Vasudevahimdi Madhyama Khanda Part 1

SR No.: 002648
Original Sutra Author: Dharmdas Gani
Author: H C Bhayani, R M Shah
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad
Publication Year: 1987
Total Pages: 422
Language: Sanskrit, English
Classification: Book_Devnagari & Literature
File Size: 22 MB

Page 13

Vasudevahindi: Majjhima-khamhḍa
In short all the five Mss. belong to a single tradition, . being the oldest. One strong evidence suports this fact. Ms. . contains only a portion of the text of VM. and thus it is incomplete. It ends with the 18th Lamdha called aafar, but only a section of that Lambha is found and not the whole of it. Inspite of this fact, the scribe of . gives the year of copying, the extent of the ms. (i.e. the total number of 's)and a concluding note, which are the usual features indicating that the text had been completely copied. This strange fact may be explained by assuming that the stock of the palm-leaves that were with the scribe was exhausted. Due to this or some other reason the scribe finished copying in the midst Lambha. It is possible that he might have resumed copying the rest of the 18th Lambha on a fresh supply of palm-leaves and this latter portion of the copy of VM. is now not available to
4
Now it is a very significant fact that all the other four Mss. share this strange feature with . i.e. they also complete the first part of VM. in the midst of the 18th Lambha, eventhough they contain the remaining latter portion of the text down to the last Lambha (numbered 33.) This fact establishes beyond any doubt the unitary character of the tradition for all the five Mss.
Eventhough. is a palm-leaf ms. and was copied as early as the 14th century, the text is corrupt in numerous places. This is much more so in the case of the other Mss. which are considerably later. The scribe of . seems to have been incompetent and there are hundreds of cases of his having misread one letter for another. Even if we suppose that the ms. which formed the basis of his copy was incorrect and defective, this cannot account for such an amount of confusion. Therefore the scribe's ignorance seems to be the cause of the countless mistakes.
The following is an illustrative list indicating what letters were frequently misread by the scribe:
व
A
द
कूद or
637
च्छ
misread
دو
33
35
39
..
""
as
22
""
"3
93
33
""
व
च
म
व
or दठ
GET
727
(eg चवळ for भवन etc.)
(and
vice-versa)
A
39
39
99
33
??