1)

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 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.

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 nanartha2 (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 Tika3 and the bibliography there.

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 AACHEN 2002.