Parmatmaprakasha and Yogsara

SR No.: 001876
Original Sutra Author: Yogindudev
Author: A N Upadhye
Publisher: Paramshrut Prabhavak Mandal
Publication Year: 2000
Total Pages: 550
Language: Sanskrit, Hindi, English
Classification: Book_Devnagari & Literature
File Size: 13 MB

Page 104

Introduction
whose plain and etymological meaning is missed by the commentator. His comments are lucid and simple, and he is very much faithful to the plain meaning of the dohäs. There are no additional philosophical discussions, nor are there any quotations as in the Sk. commentary of Brahmadeva. To give some Idea as to what this gloss is like and to facilitate its comparison with other glosses, I give here two dohas with their comments.1 P.-prakata I. 1:
je jaya jhanaggiye kamma-kaļamka dahevi |
nicca niramjana naŋamaya te paramappa navevi | |
jhanaggiye nijätma-d[h]yanamemba kiccinimdami kamma-kalahka | jäänävarandi-karmmagalemba pullgalam dahevi suttu pleca nityarum | Niranjana niramjanarum niṇamaya kevalajñānādi-svaruparum jaya darulje |arkkelambaru te amtappa | paramappa | paramatmamge navevi podavaduvem [1 Ibidem I. 82 (No. 60 in TKM.):
tarunau budd[h]a ravada sarau pamḍiù dibbu |
khamana budd[h]aŭ sevaḍas maḍhai maṛṇat sabbu | |
79
celuvane | sūras
taruna tarupane | budhdhau vṛdd[h]ane | ravadau sürane dibbu |atisayamappa | pamdiyas pamḍitane | khamanaa samaṇane] budd[h]au baudd[h]ane | sevados | sevakane | sabu (sabbu ?) idellamam tanemdu madhau bahiratmammanna? | bageguth ||
This Gloss Independent of Brahmadeva's Commentary. On many crucial points I have compared this K-gloss with Brahmadeva's Sk. commentary; and I accept the position that the author of this gloss is not acquainted with and has not used the Sk. commentary of Brahmadeva. If Brahmadeva's commentary was before him, we expected him to follow the longer recension adopted by Brahmadeva, to give Sk. equivalents of Apabh. forms like him, and to add supplementary discussion and quotations in his gloss as Brahmadeva has done in his commentary. To quote a parallel case, Balacandra in his Kannada commentary on Pravacanasara inherits many details from the Sk. commentary of Jayasena which he is following. Then there are some significant dissimilarities between the K-gloss and Brahmadeva's commentary which confirm the same conclusion. The recension of this K-gloss is very short as compared with that of Brahmadeva; in fact
1 These extracts are faithfully reproduced here. It should be noted that no distinction is made here between and a and o and following the Ms. For the convenience of the reader some hyphens are put; some aspirates are added in square brackets, as the Ms. does not distinguish d from dh; and for mutual distinction Kannada words are not italicised like the Apabh. ones.
2 TM read Khavana.
3 In the text d is doubled, but here dh: that is due to the peculiarity of writing double consonants with a nolli
4 Note how this form slightly differs from that in the text above.