A passage of the Abhidharmakosavyakhya
By Vidhushekhara Bhattacharya
Summary
The passage from the *Abhidharmakosavyakhya* (Bibliotheca Buddhica ed., p. 23, l. 22) discusses the term *loka* (world), analyzing its etymology and usage. The text critiques earlier interpretations, particularly those of Jayaswal, who linked the name *Vasudeva* to Panini's time, arguing that this connection is untenable. The author supports Sir R.G. Bhandarkar's view, citing a 1930 article that validates *Sutra* IV.3.98 of Panini as evidence of *Vasudeva*-worship during Panini's era. While acknowledging Jayaswal's creativity, the passage disputes his conclusions as unsupported. The text then examines the *Abhidharmakosavyakhya*'s linguistic analysis, identifying errors in the editors' (Lévi and Stcherbatsky) and Poussin's French translation. It corrects misreadings, such as *lujyate* and *pralujyate* (derived from *luj* or *lud*, meaning "to break" or "to be destroyed"), rather than *luyate* or *praluyate*. The author references Yasomitra's commentary and Tibetan translations to validate these corrections. Additionally, the passage notes arbitrary changes in the text, such as *gakirasya* being corrected to *jakirasya*. It also challenges the misinterpretation of *vyamamatre* as "fathom," citing the *Safapatha-Brikshmana* as the first source to use this measurement. The analysis underscores the importance of accurate
Conclusion
This analysis of the Abhidharmakosavyakhya passage underscores critical textual inaccuracies and etymological misinterpretations in previous scholarly works, particularly regarding the terms *lujyate* and *pralujyate*, which were erroneously corrected to *juyate* and *pralukyate* without justification. By examining Nepalese manuscripts and cross-referencing Tibetan translations, the study conclusively establishes the original readings as *lujyate* and *pralujyate*, derived from *luh* (to break) rather than *ruk* or *rudh*, emphasizing their semantic link to destruction or dissolution. The findings challenge earlier interpretations, reaffirming the importance of rigorous textual and linguistic scrutiny in understanding Buddhist exegesis. The corrections proposed here not only rectify scholarly oversights but also highlight the necessity of consulting diverse manuscript traditions to reconstruct accurate meanings, ultimately enriching the understanding of Abhidharma terminology and its philosophical implications.