Query: Did classical Indian philosophers revise their works?

Kengo Harimoto kharimot at SAS.UPENN.EDU
Wed Dec 19 01:21:39 UTC 2001

[I hope this mail gets through since I am using a back-up system.]

>May I refer you to my mini-paper "Changing One's Mind" in the Journal Of
>Indian Philosophy 23(1995)53-55 or do you know it already?

Speaking of the Vivra.na on the Yogabhaa.sya, there are some places where I
suspect revisions.

For example, the Vivara.na on YBh 1.24 introduces two interpretation of the
word nimitta in the bhaa.sya.  The author continues the discussion as if
the second view is his own.  I have a suspicion that the first view (not
the second) was added later.  Interestingly, the first interpretation seems
to resemble what Sankara says in BSBh 1.1.2.

There are more places where I suspect revisions.  Interesting thing about
the Vivara.na is that (going back to Prof. Staal's article) it sometimes
seems to contain highly developed Sankara's thought, but other times
not-yet-well-cooked ideas.  This intensifies the impression that the
current form of the Vivara.na is result of revisions.  At least it is not
easy to say that it is an early work of Sankara as Hacker said.

The difficulty in determining the existence of revisions is that there is
no well-documented, widely accepted instance of the existence of revisions.
 (No d.r.s.taanta)  What should be the criteria for one to decisively say,
``Oh, this part must be added later''?  That's the question I keep asking

Ideally, discovery of two autographed manuscripts would be a rather strong
evidence.  However, it does not seem to occur any time soon.


More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list