Vakrokti Jivita Of Kuntaka

SR No.: 269528
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: K Krishnamoorthy
Publisher: K Krishnamoorthy
Total Pages: 29
Language: English
Classification: Article
File Size: 2 MB

Page 23

-23
Series 36. Such a correlation leads me to believe that the transcript
photographed for K is item no. 379 on p. 217 of Punya-vijayajī's catalogue. It is a modern transcript prepared in 1926 probably for De's use and returned
(a) by him. This guess is confirmed by the photographs of its two pages printed
by K between Contents and Introduction which display modern orthography, and (5)
by K's phrase in the Preface: "a paper transcript of the work actually supplied to De for his second edition." Only after a correlation of details
could I determine that in this phrase the constituent "actually supplied to
De for his second edition" qualifies "transcript" and not "work."
6.
The element of uncertainty in this observation is again due to the fact that
K does not make a clear and comprehensive statement about his sources.
7. The reader is expected to understand this strange procedure from the following
ambiguous sentence (p. 1, fn. 1): "Variant readings given in the foot-notes
are as in S.K. De's 1961 Edition of the text." This sentence does not mean
that K's footnote readings agree with De's footnote readings, but that the
readings accepted by De become K's footnote readings whenever they happen to
differ from K's sources for the text.
8.
I could confirm that the new leaves cover a large part of the pre-résumé
portion (first two unmesas and a part of the third) of De's edition only
after an eye-straining comparison of the photographs printed by K with the
text. K's statements and silence about 'J' (= the new leaves) until p. 154
the give the impression that new leaves pertain only to the portion not covered in De's ms. B, that is, only (a) the later portion of unmesa 3 and (b) unmesa 4. This impression, in turn, makes one wonder whether the new leaves are not in
fact simply a previously unidentified or unlocated part of De's ms. B - whether
K's (p. XII) description of them as "a new Ms." is correct.