯nga ˙* ; *mardhan. a* for *mardana*; *´sris. t. i* for *sr. s. t. i*; *nisum. bhan. a* for *nisumbhana* (= *ni´sumbhana*); *vighraha* for *vigraha*; *bam. dana* for *bandhana*; *bham. jan. a* for *bhañjana*; *dharmodhaya* for *dharmodaya*; and *satva* for *sattva*. This strongly shows the possibility that the compilers of the extant version of the *D. ak¯ arn ¯ . ava* acknowledged the peculiarities to a certain or considerable degree.

## (1) Verbs and verbals

**Indicative present active:** *-ma* **ending used in the third person**: *bruma ¯* (for *brumi ¯* [*brav¯ımi*]; 15.166a and 216a).<sup>68</sup>

**Passive used in the sense of active**: *sthapyat ¯ am¯ .* (*m.c*. for *sthapayat ¯ am¯ .* ; 15. 14b). **Optative:** *-e* **and** *-ya¯* **endings used in the third person**: *kurya¯* (for *kuryad¯* ; 15.122a) and *yacaye ¯* (for *yacayet ¯* ; 15. 273a).

**Singular used in the sense of plural**: *tis. t.hed* (*m.c.* for *tis. t.heyur*; 15.105c).

**Present participle: feminine singular nominative used as masculine plural**: *utpadyant¯ı* (for *utpadyanto*; 15.8a)

**Gerundives: feminine singular nominative used as any gender and number or optative**: <sup>69</sup> *jñeya¯* (for *jñeyam*, 15.34c); *-dras. t. avya¯* (for *-dras. t. avyam.* ; 15.91c), etc. These gerundives may be used as optative *jan¯ ¯ıyat¯* , *pa´syet*, etc., respectively.

(2) Nouns, pronouns, relative pronouns, and adjectives

**Influence by the form of the previous word**: <sup>70</sup> *bhumir acal ¯ a´s c ¯ apar ¯ a¯h.* (for *bhumir acal ¯ a¯ capar ¯ a¯*; 15.171d: The sound *-´s* was added to *acala¯*, probably induced by the next *ca-¯* , and influenced by the ending *-´s* of *acala´s¯* , *-h.* was added to the ending of *capar ¯ a¯*.); *dvada´sa vijñey ¯ a sañc ¯ ar¯ a p ¯ ¯ıt.hopap¯ıt.hika¯* (for *dvada´sa vijñey ¯ a¯h. sañcar¯ a¯h. p¯ıt.hopap¯ıt.hika¯h.* ; 15.241b: Influenced by *vijñeya¯*, which is devoid of a *visarga*, the two words that follow, viz., *sañcar¯ a p ¯ ¯ıt.hopap¯ıt.hika¯*, are also devoid of *visarga*s.); *trih. catuh. pañcas* (for *trih. catuh. pañcakr. tvas*; 15.255c: The peculiar form *pañcas* has partially occurred due to the influence by the *s-*ending of the previous *trih.* and *catuh.* ; 15.255c), etc.

**Stem-form used as inflected form (mostly nominative and accusative)**: 71 *laks.m¯ıvana huta´sane ¯* (for *laks.m¯ıvanam. huta´sane ¯* ; 15.104b); *s. at. trim. ´sati samakhy ¯ at¯ a¯* (for *s. at. trim. ´satih. samakhy ¯ at¯ a¯h.* ; 15.70c); *sarvakarman. ¯ı an¯ ¯ıta* (for *sarvakarman. ¯ı an¯ ¯ıta¯*; 15.251a), etc.

<sup>68</sup> However, according to (Oberlies 2003, p. 171), *bruma ¯* can be used for *brumah ¯ .* in the Epic literature.

<sup>69</sup> Among the verbal irregularities, this is also the most commonly found throughout the *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15 (and its other chapters).

<sup>70</sup> This peculiarity can be widely found throughout the *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15 (and its other chapters). Some of the peculiarities listed below are partially induced by this one. For this peculiarity, see also the first two paragraphs of Section 3.2.1 (particularly footnote 70) in this monograph.

<sup>71</sup> For this, see the first two paragraphs of Section 3.2.1 in this monograph.

### **Omissions of final consonants:**

**Inflected form without final** *h.* **/***r***/***t*: *-svabhav¯ a tu ¯* (for *-svabhav¯ at¯* or *-svabhav¯ an¯ tu*; 15.16a); *pitu* (*m.c.* for *pitur*; 15.155d); *yogin¯ıbhi* (for *yogin¯ıbhir*; 15.185b);<sup>72</sup> *yoginya* (for *yoginyah.* ; 15.231c), etc.

**The others**: *pran. avady ¯ a prak ¯ ¯ırtita¯h.* (for *pran. avady ¯ a¯h. prak¯ırtita¯h.* ; 15.93d); *vr. ks. a¯* . . . *dapayet ¯* (for *vr. ks. an¯* . . . *dapayet ¯* ; 15.146d); *dapayel lokap ¯ alin ¯ ¯ı* (for *dapayel ¯ lokapalin ¯ ¯ıh.* ; 15.148d); *te v¯ıra¯* (for *te v¯ırah¯ .* ; 15.231a), etc.

#### **Additions of final consonants**:

**Redundant final** *h.* **/***m***/***n* **at the end of a** *pada ¯* **(especially an even** *pada ¯* **)**: *vijñeya sumer ¯ uparibh ¯ agaj ¯ am¯* //(for *vijñeya sumer ¯ uparibh ¯ agaj ¯ a¯* //; 15.59cd); *sarvagun. amayam. vibhuh.* //(for *sarvagun. amayam. vibhu* //; 15.70d), etc. **Redundant final** *´s***/***c* **before** *c-*: *-vatm¯ ac ca ¯* (for *-vatm¯ a ca ¯* ; 15.15c);<sup>73</sup> . . . *yogin¯ı*

*// nan¯ abhara ¯ n. ayukta´s ca ¯* . . . *-nvita¯* (for *yogin¯ı // nan¯ abhara ¯ n. ayukta ca ¯* . . . *-nvita¯*; 15.67d-68b), etc.

**Final** *m.* **/***m***/***n* **and** *h.* **/***´s***/***s***/***r* **used interchangeably:**<sup>74</sup> *prabuddham. herukah.* (for *prabuddho herukah.* , 15.29b); *-nigad. as tu had. im.* (for *-nigad. as tu had. ir*; 15.38d), etc.

**Case-endings** *-es.u* **and** *-e***/***-ena* **used interchangeably**: <sup>75</sup> *dvihastes.u* (for *dvihastena*; 15.35a); *-dvares ¯ .u* (*m.c.* for *-dvare ¯* ; 15.95c); *kon. e* (for *kon. es.u*; 15.146c), etc.

**Irregular inflected forms**: *-bhum¯ ¯ıs.u* (perhaps *m.c*. for *-bhumi ¯ s.u*; 15.69a); *jantavam¯* (for *jantavah.* ; 15.174b)<sup>76</sup> and *imaih.* (for *ebhih.* ; 15.283d).

**Thematization (or consonantal stems treated as vocalic)**: *arci* (for *arcih.* ; 15.13a and 278c); *namam ¯ .* (for *nama ¯* ; 15.125b); *br.ha-* (for *br.hat-*; 15.137d), etc.

**Lengthening of the final short vowel at the end of an even** *pada ¯* : *-purit ¯ am / ¯* (for *-puritam / ¯* ; 15. 13b); *pat¯ım* / (for *patim /*; 15.14b); *suryak ¯ am / ¯* (for *suryakam / ¯* ; 15.23d), etc.

**The feminine ending** *-ik¯ı* **for** *-ika¯* **and** *-ak¯ı*: <sup>77</sup> *selendrik¯ı* (for *´sailendrak¯ı*; 15.115a); *marjj ¯ arik ¯ ¯ı* (for *marj ¯ arak ¯ ¯ı*; 15.135f), etc.

<sup>72</sup> Whether the meter requires it or not, the plural instrumental ending *-bhi* (for *-bhih.* ) often occurs in the *Catus.p¯ıt.ha*: (e.g., *ebhi* for *ebhir*, 1.2.14d, and *d. akinibhi ¯* for *d. akin ¯ ¯ıbhih.* , 1.2.27a).

<sup>73</sup> This is otherwise the ablative form of the thematized *-vatman. ¯*

<sup>74</sup> It is possible to see this as the assimilation of the nominative and accusative forms, which is a grammatical peculiarity or tendency found in several forms of Apabhram. ´sa (Tagare 1948, p. 104). See also (Tanaka 2010, p. xxix), etc.

<sup>75</sup> It is not impossible to see this as a form of the assimilation of the instrumental and locative, which is a grammatical peculiarity of Apabhram. ´sa (Tagare 1948, p. 104). See also (Tanaka 2010, p. li).

<sup>76</sup> The form *jantavam¯* appears many times in the *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava*. In Chapter 15, it is used in the sense of nominative. However, in other chapters, it is also used in the sense of other cases.

<sup>77</sup> See also *Buddhakapalatantra ¯* , Skt ed., 13.5g and (Luo 2010, p. 102, footnote 13).

**Exchange of <consonant +** *i***/***¯ı* **> and <consonant +** *ya* **>**: <sup>78</sup> *-suryagnyopari ¯* (*m.c.* for *-sury ¯ agnyupari ¯* ; [*agnya* for *agni*] 15.31b); *-valyam.* (for *-val¯ım.* ; 15.110b); *ving˙ ¯ı* (for *vyang˙ ¯ı*; 15.167b), etc.

**Extension and contraction of word induced metrically**:

**Extended stems**: *bhrat¯ ay¯ a¯* (for *bhratur ¯* ; 15.159a [*bhrat¯ ay¯ a(¯ h. )* is the genitive of *bhrat¯ a¯*, which is the nominative of *bhrat¯ r.* ]); *apsarasa¯* (not instrumental; *apsaras* + female singular -*a¯*: 15.178b), etc.

**Extension of a word by the addition of a syllable into the middle**: *ratnolak¯ı* (*m.c.* for *ratnolk¯ı* or *ratnolka¯*; 15.76c).

**Contraction of** *-in* **stem**: *-bhu¯s. ¯ı* (*m.c.* for -bhu¯ s. in. ¯ı; 15.48c); *dam. s. t. r¯ı* (*m.c.* for *dam. s. t. rin. ¯ı*; 15.97c); *-vart¯ı* (*m.c.* for *-vartin¯ı*; 15.217b and 218a), etc.

**Contraction of a word by the omission of the ending** *-ka*: *prajñant ¯ ¯ı* (*m.c.* for *prajñantak ¯ ¯ı*; 15.77a); *herum.* (*m.c.* for *herukam.* ; 15.81c); *pañcarekhatm¯ a¯* (*m.c.* for *pañcarekhatmakam ¯ .* ; 15.101a), etc.

**Contraction of a word by the omission of one or more syllables from the middle**: *pan. n. asorika¯* (*m.c.* for *parn. a´sabarika¯*; *-´saba-* [*-saba-*] was contracted to *-so-*; 15.76d); *kupar ¯ ¯ı* (*m.c.* for *kupak ¯ ar¯ ¯ı*; 15.89b); *cintayevam.* (*m.c.* for *cintayed evam.* ; 15.188b); *trih. catuh. pañcas* (*m.c.* for *trih. catuh. pañcakr. tvas*; 15.255c), etc.

**The other examples of the number, case, and gender irregularities (or the lack of concord)**: <sup>79</sup> *-gatras t ¯ a[¯ h. ]* (for *-gatr ¯ a s ¯ a¯*; 15.67a); *´sakticakram. sada hy e ¯ s. a* (for *´sakticakram. sada hy etat ¯* , 15.162a); *v¯ıra bhagavanta ¯ h. kulodbhava¯h.* (*m.c*. for *v¯ıra bhagavata ¯ h. kulodbhava¯h.* ; 15.258b), etc.

<sup>78</sup> This can often be found in the Buddhist Yogin¯ıtantra scriptures; an important example is the exchange of *d. akinyah ¯ .* and *d. akin ¯ ¯ı(h. )* (or *yoginyah.* and *yogin¯ı(h. )*).

<sup>79</sup> There are many examples that fall into these "other" groups: **Masculine singular nominative used as feminine** (*-gatras ¯* for *-gatr ¯ a¯*, 15.67a, and *es. a* for *es. a¯*, 15.162a); **masculine singular nominative used as neuter** (*anyah.* for *anyat*, 15.204e, and *sa kathyate m.c.* for *tat kathyate* or *sam. kathyate*, 15.206b); **masculine singular genitive used as feminine** (*tasyaiva m.c.* for *tasya eva ¯* [or a double *sandhi* of *tasya¯ eva*], 15.155d, and *asya m.c.* for *asya¯h.* , 15.157b); **masculine plural nominative used in the sense of singular genitive** (*bhagavantah.* for *bhagavatah.* , 15.258b); **masculine plural instrumental used in the sense of nominative** (*-mantrais* for *-mantras¯* , 15.93c); **masculine plural locative used in the sense of nominative** (*-kar¯ ante ¯ s.v* for *-kar¯ a¯*[*h.* ], 15.94a); **feminine singular nominative used as neuter** (*-bh¯ıs. an. a¯* for *-bh¯ıs. an. am*, 15.34b); **feminine singular accusative used as masculine** (*-varn. akam¯* for *-varn. akam*, 15.149d); **feminine singular accusative used as neuter** (*-tmakam¯* for *-tmakam*, 15.92b); **feminine plural nominatives used in the sense of singular** (*ta[¯ h. ]* for *sa¯*, 15.67a); **feminine plural instrumental used in the sense of singular nominative** (*pitamah ¯ ¯ıbhi* for *pitamah ¯ ¯ıbhih.* , *m.c.* for *pitamah ¯ ¯ı*, 15.157c); **neuter singular nominative used in the sense of plural** (*mukham.* for *mukhani ¯* , 15.171a); **neuter singular nominative used in the sense of masculine plural** (*-herukam.* for *-heruka[¯ h. ]*, 15.83d); and **neuter plural accusative used as masculine** (*-pal¯ ani m.c. ¯* for *-pal¯ an¯* , 15.190a). However, I do not consider it so fruitful to enumerate them because no clear tendency can be found among them.

## (3) Adverbs

**Addition of a final** *´s* **(before** *c-***),** *h.* **, and** *t* **(at the end of an even** *pada ¯* **)**: *nan¯ a´s ca ¯* (for *nan¯ a ca ¯* ; 15.13a), *yatharuci ¯ h.* (for *yatharuci ¯* ; 15.120d); *sarvatha¯h. /*(for *sarvatha/¯* ; 15.149b), and *purat¯* / (for *pura¯* /; 15.251d).

*Yatah.* **used in the sense of** *yatha¯* **("like")**: *kak¯ asy ¯ a¯ d. akin ¯ ¯ı yatah.* (for *kak¯ asy ¯ a¯ d. akin ¯ ¯ı yatha¯*, "Kak¯ asy ¯ a is like D ¯ . akin ¯ ¯ı"; 15.95d).

## (4) Compounds

**Divided words treated as compound words**: *-paks. a-m. -kucik ¯ a¯* (*m.c.* for *-paks. akucik ¯ a¯*; 15.37c); *khan. d. aroha sma´s ¯ an¯ ¯ı ca vidrav¯ı kurukullika¯h.* (*m.c.* (?) for *khan. d. aroha-´sma´s ¯ an¯ ¯ıvidrav¯ı-kurukullika¯h.* ; 15.56cd);<sup>80</sup> *purvottarapa´scimo ca dak ¯ s. in. advare ¯ s.u* (*m.c.* for *purvottarapa´scimadaks ¯ . in. advares ¯ .u*; 15.141cd), etc.

**Compound words treated as divided words**: *-bhujasya ¯ m.* (*m.c.* for *-bhujam asya ¯ m.* : 15.32a); *cakredam.* (a fixed expression for *cakram idam.* ; 15.73b and 211b), etc. I have treated the following first words as words without case-endings and not as the first member of the compound: *bhumi arci ¯ s.mat¯ı* (for *bhumir arci ¯ s.mat¯ı* and not *bhumi-arci ¯ s.mat¯ı*; 15.119c); *varn. a nan¯ avicitrañ ¯* (for *varn. am. nan¯ avicitrañ ¯* and not *varn. anan¯ avicitrañ ¯* ; 15.118a); *idañ cakra sam. svedajan* (for *idañ cakram. sam. svedajan* and not *idañ cakrasam. svedajan*; 15.175a), etc.

(5) *Sandhi*

*-a***+***e- > -e-*: <sup>81</sup> *dvada´sete ¯* (a fixed expression for *dvada´saite ¯* ; 15.224d).

**Hiatus-filler** *m*: *nat. ¯ı -m- akhy ¯ at¯ a¯* (15.57a); *tu -m- elakam* (15.189b), etc.

**Hiatus-fuller** *r*: *-pran¯ . es.u -r- ¯ıks. an. at¯* (15.283b).

**Double** *sandhi*: *tasyaiva* (for *tasya eva ¯* ; 15.155d), etc. A peculiar form of the double *sandhi* (?): *caturthya-¯* (for *caturtha a-¯* ; 15.81b).

**Frozen** *sandhi: bahyato punar ¯* (for *bahyatah ¯ . punar*; 15.152a), etc.

**When the initial** *a* **follows the final** *¯ı* **of the previous word, the initial** *a* **is removed** (alternatively, this is a form of **the exchange of <consonant +** *i***/***¯ı* **> and <consonant +** *ya* **>** mentioned earlier.): *bhaginey ¯ ¯ı sya* (for *bhagineyy asya ¯* ; 15. 157b);<sup>82</sup> and *´s¯ıtak¯ı \*sevana¯* (a scribal error of *sivana¯*) (for *´s¯ıtaky asivana¯*; 15.198c).

<sup>80</sup> Alternatively, unless it is a scribal erorr, the final *h.* of *kurukullika¯h.* is an example of the "Redundant final *h.* /*m*/*n* at the end of a *pada ¯* (especially an even *pada ¯* )" mentioned earlier.

<sup>81</sup> For this, see also (Kiss 2015, p. 84). This *sandhi* (*-a*+*e- > -e-*) was certainly acknowledged by the authors of the *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava*. Chapter 16 of the *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* includes a discourse that encodes the letters constituting the fundamental mantra. In that discourse, the words *-sahasreka- ¯* (for *-sahasraika- ¯* ) are encoded (16.137ab and 142a).

<sup>82</sup> I do not regard *bhaginey ¯ ¯ısya* to be an irregular genitive of *bhaginey ¯ ¯ı*.

**The other examples of the non-application of the rule of external** *sandhi*: *dadyat¯ dvi-* (for *dadyad dvi- ¯* ; 15.94cd); *iti ak¯ a´sa- ¯* (for *ity ak¯ a´sa- ¯* ; 15.123), etc.

• **Non-cerebralization of** *n* **and** *s*: *-kramena* (for *-kramen. a*; 15.33c); *-rup¯ ani ¯* (for *-rup¯ a¯n. i*; 15.171a); *catusput. an¯ am¯ .* (for *catus.put. an¯ am¯ .* ; 15.225c), etc.

(6) The other orthographical peculiarities

**Exchange of short and long vowels induced metrically**: *-var¯ ahi ¯* (*m.c.* for *-var¯ ah¯ ¯ı*; 15.45d), etc.

**A short vowel followed by multiple consonants is treated as being light**: 83 *karn. ikas¯ uryagnyopari ¯* / (the second *pada ¯* of *pathya, m.c. ¯* for *karn. ikas¯ ury ¯ agnyupari / ¯* ; 15.31b), in which the fifth syllable is treated as being light.

• **Gemination of consonants after -***r* **and the degemination of** *t* **before** *-r* **and** *-v*.

• **Exchange of** *tr.* **and** *tr***i in cardinal and ordinal numbers**: *trit¯ıyañ* (for *tr. t¯ıyañ*; 15.132a), etc.

• **Exchange of aspirated and unaspirated sounds, exchange of retroflex and non-retroflex sounds, exchange of voiced and unvoiced sounds, and the exchange of** *´s***,** *s.* **, and** *s*: *sma´sana ¯ m.* (for *´sma´sana ¯ m.* ; 15.3c); *bin. d. ipalakam ¯* (for *bhindipalakam ¯* , 15.36d); *ratnes. ika¯* (for *ratne´sika¯*, 15.74b); *ganika¯* (for *gan. ika¯*, 15.89a); *gat. t. ik¯ı* (for *khat. t. ik¯ı*, 15.89c); *bhibh¯ıs. an. a´s* (for *bibh¯ıs. an. a´s* = *vibh¯ıs. an. a´s*, 15.103c), etc.

**Exchange of** *su* **and** *sva*: <sup>84</sup> *-surupakam ¯* (for *-svarupakam ¯* ; 15.11d); *suc¯ı* (perhaps for *svac¯ı* = *´svac¯ı*, *m.c.* for *´svapac¯ı*; 15.87b), etc.

• **Omission of** *y* **in a <consonant +** *ya¯* **or** *y¯ı* **>**: *aks. obh¯ı* (for *aks. obhy¯ı*, 15.74a); *nairatm¯ a¯* (for *nairatmy ¯ a¯*, 15. 76c); *rupy ¯ ar¯ up¯ adi ¯* (for *rupy ¯ ar¯ upy ¯ adi ¯* , 15,285d), etc.

**The other Middle-Indic forms of Sanskrit words (including the peculiar words that can be often found in the old Sanskrit manuscripts of other scriptures belonging to the Sam. vara tradition)**: <sup>85</sup> *pan. n. a-* (for *parn. a-*; 17d); *´sani´scaram.* (for *´sanai´scaram.* ; 15.42c); *kallaval¯ ¯ı* (for *kalyapal¯ ¯ı*; 15.89b); *sena¯* (for *´syena¯*; 15.128c); *daddar¯ı* (for *dardar¯ı*; 15.129b); *-khura-* (for *-ks.ura-*; 15.191d); *vijju* (for *vidyut*; 15.192a); *ucchadayet ¯* (for *utsadayet ¯* ; 15.251d); *urddham ¯ .* (for *urdhvam ¯ .* ; 15.254d),<sup>86</sup> etc.

<sup>83</sup> For this, see also (Hatley 2018a, pp. 2–3).

<sup>84</sup> It often occurs that *sva* is wrongly transcribed as *su* because of their possible similarity in the shape of a letter and pronunciation. However, in the critical edition, I have kept *su* and noted that it is used as *sva* in the critical apparatus if several materials support it.

<sup>85</sup> For those Middle-Indic (Prakrit or Apabhram. ´sa) forms, I have consulted (Tagare 1948) and the *Paia-Sadda-M ¯ aha ¯ n. n. avo* (Sheth [1963] 1986). By "the old Sanskrit manuscripts of other scriptures belonging to the Sam. vara tradition," I indicate the palm leaf and old paper manuscripts (around the 12th–15th century) of the *Cakrasam. vara* (Oriental Institute in Vadodara 13290), *Abhidhanottara ¯* (IASWR I-100 = NGMPP E1517/7 and Asiatic Society in Kolkata G10759), and *Vajrad. aka ¯* (Matsunami 343 and Asiatic Society G3825).

<sup>86</sup> The word *urddha ¯* was already used in the oldest Sanskrit manuscript of the *Abhidhanottara ¯* copied in the first half of the 12th century (NS 258) (Sugiki 2019, pp. 36, 39), which is possibly not so long from,

**Forms of words that seem peculiar to manuscript A and its transmissional lines**: *pit. t. ani ¯* (perhaps from the verb *pit. t. aya* or noun *pit. a*; 15.40b); *d. aka-¯* (for *d. hakka¯*; 15.41a); *karbhara*- (for *karbura*- 15.124c); *bila¯d. ¯ı* (for *bid. al¯ ¯ı*; 15.128a); *pitulasya* (for *pitr.vyasya* and not a corruption of *pitur asya*; 15.157d), etc.

In the edited text, I have indicated the peculiar words with underlines, and in the critical apparatus I have provided instructions on how to read them as follows: "-bh¯ıs. an. a¯" in the edited text and "-bh¯ıs. an. a¯ (for -bh¯ıs. an. am) ]" in the apparatus (15.34b). This means that the grammatically irregular "-bh¯ıs. an. a" is used ¯ for "-bh¯ıs. an. am". In cases of peculiarities induced to accommodate the meter, I have indicated those words with the sign "*m.c*." (metri causa) in the critical apparatus. For example, "-bhujasyam ¯ . " in the main text and "-bhujasyam ¯ . (*m.c.* for -bhujam asyam ¯ . )" in the apparatus (15.32a) mean that the grammatically irregular "-bhujasya ¯ m. " is used for "-bhujam asya ¯ m. " to accommodate the meter. In cases of peculiarities in the external *sandhi*, except for some cases that I consider need indication, I have not indicated them with underlines in the edited text or with their standard *sandhi* forms in the critical apparatus. As for the removal of the initial *a* after the final *¯ı*, I have indicated the removed *a-* with an *avagraha* ("bhaginey ¯ ¯ı 'sya") in both the main text and critical apparatus.

To reduce the risk of emendation, when any word in manuscript A is emended, I have represented all emended letters in bold (e.g., "savya¯**vasavyato**"; 15.34c). However, as for the emendation of the orthographical peculiarities, only the emended letters are represented in bold (e.g., "**´sma**´sana-"). As for the gemination of consonants ¯ after -*r* and the degemination of *t* before *-r* and *-v*, only the emended consonants are represented in bold (e.g., "sa**rv**a-" and "sa**ttv**a-"). The letters and the part of a letter that are illegible in manuscript A because of damage to leaf or blurring are also represented in bold (e.g., "**nan¯** a-," which means that I have restored the part ¯ *nan¯* from the other source). By these, one can find and check easily what the word in manuscript A is noted in the critical apparatus.

#### *3.2.2. Metrical Peculiarities*

I consider all verses in the edited chapter as *anus. t.ubh* verses. Among those that are rightly metrical, most verses are *pathya¯*, and the following verses are *vipula¯*:

na-vipula: 15.125ab, 181ab, and 258cd. ¯ bha-vipula: 15.107ab and 157ab. ¯ ma-vipula: 15.76cd, 83ab, 90ab, 238ab, and 240cd. ¯

or almost contemporary, with the date when the extant version of the *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* was compiled (see Section 2 in this monograph). For *urddha ¯* , see also (Goodall 2015, p. 127): "It is possible that *urddha ¯* is transmissional, but the possibility that it is authorial cannot be excluded."

ra-vipula: 15.37cd, 65ab, 141ab, and 236ab. ¯

There are also many verses in the edited chapter in which the metrical rule is not followed strictly. One can find odd *pada ¯* s placed in the one of even *pada ¯* s and vice versa, and hypermetrical *pada ¯* s, hypometrical *pada ¯* s, and the other unmetrical *pada ¯* s in which heavy and light syllables are incorrectly placed. The meter is relatively loose throughout the chapter in appearance. However, for the *pada ¯* s that are unmetrical in appearance, a reciter might have skipped reciting a short syllable (syncopation), added a short syllable,<sup>87</sup> lengthened a short vowel or shortened a long vowel (see Schott's idea of "freedom of lengthening or shortening"),<sup>88</sup> or recited the syllables rapidly or slowly in pronunciation to accommodate the meter.

#### *3.2.3. The Apabhram. ´sa Verses*

As mentioned earlier, a critical edition of all the Apabhram. ´sa verses in the *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava*, along with their Tibetan translation, was published by Chaudhuri (1935).<sup>89</sup> Chaudhuri summarized the Apabhram. ´sa used in the *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* as "an artificial one based on the Saurasen ´ ¯ı Apabhram. ´sa," being "influenced by Sanskrit and the literary Prakrits of the second MIA period," and including elements of "many Bengali words and expressions" and "East Bengal dialect". Chaudhuri also analyzed the phonology, morphology, and prosody of the form of Apabhram. ´sa used in the *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* in detail.<sup>90</sup> I do not repeat them here. The verses used in *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15 are *apsarovilasita* (15.25-26 in my edition), *anangalalit ˙ a¯* (15.27), *ary ¯ a¯* (15.28), *manmathavilasita* (15.286), and *pad¯ akulaka ¯* (15.287).

The new edition of the Apabhram. ´sa verses of the *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15, along with their Tibetan and English translations, which I present here, is based on the same Sanskrit manuscripts and Tibetan translations of the *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* and the same Sanskrit manuscripts of the related texts that I mentioned earlier. I have also consulted much of Chaudhuri's edition and his analysis of the language. However, there are some instances where I do not agree with Chaudhuri: the new edition is slightly different from Chaudhuri's. In the critical apparatus, I have provided the standard Sanskrit forms of the Apabhram. ´sa words (e.g., "jagaï (for jagat¯ı or jagati)," 15.25a), and have also noted Chaudhuri's text and his *chay¯ a¯* (Sanskrit gloss).

<sup>87</sup> See also the "extension of a word by addition of a syllable into the middle" mentioned in Chapter 3.2.1 in this monograph, which is an example of adding a short syllable to accommodate the meter.

<sup>88</sup> (Schott 2019, p. 149).

<sup>89</sup> Chaudhuri's edition of the Apabhram. ´sa verses in *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* 15 is presented in (Chaudhuri 1935, pp. 136–40). In this monograph, I have not used (S´astr ¯ ¯ı 1915)'s text.

<sup>90</sup> (Chaudhuri 1935, pp. 19–34). See also Chapter 2 in this monograph.

#### **3.3. Editorial Conventions**

As mentioned earlier, in the main text, the words that are peculiar morphologically or orthographically are indicated by underlines (e.g., " -bhujasyam ¯ . "). When any word/letter in manuscript A is emended, or when any word/letter that is illegible in manuscript A is restored from other sources, I have represented all emended or restored words/letters in bold (e.g., "savya¯**vasavyato**"). See also the last paragraph in Chapter 3.2.1 for details. The same policy is applied to the edition of the Tibetan text. When any word/letter in D 372 (base text) is emended, or when any word/letter that is illegible in D 372 is restored from other sources, I have represented all emended or restored words/letters in bold (e.g., "**'jig pa** la sogs").

Signs that I have used for the critical apparatus (both in Sanskrit and Tibetan texts) are as follows:


## ♦ separates comments on different words

In the footnotes, I have marked the accepted reading with a lemma sign ']'. This is followed by information on variant readings and the reason for my decision. For example, "-nurodhena ] ABCDpc (rjes su bskul ba yis Tib); nudhena Dac" (15.29a) means: "I have accepted A, B, C, and Dpc's reading of *nurodhena*; I have not accepted Dac's reading of *nudhena*; and the Tibetan translation *rjes su bskul ba yis* is in accordance with the accepted reading."

As mentioned previously, Jayasena's *Ratnapadmaraganidhi ¯* , Ratnasena's *Man. d. alarcanavidhi ¯* , and the *Var¯ ah¯ ¯ıkalpa* (which are indicated as J, R, and V in the critical apparatus, respectively) have many parallel passages. They also teach the Heruka man. d. ala. However, some of the man. d. ala deities' names are different from those taught in the *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava*. To clearly show how the man. d. ala deities' names were transmitted from the *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava* to these texts, I made notes of the readings of the man. d. ala deities' names in the Sanskrit manuscripts or Tibetan translations of these texts, as well as the readings in the Sanskrit manuscripts of the *D. ak¯ ar¯ n. ava*, in all critical apparatuses of the man. d. ala deities' names.

Editorial decisions were made regarding the division of verses. The punctuation marks used are *dan. d. a*s (and double *dan. d. a*s in verses) in the Sanskrit text, and *shad*s and double *shad*s in the Tibetan text. I have not reported conventional *dan. d. a*s. Orthographical variants that I have not reported are the gemination of consonants after -*r* and degemination of *t* before *-r* and *-v*. However, when they appear in the apparatus, I have noted them. I have not standardized the word-final *-m.* , *-n˙* (before the initial *k-*class consonants), *-ñ* (before the initial *c-*class consonants), *-n.* (before the initial *t. -*class consonants), *-n* (before the initial *t-*class consonants), and *-m* (before the initial *p-*class consonants) and have preserved the forms in manuscript A.
