Hetubindu Tika

Author(s): Dharmakirti Mahaswami, Archatt Bhatt, Durvek Mishra Pandit, Sukhlal Sanghavi, Jinvijay, B Bhattacharya
Publisher: Oriental Research Institute Vadodra

Page 8

INTRODUCTION
(1) CRITICAL APPARATUS
This edition contains two works: (1) Arcata's Hetubindu-tika and (2) Durveka's sub-commentary Aloka on the Hetubindu-tikā. The text of the Hetubindu-tikā is based on a single palm-leaf MS. in Sanskrit (called S). We collated the Sanskrit text with the Tibetan Version (called T). The text of the sub-commentary Aloka is based upon the Reprints (called P) of the Photo MS. of the Aloka belonging to the Bihar and Orissa Research Society, Patna. We collated it with the MS. (called N) obtained from Nepal. Let us briefly describe the Critical Apparatus.
. S. This MS. of the Hetubindu-tikā belongs to the Sanghavipadā Bhaņdāra of palm-leaf MSS. It is the MS. No. 302 as noticed in Catalogue of Manuscripts at Pattan, Vol. I, p. 177 (G. O. S., Vol. LXXVI). Size 12'x11". Fols. 216.
This is a worn out MS. with fols. Nos. 6, 21, 27, 52, 117 and 178 completely destroyed. The page-marks of about twenty leaves from the beginning are mauled. And, in many places, along with the tearing out of the corner, a bit of the text is also damaged. In almost all the places of destruction of a portion of the text, we have supplied the lost portion in square brackets. Besides this, in some places of the MS. some letters are lost and we have supplied them, as far as possible, in the same type of brackets. The amended readings have been placed in round brackets immediately after the original readings of the MS. There are on some pages marginal notes which have been given by us as foot-notes in their respective places.
An extra leaf, obviously belonging to another MS. of the same text, has somehow been incorporated in the present MS. The content of this leaf is the same as that of the leaf No. 207 of the present MS. The extra leaf records some variants. We have collated the two texts and incorporated in our text only those readings which appeared to us to be more correct, recording the others as variants. The extra leaf has been referred to by the symbol a (ala, new), while the corresponding leaf of the present MS. has been referred to by the symbol g=gcast, old). The MS. that contained the extra leaf does not appear to have been either an original or a copy of the present Ms. for two reasons. Firstly, there could hardly be possible so many variant readings in a single leaf if the MS. of the extra leaf had been an original or a copy of the present MS. Secondly, and this is the stronger reason, the