________________
312
INTRODUCTION
appear to have been composed under the influence Pacınāvatyaştakı. Astaka is merely an adaptation of 'Sārdāstaka' contained in Sarasvatikalpa of Arhaddāsa. The latter contains only eight verses while the former contains twelve verses. Only the last four verses appear to be newly composed by the writer adapting Sārdāştaka. The Mantras at the end of the Dandaka are probaly from another Mantrakalpa. The language of Pratyekapūjā and Jayamālā at many places borders on Sankritized Hindi and at other places it is ungrammatical Sanskrit.
Referring to Padmăvati Patala we can say that some one has composed it in close imitation of the famous Padmāvatvastaka We may refer to a similar hymn viz. Sri Cakresvaryastaka contained in Appendix 23. The unknown authors had perhaps the same model of Sri Padmā. vatyaştaka before them and might be identical. Astaka, Pratyekapājā and Jayamālā are probably by some Digambara Jain writers.
We would note here that Bhāskararāi the famous author of Bhāsya on Lalitásahasranāma cites while commenting on the words *12.211 faflatt:' in v. 36 a passage * from Rudrayāmala which gives names of some well-known Shaktis. Both Padmāvati as well as Tārā are included therein. As noted by us in the footnote at p. 295 ante Padmāvati is identified with various deities including Tārā. If one is rash enough to infer from such identification that Padmavati was not independently worshipped and that Padmāvati is only another name of Tārā the above passage from Rudrayāmala would be an
"Tenerife! safari बालान्नपूर्णा बगला तारा वाग्वादिनी परा ॥ गायत्री चेव सावित्री सिद्धलक्ष्मी: स्वयंवरा । नकुली तुरगारूढा कुरुकुल्ला च रेणुका ॥ संपत्करी च साम्राज्यलक्ष्मी: पद्मावती शिवा । दुर्गा भद्राकृतिः काली कालरात्रिः सुभद्रिका । छिन्नमस्ता भद्रकाली कालकण्ठी सरस्वती ॥"
