________________
DECEMBER, 1911.)
MISCELLANEA
311
Page 131, col. 1. "Sågaramiśra" is another Page 220, col. 1. In Kşamakalyana's pedigree, person who owes his existence to a misreading. the name of bis guru has been omitted at the The colophon gives his name correctly as head of the article. The Sanskrit quoted Matisagara, who is known from other sources. further down in the column clearly shows that The words mean: "belonging to the Lecturer the pedigree is : Jinalabha, Amftadharma K.", disciple of the Mahopkiby&ya Matis&gara, Vacaka, Ksamåkalyana. in the Upakeša fraternity."
Page 221, col. 1. If we may judge by the Page 131, col. 2. The word mogendra is not index, this colophon has not been understood. part of a name. It is to be connected with the The senso is as follows: The manuscript was preceding word: gani-rrgendra means merely a written at Azimganj on the banks of the Ganges, noble gani or Dean.
by a "Yatiśn" whose naine is not clear (perhaps Page 132. col 2. Sripattana is certainly not Jita sobhagji), by the grace of the blessed Patoas it muans Anbilv&d or Anahilla-pattana Cintamani; the Yati Sundaravijaya appended in Gujarat.
his sign manual to attest that it was a true copy. Page 133, col. 1. The opening words of article * Cintamani" here and in Weber, loc. cit, is 1140 seem to be a mistake, for, something like the Tirtbagkara Pårsvanátha, not a patron, as "Hemachandra's commentary Sabdanus sagavptti the compilers imagine; cf. p. 228. col. 1, and on his own Sabdanussana.”
p. 237, col. 1. Page 266, col. I. Is there a distinct Tulu
Page 222, col. 2. Is not "Gunaprabha" an cltaracter ?
error for "Guņabhadra?" Page 169; col. 1. For " Voudhyeśvariprasad," Page 223, col. 1. The authorship of this comread Vindhyeśvari prazdi.”
mentary is doubtful; Mitra, Notices, VIII, Page 169, col. 2. For "Zainul Abuddn," read p. 174, is not by any means " decisive for Ratna ** Zain ul-Abiidn."
sekhara's authorship." The compilers omit to Page 181, col. 2. " Arama" is another
mention that Mitra, Notices X, p. 151, describes chimæra bombinens in vacuo. The manuscript # manuscript of the avacari with a colophon itsell rightly reads mevarima, a good Hindi ending with the words lilekha Tilakodayal; name (for an example see Garcin de Tassy, and it seems to me very likely that Tilakodaya Vol. II, p. 302); the compilers of our Catalogue
(Udaya-tilaka P) was not only the seribe, but also apparently take me for m.iyi, and make up an the compiler of the gloss, as so often happened in imaginary "Vârâma" from the remainder.
the making of avaciris. Page 192, col. 2. “Jadubbarata" is a mistake.
Page 226, col. 1. I do not understand the "Jarlu" has nothing to do with Yadr, and
interrogation in line 23 from the top. All that is could not by any possibility be a "prakritism for the latter word. The right form is Jada
wrong is a misplaced anusura; read Yalindra. bharata. The tale comes from the Vişnu-purana,
vara-Shajakarttayah. and is well-known in South India.
The colophon of this article 1393 seerns to have Page 208, col. 2. The work noticed in article been quite misunderstood. It moans apparently 1346 is identical with that by Padmasagara that Sabajakirtti had two brothers," Srivardescribed in Mitra's Notices, Vol. IX., p. 81. dbana and Vararatna, whose disciples were
Page 215, col. 1. It does not seem reasonable to Nemaranga and Kanakaranga. The latter's dis Identify the pious Jain scribe Jagardinn with the ciple, Dauavisil, was guru of Ksama kamala, Saiva author Jagurâna, when they come from Vidyasoma, Ganeša, and Lacchirima, for whom diferens religions ancestries, and have only a the manuscript was written. name in common.
Page 227, col. 2. "Sritajayapamhutastotra "is Page 219, col. 1. In line 10 from bottom there obviously # mistake for the well-known Tijaya. is a wrong division of words. Read Meghabhápabutta-stotra, commonly ascribed to Abhayaryasa Viriti, i.e., Meghabharya dsa Viri iti, deva. "Megba's wife was named Viri." The latter Page 223. col. ), sect. 11. The darsana here name is common among Jains.
mentioned has nothing to do with the portraits in Page 219, col. 2. "Leláklya" is not a name, the preceding pages of the manuscript. It means but a compound. The name is Lela (if the a visit to a temple and adoration of the idols. reading is right), to which is added 'khya in Page 228, col. 2. There seems no reason for the usual sense of Námaka.
classing the Jicarapamahatmya of Hariraya
