________________
INTRODUCTION
ixxiii he is identical with the grammarian Dharma dāsa,
quoted in another place (I, p. 161, 1. 20) Dharma.
by Sarvānanda and several times by Goyichandra in his commentary on the Samkşiptasāra.'
The Niga mābh id hāna or Nig a mākh y a A bhidhāna, quoted several times by Sarvānanda
. and also by Rāyamukuta,' appears to have The Nigami- been, like the Amarakoșa, a synonymous bhidhana. lexicon with a chapter on homonyms.' The author is not known.
The authority quoted as the Muni by Kșirasvāmin and Hemacandra (in the commentary to his Abhidhāna
cintāmani) is, according to Aufrecht, C.C. I The Muni.
462, and Borooah, Amarakoga p. x, probably identical with Kātya, while according to K. G. Oka, Nāmalingānuśāsana, Intro., p. 5, with Vyādi. But Kșirasvāmin on Amara II, 6.18 quotes, though not for the same word, both from Kātya and the Muni, which throws some doubt on the first view. Oka's view seems to rest merely on the fact that Vyādi, who is also considered to be a Muni and who, being an old writer, ought to have been quoted by Kșīrasvāmin, might probably have been quoted under the general name Muni. Muni's koşa, too, was synonymous and in the sloka metre.
The Rantik osa of Ranti or Rantide va has been twice quoted by Sarvānanda (II, p. 68, l. 21 and II, p. 74, 1. 17) and now and then by later writers. There
seems to be no reason to consider him older Rantideva.
than Amara. The koşa must have contained
Soe Samkş., p. 26, 1. 14; p. 156, 1. 21, etc. • C.C. I, 2954 > Cf. ATARİ Tanz' fa fanaredARTUTA Sarvā., I, p. 204, 1. 17. * See the quotations in Kşir.
