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 112

Introduction
87
on this point because the information supplied by Kavicarită is very meagre and because there is the possibility of Balacandra (Maladhare) being mistaken for Balacandra (Adhyātmi).
4. Another Kannada Gloss (Q-Gloss) on P.-prakāśa The Kannada Gloss in the Ms. Q-As distinguished from the Kannada gloss contained in the Ms. K, here is another gloss accompanying the text of P-prakasa in the Ms. Q which is described below. We do not get any information either about the author or the date of this gloss. There is a salutationary remark, at the close of the Ms., in which it is stated that the auspicious feet of Munibhadrasvāmi are a shelter. This indicates that either the author of this Kannada gloss or the copyist of this Ms. or its earlier original was a pupil of one Munibhadrasvāmi.
Nature of this Gloss and the Need of such Glosses-This Q-gloss, like the K-gloss, gives merely the Kannada paraphrase of the dohas with no additional discussions. In matters of faithfulness etc. to the original, K-gloss appears to be superior to Q-gloss. That we come across such anonymous vettis, as we find in Mss, like K and Q. clearly indicates how P.-prakasa was very popular in the circles of devout Jaina ascetics and laymen; and it is imaginable that many novices, after they understood the meaning of dohās from their teachers, had their own study-notes by way of a literal paraphrase in their mother-tongue.
Comparison of Q-gloss with other Commentaries-A detailed comparison of this gloss with K-gloss on the one hand and with the Sk. commentary of Brahmadeva and its Kannada version by Maladhāre Balacandra on the other would settle its exact relation with others. I have carefully studied the gloss on some twenty dohās selected at random, and compared the same with K-gloss and Brahmadeva's commentary. A few typical cases I might note here. On I. 25 K-gloss and Q-gloss agree almost verbally. In I. 26 dēvu is rendered by K as paramātmadēvam, by Brahmadeva as paramaradhyaḥ, anc by Q as paramaradhyanappa Siddha-paramèşthi. In I. 46 samsaru is translated by Ka caturgari-samsaramum, by Brahmadeva as dravya-kşitra - kala-bhava-bhaya-rūpah parami.gama-prasiddhaḥ panca-prakaraḥ samsaraḥ, by Balacandra as dravyādi-pamcavidhasamsāramum, and by Q-gloss as dravyo-kşetra-bhaya - bhava-rūpamappa caturgati-samsäramum. In I. 46*1, which is not found in Brahmadeva's recension, Qgloss slightly improves on K-gloss and changes the order of words in the explanation. As against K-gloss on I, 82 noted above, Q reads vamdai and explains it as Baudhanum; and sēvadaü is interpreted by Q-gloss as svētapatanumemde. In the same dohā tarunaü is translated by K as tarunane, by Brahmadeva as yauvanastho' ham, by Balacandra as kumārane, and by Q as yavvananu. To compare with the extracts given in our study of K-gloss,