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 5

Instead, up to the pre-résumé portion of De's edition, he almost mechanically
relegates De's readings to the footnotes wherever they happen to differ from his source. This is not only contrary to usual practice, it results in making
the
a number of sentences unnecessarily problematic, and leads to the inconsistency
of occasionally having to presuppose footnote readings in the translation. Also,
a serious student of Kuntaka's work is required to use De's edition beside K's;
he cannot be fully served by K's edition. More importantly, what is the justifi
cation for the removal of De's readings? As far as K informs us, his sole basis
for this part of the text is a photocopy of a transcript of the old Jaisalmer ms. Since De too had the same transcript available for use (see notes 5 and 10) and
compared its readings with those of the Madras transcript, how can the readings
he considered superior be removed through an exclusive acceptance of only one of
his sources ? Or, are the readings accepted by K based on the new Jaisalmer leaves ?
In that case, why does K not refer to those leaves until he is well into the third
unmeşa (p. 154) and why does he refer only to "a second transcript of the one supplied to De" on p. XII while discussing settlement of the pre-résumé text? His remark, "I have given substantially the readings confirmed by it Ethe transcript]," on the same page is also intriguing. What is "substantially" supposed
to mean in the present context? How can one singlemindedly reproduce the readings of a northern transcript/manuscript when the southern manuscripts are generally
known for preserving older readings? The procedure K has adopted shifts the
burden of critical selection from the editor to the reader. If the latter does
not happen to specialise in the area of Sanskrit poetics or textual criticism,
he will need informed guidance from the editor. Since there is no such guidance
in the present edition, he will be either misled, if he puts his trust in the
editor's selection, or frustrated, once he notices that the readings adopted by the editor frequently do not make sense.