________________
80
Paramatma-prakasa
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, niranjana and nanamaya are separate words each to be taken in the Nom. plural, while with Brahmadeva they form a compound; then Brahmadeva takes navzvi as a gerund form (pranamya) and connects this doha with the next, while the K-gloss, which does not contain dohas 2-11, takes navžvi 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 vaihdat which he equates with vandakak) and translates as Bauddhah; but the K-gloss clearly reads budd[h]ai, and renders as Baudd[h]ane. Then in the same doha there is a very significant mistake of the K-gloss which renders sävadaü as sēvakane; while Brahmadeva rightly translates it as sveta pataḥ. In dohā I. 88 gural, (T and K read guruü, but in the commentary K has gurau, ) is explained by Brahmadeva as gurava-sabdavacya” svatambarah l, but the K.gloss translates it as gauravanut (?). This K-gloss on the first line of Il. 89 runs thus : 'caffahil gumdugaļlmdamuṁ pattahi maņegaļiņdamuṁ | gundiyahi | gumờigegaļlmdamum'. 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 gundugalin damun. Catta means mat (cf. catai) as I understand it; the Kannada commentator has perhaps coafused it with a Kannada word caffigo meaning an earthen pot. in II. 117 Brahmadeva's reading is vodahadahammi padiya for which T. K and M read coddahahadakamme padiya. Brahmadeva explains it thus : võdaha-sabdina yauvanam sa dva draho mahahradas tatra patitah , while the K-gloss runs thus : coddaha | stri-sariramemba dahakamme (note hada is read as daha karmmada maduvinolu.' In II. 121 dhandhai (TKM read dande possibly for dhardhe, as these Mss. have d often for dh) is explained by Brahmadeva as dhande mithyatva.-vişaya-kaşaya-nimittõtpanni durdhyanarta-raudra-vyasanga; but the K-gloss says; dande parigraha-dvamdvadoļu' the use of the Sanskrit word dvandva shows the insight of the commentator in explaining Apabh. words independently. Instances like thes, 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.
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.-prakása. 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
