________________ REVIEWS 149 eleven verses. Probably he had studied the apohavada in this commentary. It seems difficult to imagine that Dignaga would have written both a Samanyalaksanapariksa and a Samanyapariksa." Simhasuri refers also to a commentator of a work by Dignaga. According to the editor, the commentator is not Dignaga himself nor Dharmakirti nor Jinendrabuddhi who both belong to a later period. Isvarasena is known to have written a commentary on the Pramanasamuccaya, but his work is lost. 19 According to Frauwallner, he was probably the teacher of Dharmakirti.20 The identity of the commentator to whom Simhasuri refers, is a problem the solution of which must be left to future research. Obviously, Simhasuri's work quotes many Jain texts. The editor points out that the quotations from the Agamas often give a text different from the one established in Vira 980 (= Vikr. 510). He admits that both Mallavadin and Simhasuri must have lived before that date. Further he remarks that the quotations from the Nandisutra in the eighth ara prove that originally this work consisted of two parts, sutra and bhasya, which were later amalgamated into one work. Little is known about Simhasuri. A verse from another work by him is quoted by Kottarya in his commentary upon the Visesavasyakabhasya. Kottarya quotes Dignaga, the Avasyakacurni and Simhasuri's commentary, but not Kumarila and Dharmakirti. Simhasuri quotes three verses which also occur in the Visesavasyakabhasya, but according to the editor the source of this quotation is a different work. He supposes that Simhasuri lived shortly after Mallavadin, because he refers to Dignaga as a "contemporary Bauddha" (adyatanabauddha) and quotes the Agamas according to a tradition different from the one established in Vikrama 510. As mentioned above, the editor first used six manuscripts. All these manuscripts go back directly or indirectly to a manuscript written by Yasovijayaya (MS. YA) in Vikrama 1710. Only when the first seven ara-s had been printed, did this manuscript come to the notice of the editor. In establishing the text of these ara-s, the editor gives the variant readings of these six manuscripts. In an appendix he lists the readings of MS. YA for those places where the six manuscripts have not the same readings (pp. 142-146). In editing the text of the last five ara-s, the editor does not give the variant readings of the six manuscripts, but only refers to MS, YA. As mentioned earlier, the discovery of an older manuscript was of great help to the editor. This manuscript, referred to by the editor as MS. BHA, was written by Punja at the order of Dharmamurti who lived from Vikrama 1585 to 1670. It gives many correct readings not to be found in the six manuscripts derived from MS. YA. The editor assumes that it has been written about Vikrama 1650 and consequently is sixty years older than MS. YA. MS. YA seems to be more correct than MS. BHA, but both share several incorrect readings. For this reason the editor believes that both manuscripts descend from a common archetype. 21 The editor does not provide us with a palaeographic description of the manuscripts, but gives a useful list of aksara-s which have been misread by the scribes (prakkathana, p. 37). The numbers in the margin of the text refer to MS. BHA (e.g. recto and verso of f. 4 are indicated by 4-1 and 4-2). In quoting the text of the Nayacakravrtti in his notes 19 Cf. Ernst Steinkellner, "Bemerkungen zu Isvarasenas Lehre vom Grund", WZKSO, X (1966), pp. 73-85. 20 Cf. WZKSO, V (1961), p. 141. 11 The edition of the Nayacakra published in GOS, No. CXVI is based upon two manuscripts, MS. PA (one of the six manuscripts based upon YA) and MS. BHA (MS. BHA of Muni Jambuvijayaji's edition). These two manuscripts seem to have been used only by the second editor Lalacandra B. Gandhi (cf. prastavana, pp. 37-38). In the first part of the text references are given to MSS. KA, KHA, GA and GHA, but no information is given about these manuscripts. A few readings from PA and BHA are quoted on pages 1-10. Probably they were added later by the second editor.
