Sambodhi 1982 Vol 11

SR No.: 520761
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Dalsukh Malvania, H C Bhayani, Nagin J Shah
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad
Publication Year: 1982
Total Pages: 502
Language: English, Sanskrit, Prakrit, Gujarati
Classification: Magazine, India_Sambodhi, & India
File Size: 11 MB

Page 235

226
Satya Vrat
an apt paramnasia, is the most serious defect that afflicts her and the lotuses. The lotuscs close at night (191218 399a), Lakşmi intoxicates people to the extent that tiey become blind to their errors (alag 3179a1 ) Again #1401 fall purports to be a double entendre. It means "the evil effects of jaundice'. A man suffering from jaundice (#1431) regards everything yellow and may not detect his error, or he may become 115777. Thus Faraz: conveys a beautiful idea and in accepting it as the original reading we go as far as season allows. Perhaps unable to understand its exact significance, the ill-equipped scribes broke the phrase into two, thereby impairing its beauty beyond redemption.
of the many instances that Skandagupta, the officer ir charge of the royal elephants, cites to illustrate his thesis that overcredulousness on the part of the ruler spells disaster and as such caution should be his watchword, one pertaing to the king of Kāśı suffers from an odd reading. HgAfaany facta: a l AET SIIG 3919 (P. 200) clearly shows that Suprabbā used the cunning strategem in disposing of Kāśirāja, with fried rice smeared with poison. Ayafaa in the compound can at best be stretched to mean that lajas were void of honey. They surely were, but this is patently absurd in the situation. One does not expect the poison to co-exist with honey. Aynfaa is certainly out of joint here. Ayargă preferred by Kane (P. 5I) is the most appropriate reading that can be substituted for the discredited मधुमोचित. मधुमोदितं provides the convincing reason that brought about the end of the king of Kāśi. He perished for his addiction to wine.
JAFNT (P. 204) cccurs in a series of insista (1.ts that were cou. nded to herald the march of Harşa's army. Kuñja has no place here since it is not the bower but some sort of war-instrument that we expect to accord with the spirit of the description The reading should therefore be rejected in favour of 15 as met with in some Mss and adopted by Kane (P. 34). Guñjā means a 'trumpet'. According to the commentary it was a kind of conch that had its back covered/coated with lac 6 The well-known lexicon, Medini, on the other hand, takes it to mean "drum.'7 Unlike the Bombay edition, P. V. Kane Opts for farer afea in a long clause in the sa ne description : fracassanfon featurलोष्टहन्यमानमेण्ठक्रियमाणासन्नसाक्षिणि makes the complate text The idea evidently 6 गुजासंज्ञः शंखभेदो यत्पृष्ठे जतुपरिकलितं भवति । 7 7551 kraani azt a picaal 1 Medini. Also compare att 997
1951 yi'g: ligar | Bhatti kävya XIV-2.