Indian Antiquary Vol 41

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 39

FEBRUARY, 1912.)
LAUKIKANYAYANJALI
35
In the colophons of the same work we read : "fa ETT a
no पूज्यपादशिष्यभगवदानन्दज्ञानकृते श्रीमच्छारीरकमीमांसाभाष्यविभागे-" Aforeover, Anandajmana says that the 19337162 of Sankara had many commentaries in his time ; le actually quotes three or four interpretations of Sloka 2 of the introduction. Thus, this Ananda can never be identified with Ânanda the disciple of Sankara.
It is strange that exactly twenty years before Colonel Jacob's publication, Mr. Karlosachandra Sinha bad committed the saine mistake with relerence to the identity and time of Anandajnâna (vide his Gitá Introduction). Vol. I, p. 48
fecretirat me qerst durata In 1900, Colonel Jacob was "not quite clear as to the drift of the saying." In 1902, he became wiser, and wrote, “It means that 'the Palasa tree is not cleft when the axe is applied to the Khadira tree,' and is used to indicate that two objects are essentially distinct, and stand on separate bases” (p. v. Introduction, Vol. II). Colonel Jacob's translation is all right, but his explanatory note is rather vague. The maxim is meant as an illustration of the well-known doctrine of the EMT 4 of cause and effect. Vol. I, p. 48
af to Colonel Jacob "sbould like more light on this saying." We give below what little light we can. The star is the jajube fruit and lunda here means a vessel contaiuing the jujube fruit. The kunda (*3 ) is an H R i.e., a place where some hing is kept) and the jujube is the sta i.e., a thing which is kept in something). The principle means that you cannot put the Mr and the M y in the same onse. There could be no
T4 in such cases. Vol. I, p. 49
4°34212 This also is a maxim of which the meaning is unknown to Col. Jacob. We give the meaning below:
A lady borrows some ornaments from another and therewith uecoratta her person. A third party.on seeing her, will say that she has (ie, is the owner of) "hese ornamuute. Similar is the case with the expression गोविषयकानयनक्रियागीचरकायंता ज्ञानवान्, for an action er riyd has no विषय; it is only ज्ञान, इच्छा , कृति ( including प्रवृत्ति), वेष that have a विषय. 80 गोविषयकआनयनी क्रया is wrong. But it is justified on the याषितमण्डनन्याय, The action has borroued, so to say, a faz from that are which produced the action, and as a lady in borrowed ornaments is supposed to be in possession of them similarly the action of ZT also may be supposed to hav: the cow' for its 1994; though the cow was really the ind of the that produced the rzafira Vol. II, p. 10
एकदेशविकृतमनन्यवत् । This maxiin is very well known to those who have read any Sanskrit grammar written in Sanskrit. Colonel Jacob seems to have misunderstood it. Kielhorn thus translates it rightly :That which has undergone a change in regard to one of its parts is by no means in consequence of this change) something else than what it was before the change had taken place)-(Parithachen lusekhara p. 179.) Vol. II, p. 13
कारण गुणप्रक्रमन्याय। - The maxim of the reproduction in the effect of certain qunlities, in the proportion in which they exist in the pro.lacing cause." That portion of the above translation which we have printed in italics seems to be redundant. I do not know whether the word way in Nộisimlis Sarasvati's explanation or the word " in the original suggested this import of foreign matter into the explanation of the maxim.