Is it Caryacaryaviniscaya or Ascaryacaryacaya?
By Vidhushekhara Bhattacharya
Summary
The text discusses two main topics: the dating of Sankaracarya and the correct title of a philosophical work. Regarding Sankaracarya, it argues that he cannot be dated earlier than the 8th century CE, as he references Dignaga (likely 5th–6th century CE) in his commentary on the Brahmastutras. A key karika (verse) linked to Dignaga’s Alambanapariksha is quoted, with support from Tibetan translations and scholarly analysis. This establishes Sankaracarya’s chronological position relative to Buddhist thinkers. The second focus is on resolving the title discrepancy between *Caryacaryaviniscaya* and *Ascaryacaryacaya*. The author critiques Mahimahopadhyaya’s edition, noting the absence of evidence for *Caryacaryaviniscaya* in the text or commentary. Instead, the commentary explicitly mentions *Aicaryacaryacaya*, with linguistic analysis confirming *caryacarya* (wonderful religious observance) as the correct title. The work’s content aligns with similar texts, reinforcing this conclusion. The text suggests a scribe’s error may have introduced the alternate title. Additionally, it examines Sankara’s reference to a Buddhist passage in his Brahmastutra commentary, identifying it as an abridged version from the *Adkidharmakavyakhyana*, though the original source remains unspecified.
Conclusion
This investigation conclusively demonstrates that the correct title of the work is *Ascaryacaryacaya*, not *Caryacaryaviniscaya*, as evidenced by internal textual references, commentary analysis, and comparative titlature of similar works. The misattribution likely originated from a scribe’s error in the manuscript used for editing. The findings underscore the importance of meticulous textual and contextual scrutiny in resolving historical and editorial ambiguities, ensuring accurate representation of philosophical traditions. The study also reaffirms Sankara’s chronological position relative to Buddhist scholars like Dignaga, further anchoring the historical context of these texts. This conclusion clarifies a longstanding bibliographic confusion and highlights the value of interdisciplinary approaches in deciphering ancient manuscripts.