________________
Ꮲ Ꭱ E F A C Ꭼ .
Prabodhacandrodaya of Krşņa miśra Yati is now published with the commentary Nāțakābhara na of Govindāmsta Bhagavān, a disciple of Paramahamsa parivrājaka Prakāśatirtha. Though the work is written in easy and elegant language, the subject matter being the essence of Verlautis system of pbilosophy, l'equires more than one commentary for its elucidation. An crudite commentary on the work like a staff to old men will indeed be of great help to students, lest the apparent simplicity of language should conceal the depth of philosophic thought embedded therein. The text contains many variant readings caused by commentators of different taste or actually by the author himself, and this counmentary will be of great use to those who are in need of suitable eli. cidation of the text. An edition of this work has been published by the Nirnayasagar Press, Bombay with two commentaries Candrikā and Prakāśal and a comparison of the readings in that edition shows that the commentary Naţakā bharaṇa now published is invaluable one on the work, Taku for instance the following verse in the two editions,
विद्याप्रबोधोदयजन्मभूमि
राणसी ब्रह्मपुरी निरत्यया । असौ कुलोच्छेदविधि चिकीर्षुनिर्वस्तुमत्रेच्छति नित्यमेवम् ॥
(Nirnayasagar edition p. 63.) विधाप्रबोधोदयजन्मभूमि
वाराणसी ब्रह्मपरी दुरत्यया । असौ कुलोच्छेदविधि चिकित्सु.
fatárga sura facha II 90.52) Hero in the place of ferrey: in the tbird line, the Nir. hayasayar edition reads feat which is obviously inappro.
te to the context. For, according to the latter reading, the verse would mean that Mahā mohã, with a view to cause obstruction to Viveka, desires to reside in Benares by way of bringing ruin to his family, which is, on the face of it, wrong. Even if we take it to refer to Viveka, how could Viveka work for the extinction of his family? The proper reading should be faring: as is adopted by our commentator, A perusal of the commentary shows that many similar readings quite appropriate to the text are embodied in it,
