________________
OCTOBER, 1876.)
SILPA SASTRA.
293
follows: Having reached Madhyârjuna, cerning the Sankaravijaya, although they have, he, desirous of conquering all the quarters, I think, little bearing on the main question here set out for the Setu.'” Then he quotes with discussed. At p. 171 we find the verses apjai some variants the passage in our Sankaravijaya 217974, &o. put into Sankara's mouth and decommencing at p. 19 and ending on p. 20 at the scribed as aturdift. Now these verses words HEGETHET. Then follow two stanzas of the little poem named Mohamudgara, which in our Sankaravijaya, which Dhanapati's au- is attributed to Sankaracharya himself If this thority apparently did not contain. In the tradition is correct and there seems little reason second stanza of the text Mâdhava says that to distrust it--we have here at least a very noteSankara had a controversy with the saktas, worthy mode of referring to and describing the and his commentator sets out the arguments onverses in question. A similar instance occurs both sides in verse. According to our author, at p. 195, where the reference is to Sankara's however, the controversy here was with the Bhashya on the Bralumasútras. We may reSaivas, and his report of it is in probe. The mark that in the passage from the ancient poet extract in the commentary on this stanza will cited by the commentator on Madhava's Sanbe found to answer to Secs. 19 to 22 of our San- karavijaya the verses are that may be likewise karavijaya, and many coincidences between the found cited, though not as a ff; while the two accounts are obvious. But although these reference to the Sankara Bhdshya is introduced coincidences are of some interest, it would take there, as here, with the words, "The Acharya us too far afield to discuss them. I will has said." content myself with saying that it is just pos- Furthermore, it is not entirely unworthy of sible that our Sankaravijaya is itself based on note that the language of the Sankaravijaya is the work which Dhanapati quotes; and that not by any means correct in point of grammar. in all probability neither was used exclusively, We have forms in abundance like anfira and if used at all, by Madhavâchârya.t A work on tarafuar; ll TV occurs with not a little Sankara's victories is ascribed to another of frequency, and the same remark'applies to the Sankara's papils—Chid vilâ sat-who, I take word a .** In one place we have fau tt it, is identical with Chitsukha. Not having in another fa; 1t in a third we have a access to the work, I am unable to say whether sentence beginning with the word #:$$ It is it was really written by a pupil of Sankara's, or difficult to ascribe all these deviations from whether the author was one of the "ancient grammatical rules to the corruptions of the poets" to whom Madhava refers. Nevertheless, MSS. And if they are not to be so ascribed, the fact that it is attributed to Chitsukha some explanation is necessary as to how they induces me to express the hope that somebody came to find their way into the work. After may undertake to edit and publish it.
much consideration I am bound to say that I One or two other points may be noted con cannot find any satisfactory explanation.
SILPA SASTRA. TRANSLATED BY REV. J. F. KEARNS, TANJORE.
(Continued from p. 237.) Trees.
milk, oozes from the incisions : for if there be “Fell trees according to the foregoing rule, much the trees are unsuitable. Again, if the but observe whether much water, or water-like tree, when falling, makes & noise like the voice
I may mention that some of the quotations in our I See Mackenzie's Collection, vol. I. p. 99, Dr. Hall's Sankaravijaya are to be found in the extracts given by i Contributione, &c. p. 168. See also Aufrecht's CataDhanapati. That from the Vishnu Purana, however, is log148, p. 3606. Chítsukha is mentioned ms pupil of not to be found there. And it is noteworthy that the Vish
Sankars's in Sankaravijaya, p. 19, and Madhava, III. 6. # Purina is not mentioned in Aufrecht's list of the works quoted in our Sankaravijaya.
& See the Commentary on MAdhavs, Canto XV. p. 15, + Madhava's work is larger than oor Sankara jaya, and
stanza 50, and p. 17, stanza 58. cannot, therefore, have been summarized from the latter. Il p. 339.
pp. 16, 103, 251. It alao contains narratives of occurrences and reports of discussions for which no materials are furnished by our
** pp. 180, p. 185. H p. 162. author.
#1 p. 3.
$6 p. 237.
