________________
Paramatma-prakala
there is a difference of 112 verses. The K-gloss has preserved many important readings and. Interpretations independent of Brahmadeva. In the interpretation of the very first doha the K-gloss fundamentally differs from Brahmadeva in the K-gloss nicca, niramjana and nanamaya are separate words each to be taken in the Nom. plural, while with Brahmadeva they form a compound; then Brahmadeva takes navĕvi as a gerund form (pranamya) and connects this doha with the next, while the K-gloss, which does not contain dohas 2-11, takes nuvivi as 1st person Sg. of the Present, Sk. namami, vi being treated as the weak form of mi. In doha I. 82 Brahmadeva has a word vardai which he equates with vandakaḥ and translates as Bauddhah; but the K-gloss clearly reads budd[h]au, and renders as Baudd[h]ane. Then in the same doha there is a very significant mistake of the K-gloss which renders sevadaŭ as sivakane; while Brahmadeva rightly translates it as tapata h. In doha 1. 88 gura, (T and K read gurus, but in the commentary K has guras, ) is explained by Brahmadeva as gurava-labdavacyaḥ svetambaraḥ, but the K-gloss translates it as gauravanush (?). This K-gloss on the first line of II. 89 runs. thus caffahi gumdugalimdamuh pattahi manegalimdamum gundiyahi" | gumdigegalimdamum', Brahmadeva does not explain these words; perhaps they appeared to be quite easy to him being current in the contemporary languages. The Kannada commentator, being of course a southerner, commits a mistake that he renders cattahi as gundugalih lamun. Caya means mat (cf, catal) as I understand it; the Kannada commentator has perhaps confused it with a Kannada word caftige meaning an earthen pot. In II. 117 Brahmadeva's reading is vadahadahammi padiya for which T. K and M read coddahahadakamme padiya. Brahmadeva explains it thus vädaha-sabdina yauvanam sa ava drah mahāhradas tatra patitaḥ, while the K-gloss runs thus: coddaha stri-sariramemba dahakamme (note hada is read as daha) | karmmada maduvinolu." In II. 121 dhamhdhal (TKM read dande possibly for dhahdhe, as these Mss. have d often for dh) is explained by Brahmadeva as dhandi mithyatva--vişaya-kaṣaya-nimittätpanne durdhyanarta-raudra-vyasanga; but the K-gloss says; damde parigraha-dvamdvadolu' the use of the Sanskrit word dvandva shows the insight of the commentator in explaining Apabh. words independently. Instances like these. which show the independence of the K-gloss, can be easily multiplied. If the author of this K-gloss had used Brahmadeva's commentary, he would not have maintained such differences and committed the errors some of which are noted above.
80
On the Age of K-gloss.-The above conclusion implies another possible deduction that this Kannada gloss will have to be dated earlier than Brahmadeva. And from the following study of other commentaries it will be clear that K-gloss is perhaps the earliest known commentary on P.-prakasa. Its antiquity, to a certain extent at least, is confirmed by the comparative old
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
