Miscl. Notes on the Moksa-Upaya

The Moksa-upaya and the Yogavasistha, reflecting complicated textual histories, the second being a redaction of the first, are among the most interesting of texts to emerge from India. Here is almost a strictly bibliographic selection for future research:


Notes are made courtesy of materials available from:
Historiographie und Geisteskultur Kaschmirs
Arbeitsstelle der
Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Mainz
an der Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg
(Alle Rechte vorbehalten, all rights reserved, Arbeitsstelle der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Mainz an der Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, 06099 Halle (Saale).)


Einführung
Der Mokṣopāya („Weg zur Befreiung“), Werk im Umfang von 30.000 Doppelversen eines kaschmirischen Anonymus aus der Mitte des 10. Jh.s, begründet auf der Basis philosophisch unikaler Ideen einen in der indischen Geistesgeschichte einzigartigen Welterklärungsentwurf, der ohne Berufung auf traditionelle Autoritäten entwickelt wurde. Vor Entdeckung und Nutzbarmachung (1994 ff) der kaschmirischen Rezension, in der die ursprüngliche Werkfassung sich verbirgt, wurde dieses nach Form und Inhalt einzigartige philosophische Literaturwerk in Indien und Europa ausschließlich in einer späten, durch mehrere Redaktionsschübe tendenziös veränderten Vulgata-Rezension (‛Yogavāsiṣṭha’) rezipiert. Durch strukturelle und begriffliche Modifizierungen wurde dieser Version der Anschein eines Offenbarungswerkes verliehen. Derart in althergebrachte Mythen und Traditionen eingebettet, entfaltete das Yogavāsiṣṭha in Indien eine bis heute andauernde Wirkungsgeschichte. Doch war es u.a. der autoritative Charakter von ‛Offenbarungen’, gegen den der Autor – als indischer ‛Frühaufklärer’ insofern erfolglos geblieben – sich mit Vehemenz gewandt hatte. Unkonventionelle Standpunkte wie dieser wurden aus der pan-indischen Yogavāsiṣṭha-Rezeption – ebenso wie die menschliche Autorschaft des Werkes – von Entsager-Traditionen des Advaitavedānta (saṃnyāsin) sowie von Exponenten gläubiger Gottesfrömmigkeit (Rāma-Bhakti) gewollt verdrängt. Weltanschaulich über sekundäre Mythisierung entsprechend umgearbeitet und adaptiert, vereinnahmten sie das Werk schließlich für eigene Traditionen. Die formale und geistige Gestalt des Mokṣopāya selbst wurde dadurch aber aus der indischen Wahrnehmung völlig ausgeblendet und geriet allmählich in Vergessenheit. Der Text ist in einem Sprachstil verfaßt, der je nach Anlaß zwischen höfisch-literarischem und philosophisch-wissenschaftlichem Sanskrit wechselt. Aufgrund des Stils und der Neuschöpfung narrativer, parabolisch angewandter Stoffe ist er als Literatur (kāvya) zu charakterisieren, dem Inhalt nach als philosophische Welterklärung, vom Anliegen her aber als ‛Soteriologie der Selbstbefreiung’ aus dem Daseinswandel. Das Werk zeigt einen ‛erleuchtungsdidaktisch’ strukturierten Aufbau, der einem sich graduell vertiefenden Verständnishorizont des Schülers Rechnung trägt. Dieses unter den Sprach- und Texttrümmern des Yogavāsiṣṭha verschüttete Monument indischer Philosophie und Literatur soll nun zum ersten Mal in seinem Originalwortlaut aus den Handschriften der kaschmirischen Rezension wiedergewonnen, und dabei ein unikaler philosophischer Kopf und geistreicher Poet für die Geistesgeschichte gerettet werden, der im 10. Jh. Raum- und Zeitvorstellungen als subjektiv und nur relativ zur eigenen Wahrnehmung bestimmbar definiert hat. Mit Hilfe einer historisch-kritischen Gesamtedition, die mittels des wiederhergestellten Wortlauts auch die verlorengegangenen Ideen und sprachlichen Idiosynkrasien des Autors rekonstruiert, werden diese sich in ihren inneren Zusammenhängen erschließen, deuten und sodann in eine Universalgeschichte der philosophischen Ideen und der Literatur einordnen lassen. Darüber hinaus sind neue Erkenntnisse vor allem auch zu erwarten für: Linguistik (reiches und datierbares Material zum regionalen kaschmirischen Sanskrit, Wortschatz, Semantik, Wortbildung und Syntax), Philosophiegeschichte, Religionssoziologie (vita activa contra vita contemplativa), Universalgeschichte (indischer Erlösungsrationalismus, Ansätze zu Aufklärungsideen), Literatur (stoffliche Neuschöpfungen), Kultur- und Realienkunde des mittelalterlichen Kaschmir.



Vom Moksopaya-Sastra Zum Yogavasistha-Maharamayana: Philologische Untersuchungen Zur Entwicklungs- Und Uberlief-Erungsgeschichte Eines Inndische Lehrwerks Mit Anspruch Auf Heilsrelevanz
Journal article by Patrick Olivelle; The Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 117, 1997.
The State of Research to date on the Yogavasiÿ÷ha
(Mokÿop˜ya)
By Lekh Raj Manjdadria
The following is the summary of the major research results achieved to date at the
University of Halle (Germany) in works undertaken there by the Moksopaya Project
Research Group (Dr Juergen Hanneder, Peter Stephan, Susanne Stinner), founded and
supervised by Prof Walter Slaje.
The textual doctrine aims for the non-ascetic (e.g. the grhastha-asrama) state of
liberation whilst living (jivanmukti), it is interesting to note that the text appears still
not to have been successfully categorised in terms of the history of Indian literature or
philosophy for various reasons, which are outside the scope of this abstract.
In the course of research investigation, analysis and evaluation over a period of 12
years, it has become evident that there are two strands of transmission, the present text
known as the Yogavasistha (YV) and an older version called the Moksopaya (MU),
which has been commented upon by Bhaskarakantha. Historical investigations
revealed unexpected results; in the main it became clear of the two strands of textual
transmission, the presently Yogavasistha and a completely independent transmission,
which preserved an early state of textual development called the Moksopaya.
Interestingly its history is closely related to the region of Kashmir, where it is
believed the text may have taken its form, this being represented by textual reference
to geographical, botanical and climatic descriptions and the fact that there is mention
of King Yasaskaradeva of Kashmir (r.939-948)
On the title it is apparent that the word Yogavasistha is a recent one only testified to
by a small number of texts, there is no internal textual reference to this title. Whereas
there is plenty of internal reference in which the text refers to itself as the Moksopaya
or Moksopaya Sastra.
On examination of the two strands it became apparent in the YV there were some
38.500 variants that had distorted the original character, philosophy and usage of the
ancient version transmitted in Kashmir. These variants have been categorised as
scribal errors that were either non-intentional and others as clearly wilful
modifications.
The non-intentional differences are seen as obvious misinterpretations of characters
made in good faith, possibly due to perhaps the bad state of a manuscript.
Focusing on the wilful changes by the redactors, the following results became
apparent.
Firstly there is the introduction of frame stories that emphasise the “orthodox”
brahmanical ideology, this particular feature is absent in the MU and as such
considered not to be the works of the orthodox tradition. Secondly there is the
insertion of chapters emphasising Rama-bhaki, whereas the original ethos indicates
Rama Bhaktas are nothing but lazy fools (Nirvana, Purvardha, 127-128) as they do
not rely on their own power of ‘manly-ness’ (paurusa). Thirdly there is an attempt at
reversing the meaning of passages that are specifically directed against Sruti, the
Vedas and rituals, by changing the original wording. Fourthly, there is the obvious
and complete deletion of particularly Buddhist terminology. Fifthly, there is what can

Page 2
be described as the numerous tendentious changes of plural-forms of nouns and verbs
to the singular. This indicates the originator of the MU used a public sermon mode.
Finally, there is without doubt what is considered as the vedanticizing of the text. The
MU teaches monism (advaita) which is characteristically different from that of
Sankara’s Advaita Vedanta. On some of these wilful changes I shall expand a little
more on later.
Latest investigations by J.Hanneder
1
acknowledge,
“It is difficult to gauge the impact that the establishment of the original text will have on our
understanding of the philosophy of this work… We can imagine that it is only because of the
cultural and temporal distance, and the domination of Advaita-Vedantic thought in modern
India, that the transformation of the Moksopaya into the Yogavasistha is not perceived as
what it is in a historical perspective: a spectacular appropriation of a heterodox philosophy
contained in one of the largest works in Indian literary history, a work that, although not
protected by wide-spread philosophical tradition, has remained fascinating through its
unique blend of philosophy and narrative. The extent of changes in readings, the attempts to
restructure the work, …and the consistency that can be observed in purging the text of
specific terms, clearly points to a planned revision of the text to bring it in line with the
philosophy of the transmitters.”
Interestingly Helmut Von Glasenapp, recognises the work to be “probably the greatest
philosophical poetic work of all times” and the present researchers recognise the
author has created a philosophy entirely of his own, making use of other Darsanas not
in an additive manner, but rather an inclusive way.
The original author endorses his authoritativeness on the contents of his works, that
claim a human authorship (pauruseyam idam sastram) and dismisses any authoritative
scripture that lacked reasoning (vicara) and rational arguments (yukti). Here the text
makes clear reference that the reasoned statements of even a child or women where
preferred to revelations of Rsis and gods. “Even if it were of human origin (every)
Sastra has to be accepted provided it instructs by means of arguments. Any other,
even composed by Rsis, should be dismissed. … The word of even a child must be
accepted, if it is based on reasonable arguments. Any other should be dismissed like
straw, be it even taught by Brahma (II 18, 2-3)”
This view has been considered differently by later redactors, in their claim of a
superhuman authorship in the YV, with changes in the philosophy, diction and shape
of the composition, which has been wilfully planned. The Kashmir version appears to
be what may be seen as the closest to an original version with the intentions of the
author.
Looking at the wilful changes, philological investigations showed interesting results.
The electronic version of the text prepared by Prof Slaje so far now covers more than
20,000 Slokas, which is approximately two-thirds of the whole MU text. Comparisons
carried out with the YV clearly point to a planned revision of the MU, which results
in a vedanticised YV. For example, firstly the author’s homilies, dialogues (vah) at
times are coarsely (maha-mudha, etc.) directed at a public audience, which are
apparent in the MU, in the YV in a majority of cases the redactors have inserted the
literary frame story of the courtly dialogue between sage Vasistha and the Epic hero
Rama. Here what is obvious is the factual replacement of the MU’s plural nouns and
1
WZKS 44(2000) 186.

Page 3
verbs into singular ones, and the toning down of coarse expressions to make them
acceptable for the plot set in Dasaratha’s court as a literary fiction. Evidence shows 80
percent of these plural forms have been altered to the singular in the YV. This is a
clear attempt of adapting the wording of the public sermon mode of the MU to the
later instructions of Vasistha to Rama in the YV.
Secondly there are obvious changes in the YV whereby Buddhist concepts and
terminology have been removed, evidence of the investigation of 20,000 Slokas so far
shows there is 100 percent removal of such terms and terminology. For example,
caitta (‘mental factor’, a fundamentally Buddhist term) is present in the MU and has
been 100 percent deleted in the YV. Similarly, the term nanartha
2
(expressing here
the ‘absolute non-existence of cognitive objects’) has also been 100 percent deleted
by the redactors through their reworking. The fundamental ontological notion in the
MU is the non-existence of the objects of cognition. To recognise this fact leads to
ultimate detachment (vairagya) from these objects. Interiorization of such a rational
detachment causes a lasting mental attitude of dispassion and non-involvement with
worldly things and matters, however, without swerving from one’s everyday duties
and activities. This is the original character of the jivanmukti as taught in the present
work. As primarily a ‘means to release’ (moksa-upaya) for non-ascetics it was from
the outset what appears to be intended for the householders of the nobility (ksatriya)
and the trading (vaisya) class, who by way of maintaining their social duties
(svadharma) safeguarded and supported the continuation and prosperity of the ancient
Indian society. Liberation within the text is clearly available for all, men, women and
children, irrespective of their nobility, by following the Moksopaya’s doctrine they
did not need to fear being excluded from an entitlement to release, an entitlement
which in the course of time had predominantly become a privilege for renouncers
(samnyasin) only. Rama is presented here, as a model for such an ideal type of man,
who, although having already attained release, still remained active all of his life,
keeping to his innate duties as a ruler.
I hope this provides an insight of the present state of affairs, since it is not possible in
an abstract to expand on the findings fully; I refer the interested reader to the
introduction of the recently published Vairagya-Prakarana of the Moksopaya Tika
3
and the bibliography there.
Summary compiled by consent of the original authors Prof W. Slaje and Dr J. Hanneder.
by
Mr Lekh Raj Manjdadria
B.Pharm (Hons). M.Sc.BioPharm. Dipp. CommPharm. MRPharmS.
M.A.Indian Religions. SOAS.
2
Nan a technical term used by Panini for negative particles (na.a-,an-).belonging to the science of
grammar. Nanartha meaning “no” that is empty of meaning, an expression of non-existence, closely
related to abhava (Bhaskarantha (MT II 19,23) explained as having non-existence.
3
Bhaskarantha’s Moksopaya-Tika. Vol.I. Shaker Verlag A
ACHEN
2002
ABKÜRZUNGEN

ABORI = Annals of the Bhandarkar Research Institute (Poona)
AS = Asiatische Studien (Bern etc.)
B = Brhad-Yogavasistha
BhG = Bhagavadgita
IHQ = The Indian Historical Quarterly (Calcutta)
IIJ = Indo-Iranian Journal (Dordrecht)
JAHRS = Journal of the Andhra Historical Research Society (Rajahmundry)
JASB = Journal of Asiatic Society of Bombay (Bombay)
JOR = Journal of Oriental Research (Madras),
L = Laghu-Yogavasistha
NIA = New Indian Antiquary (Bombay)
PO = Poona Orientalist (Poona),
WZKS = Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens (Wien)
YV = Yogavasistha
YVS = Yogavasisthasara


ZITIERTE LITERATUR

[Atreya 1932] Atreya, B. L.: The Yogavasistha and its Philosophy. 3. Aufl. (Nachdruck der erweiterten, 2. Aufl., 1938) Moradabad 1966. • Siehe Nr. 2.
[Atreya 1935] Atreya, B. L.: A probable date of composition of Yogavasistha. In: Proceedings and Transactions of the Seventh All-India Oriental Conference (Baroda 1933), Baroda (S. 56–59).
[Atreya 1936] Atreya, B. L.: The Philosophy of the Yogavasistha. Adyar (Madras). 2. Aufl.: Moradabad 1981.
[Banerji 1971] Banerji, S. Ch.: A Companion to Sanskrit Literature. Delhi/Varanasi/Patna.
[Bhattacharya 1925] Bhattacharya, S.: The Yogavasistha Ramayana, its probable date and place of inception. In: Proceedings and Transactions of the Third Oriental Conference (Madras 1924), Madras (S. 545-554). • Siehe Nr. 1.
[Bhattacharya 1948] Bhattacharya, S.: The Emergency of an Adhyatma-Sastra or the Birth of the Yogavasistha Ramayana. In: IHQ 24 (S. 201–212). • Siehe Nr. 6.
[Divanji 1935] Divanji, P. C.: The date and place of origin of the Yogavasistha. In: Proceedings and Transacions of the Seventh All-India Oriental Conference (Baroda 1933), Baroda (S. 15–30). • Siehe Nr. 3.
[Divanji 1938] Divanji, P. C.: Further light on the date of the Yogavasistha. In: PO 3 (S. 29–44). • Siehe Nr. 4.
[Divanji 1938/39] Divanji, P. C.: The text of the Laghuyogavasistha. In: NIA 1 (S. 697–715). • Siehe Nr. 4, Anm.
[Divanji 1959/60] Divanji, P. C.: Bhagavadgita and Bhagavata Purana as models for the Yogavasistha. In: JASB 34/35 (S. 44–58). • Siehe Nr. 8.
[Farquhar 1920] Farquhar, J. N: An Outline of the Religious Literature in India. Oxford 1920.
[Hacker 1947] Hacker, P.: Sankaracarya and Sankarabhagavatpada – preliminary remarks concerning the authorship problem. In: NIA 9 (bzw. P. Hacker, Kleine Schriften, Wiesbaden 1978 [= Glasenapp-Stiftung, 15.], S. 41–58).
[Hanneder und Slaje 2005] J. Hanneder und W. Slaje: Noch einmal zur langen und kurzen Version des Yogavasistha in ihrem Verhältnis zur Moksopaya-Rezension. In: Asiatische Studien (Bern), 59 (S. 509–531). • Siehe Nr. 13.
[Karmarkar 1955] Karmarkar, R. D.: Mutual relation of the Yogavasistha, the Lankavatarasutra and the Gaudapada-Karikas. In: ABORI 36 (S. 298–305). • Siehe Nr. 7.
[Konow 1901] Raja-Çekhara's Karpura-Manjari. Critically edited […] by S. Konow and translated […] by Ch. R. Lanman. Cambridge, Mass. [= Harvard Oriental Series, 4.]
[Raghavan 1939 a] Raghavan, V.: The Yogavasistha Quotations in the Jivanmuktiviveka of Vidyaranya. In: JAHRS 12 (S. 149–156).
[Raghavan 1939 b] Raghavan, V.: The Yogavasistha and the Bhagavadgita and the place of origin of the Yogavasistha. In: JOR 13 (S. 73–82).
[Raghavan 1939 c] Raghavan, V.: The Date of the Yogavasistha. In: JOR 13 (S. 110-128). • Siehe Nr. 5.
[Raghavan 1972] Raghavan, V.: The author of the Laghu-Yogavasistha. In: S. K. De Memorial Volume, Calcutta (S. 53–63). • Siehe Nr. 9.
[Schrader 1930] Schrader, F. O.: The Kashmir Recension of the Bhagavadgita. Stuttgart. [= Contributions to Indian Philology and History of Religion, 3.]
[Slaje 1994] Vom Moksopaya-Sastra zum Yogavasistha-Maharamayana. Philologische Untersuchungen zur Entwicklungs- und Überlieferungsgeschichte eines indischen Lehrwerks mit Anspruch auf Heilsrelevanz. Wien 1994. [= Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften: Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Sprachen und Kulturen Südasiens, 27.] • Siehe Nr. 11.
[Thomi 1980] Thomi, P.: Cudala – Eine Episode aus dem Yogavasistha. Nach der längeren und kürzeren Rezension unter Berücksichtigung von Handschriften aus dem Sanskrit übersetzt. Wichtrach. • Siehe Nr. 10.
[Thomi 1999] Thomi, P. (ed.): Yogavasisthasara "Die Quintessenz des Yogavasistha". Teil I–II. Wichtrach 1999. [= Vasistha-Grantha-Mala, 1.1–2.]. • Siehe Nr. 12.
[Winternitz 1904–1922] Winternitz, M.: Geschichte der indischen Literatur. Bd. 1–3. (Leipzig.) Nachdruck: Stuttgart 1968.

Historiographie und Geisteskultur Kaschmirs
Arbeitsstelle der
Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Mainz
an der Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg
Anonymus Casmiriensis (10.Jhd.)„Weg zur Befreiung“ (Mokṣopāya) in 30.000 Versen. Historisch-kritische Gesamtedition. Gefördert durch die DFG. In Zusammenarbeit mit: · Università La Sapienza, Roma (Prof. Torella / Dr. Lo Turco): „Critical Edition of the Fragments of Bhāskarakaṇṭha’s Commentary on the Nirvāṇaprakaraṇa“· Universität Lund (Prof. Qvarnström / Dr. Gansten), gefördert durch das Swedish Research Council: „Mokṣopāya Translation Project. A Critical Translation of the 3rd Book [Utpattiprakaraṇa]”.Bibliographie zum Mokṣopāya South Asia Research Documentation Services (Sards): Zentrale Datenbankredaktion.Sards dokumentiert Forschungsliteratur zum Raum Südasien (aktueller Berichtszeitraum 1783 bis 2000, derzeit 56.000 Titel). Alphabetische und Schlagwort-Recherchen sowie Ausgabe wissenschaftlicher Literaturzitate über das Internet.Gefördert durch die Universität Halle und das Land Sachsen-Anhalt sowie die Helmuth von Glasenapp-Stiftung, Mainz


Mokṣopāya
Kritische Edition des Utpattiprakaraṇa
Gefördert durch die DFG.
Projektbeginn: August 1999.
Projektleiter: Prof. Dr. Walter Slaje.
Projektbearbeiter (August 1999-März 2002): Dr. Jürgen Hanneder.
(2002-2007) Peter Stephan, M.A.

Jürgen Hann Eder Studies on the Mokṣopāya. (habilitation)
Peter Stephan, MA Lavaṇa The episode in Mokṣopāya: Critical Edition and study (2008).
Susanne Stinner (M.A.): Untersuchungen zur handschriftlichen Überlieferung der Kurzfassungen des Mokṣopāya/Yogavāsiṣṭha