________________
INTRODUCTION.
can be selected from Balacandra's commentary; and the above passage is almost the same as that of Jayasena with a few Kannada terminations etc. added here and there which are not italicised.
1
Balacandra's commentary is shorter than that of Jayasena. The topical analysis and grouping of gathas, the high-flowing concluding remarks at the close of literal interpretation of certain important gāthās,1 the supplementary discussions containing many original suggestions and quotations, the critical insight of textual explanation with the help of grammatical rules, beautiful quotations here and there, references to his commentary on Pañcăstikaya, alternative interpretations of certain gathās: these and many others are the peculiar features of Jayasena's commentary; but all these points, which are so essential in a genuine commentary, are conspicuously absent in the Kannada commentary of Balacandra. Balacandra merely explains the gathās word for word in Kannada, and sometimes he adds a few remarks by way of analysis and explanation and some quotations, which in that very context, are found in more details in the commentary of Jayasena.
CVII
PRIORITY OF JAYASENA'S COMMENTARY.-Taking into consideration these close similarities between the commentaries of Jayasena and Balacandra one has to say something on the relative priority of one or the other. The points of agreement are such that these commentaries are not independent of each other. Pt. Jugalkishore holds that Jayasena is later than Balacandra.s From the comparison of the two commentaries drawn above, it would be clear to any one that Balacandra has written his commentary placing before him that of Jayasena alone. Balacandra's commentary is a mechanical performance; and, so far as I have compared both, I have no hesitation to say that there is no discussion of Balacandra which is not found in Jayasena's commentary. The individual traits of Jayasena's commentary, his comprehensive grasp of the whole text and his plain remarks on his additional gāthās are not found in Balacandra's commentary. Comparing their styles, Balacandra's Kannada is Sanskrit-ridden and artificial; and its only explanation is that he is rendering into Kannaḍa some Sanskrit commentary. Jayasena closely follows Amṛtacandra, and he plainly refers to him more than once; the commentary of Balacandra was utilised by Jayasena, he would have ainly referred to it. Balacandra has not, so far as I have peeped through MS. of his commentaries, referred to Amrtacandra; possibly he is not other commentary than that of Jayasena. So Jayasena flourished than Balacandra; and even Balacandra, I think, hints the same, when ames his commentary as Tatparya-vṛtti and when he says:
of
any
dhrta-ratnatritayam Pra
bhṛta-sutranugata-vṛttiyam* palargam Prā- |
lerta-Karnataka-vākyā
1 See for instance I, 15.
2 See for instance II, 46-7.
3 Svāmi Samantabhadra p. 167, foot-note. 4 v. l. vṛtliyim.
