________________
370
APPENDIX ONE
viklavasya to be a misreading for viklidhasya. But Ravişeņa and Hemacandra did not follow the Taitt. Br. exactly. I translated 'motionless' on the preference of a learned Brāhman pandit and its suitability in the context.
I have still found no explanation of the måtěvadha and pitļvadha. Prof. Handiqui takes it to be a malicious misrepresentation of Vedic rites by the Jains. I do not agree with this. Hemacandra views Brahmanical rites with prejudice and puts the most unfavorable interpretation on them, but certainly he
does not usually invent one outright. P. 159 6. 2. 628). Or perhaps ambuvāha should be taken
as 'water-carrier,' L. That would be appropriate
here. P. 167 (7. 3. 92). The text here is unsatisfactory. That
in the edition is obviously incorrect. I adopted the reading of my best MS, but that is not satisfactory either. If bhagna is read, the idea would seem to be that the bracelets were broken against the bed, while she was tossing about, but that can not be got out of the text. Also adhişarnişaņņao would be more satisfactory than adhīşamniḥsaha'. No MS that I have
seen has a satisfactory compound here. P. 177 (7. 3. 235). One MS has °āśaya, which I think
really preferable. The vocative would be addressed
to Prahasita, of course. P. 251 (7. 6. 838). "Horses' for 'horsemen'? P. 254 (7. 6. 137). Hale may be the vocative of halā,
a form of addressing a woman friend. But would
Sītā use this in addressing Mandodarī ? P. 288 (7. 7. 253). Avalokinyā. There is a strong temp
tation to emend to the usual Avalokini, but the MSS
were like the ed. P. 296 (7. 7. 372). I am not satisfied with cālocenirņayaḥ,
nor the MS cālocanirnayah, which I think prefer
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
