________________
12
TILOYAPANNATTI
I could make only a partial attempt. I hope, others would spot many such verses in various works. These găthās fall into two broad groups: those that are identical with dialectal variations; and those that nearly or partly agree in contents.
Compare Mūlācāra (Bombay Sam. 1977-80) V. 34 (last pāda slightly different), XII. 81-2 with TP I. 95, VII. 614-15; so also Mū. XII. 37-40, 62, 107-8, 115, 136-37, 150 with TP V. 28-31, IV. 2952, VIII. 685-6, II. 290, VIII. 680-81, III. 186.
Compare Pañcâstikāya (Bombay 1915) 75, 146, 152 with TP I. 95, IX. 20, 21. Compare Pravacanasāra (Bombay 1935) I. 1, 9, 11, 12, 13, 77, II. 69, 70, 103 with TP IX. 73, 56, 57, 58, 59, 54, 29, 30, 50; so also Prava. I. 52, II, 54*3, 68,99 (also III. 4), 102, 104, III. 39 with TP IX, 64, II. 277, IX. 28, 34, 33, 19, 37. Compare Samayasāra (Bombay 1919) 11*1, 38, 69, 154 with TP IX. 23, 24, 63, 53; so also Samaya. 19, 36, 188, 306 with TP IX. 43, 25, 47, 49.
Compare Bhagavati Arādhanā (Sholapur ed.) 886-87, 916, 922, 1583 with TP IV. 628-9, 634, 635, 618; so also Bhaga. 883-9, 904, 935 with TP IV. 629, 630, 636.
The Paramātma-prakāśa of Joindu (Bombay 1937) is in Apabhramsa. One of its verses II. 60 is in a different dialect. Its presence in the Paramātma-p. is sufficiently authentic. But for its last pāda it is identical with TP IX. 52. Possibly Joindu himself has quoted it just putting the last pāda into the first person to agree with the general tone of his composition.
Compare TP I. 95 with Gommațasāra (Jivakānda, Bombay 1916) 603; so also TP III. 180–81, IV. 2952, VIII. 685 f. with Jiva. 426-27, 82, 429 f. (also Visesăvaśyakabhāsya 695). Compare TP III. 9, IV. 2206, VI. 42-4, 48-9, VII, 530, VIII. 566 with Trilokasāra 209, 687, 265-67, 271-72, 411, 531; so also TP III. 38, IV. 2598 (slso 2818) VI. 38-41 with Trilo. 215, 761, 261-63.
The Sanskrit Lokavibhāga, which is not published as yet, contains a large number of gāthīs quoted from TP. The Jambuddiyapannatti of Paümanamdi also contains a few gāthās inherited from TP which has influenced its format as well.
Māghanandi has written an exhaustive Kannada commentary (Belgaum 1916) on the sūtras of the Sāstrasărasamuccaya. He has richly interspersed it with quotations in Prākrit, Sanskrit and Kannada, of course without specifying their sources. The Prākrit ones are printed most corruptly. Even by a casual search I find that the following gāthās from TP are quoted on the pages of the S. noted in brackets: TP IV. 1614-23 (pp. 7-8), 1500-1 (p. 28), 1534, 1544 (p. 30), 522-5 (p. 32), 550, 642, 643 (p. 35), 675-78 (pp. 37–8), 901-3, 905, 929 (p. 46), 1472-73 (p. 56); VIII, 168 (P. 107). The gāthās are so corrupt in the printed copy of the commentary that it is often difficult to detect their identity in the TP.
5. Concluding Remarks The first part of TP was published by the middle of 1943, and we regret that it took seven years to put the second part in the hands of impatient readers. The reasons for delay were manifold and mostly beyond our control. Scarcity of paper and difficulties in the Press not only slowed down our speed but often threatened also to put a full stop to our work for a while. Thanks to the Manager of the Press that the printing went on though slowly. Then the compilation and printing of the Indices involved a good deal of labour. Lastly, the editors (as one of them was seeing the Yaśastilaka and Indian culture by Professor Handiqui through the press required a bit more time to finish the Introduc
