________________
Esther A Solomon
this but tries to bring it la confirmity with the line D V by means of to expression 'ranmatra-pancakas' caiya' There is one mira too few in V JT, Y and also M which last has 'tanmatra-pancaka'calva' instead of Janmalrakah pancakas calval of V, 10 which there is one matra too many The arya in G which follows V, is free from any metrical defect, though the expression fanmätrah' is rather odd (It may be noted that Ikvarakrina himself has used it in ka 25)
co-ghrana-na-nasikanthyant
(G)
(H) Kä.26, first line
buddhindnyani cakşuh-śrotra-ghrana-rasana-sparsanan (V) buddhindriyani srotra-tvak-cakşa-rasana-nasikakhyani (V1) buddhindrlyani karna tuak-cakşü-rasana-nastkakhyant (Y) buddhidriyani caksuh-Stotra-ghrana-rasana-sparbanak ani (G) buddhindriyanl cakun-Srotra-toag-rasana-nastkakhyani (J) buddhindriyani coksuh-frotra-ghrana rasana-ivagakhyanı (T) buddhındriyant frotra-ivak-cakşū-rasana-näsıkakhyanı (M)
v seems to have modified the line in V, 60 as to mention the sense-organs in the proper order The line 19 metrically defective, but Y rectlfies this G follows V., but the line 19 metrically defective The line 19 defective in J also, unless there was 'rasana' in the place of 'rasana' (-J actually says 'rasanath rasyate yena') The lae in T is an improvement on that In G, and the line in M is an improvement on that in V It may be noted that V, has retained 'rupadifu' in ka 28, even though it bas changed the order of the mention of the sense-organs in Ka 26 (śrotra) and the author of Y criticises this saying that there should be 'sabdadişu' In confromity with the reading in kæ 26 (W) 6.27
sankalpakam afra manas tac cendriyan ubhayatha samakhyalam, antas trikalavisayam tasmad ubhaya pracaran tat (V r ) wbhayatmakam atra manah sankalpakam Indnyam ca sadharmyat ,
guna-pariņāmanšesan nanaivam bahyabhedac ca (1) GJ, T and M bave the same karika-text as Vi, only G, J and T have 'bahyabhedas ca 10stead of 'bahgabhedac ca' and M has 'grahyabhedac ca'. In Paramartha's version, the first llae is the same as in V, and the second line the same as in v It may be noted that the second line as found in Vi can be derived from V, on ka 27
Morcover karikas 72 and 73 (the latter being found only in V, and M) secm to be the composition of the author of V1, as Paramariba quotes Ka 72 saying It is a verse composed by an intelligent man of this (school)' Tho Yuk dipika also seems to quote it and in the Jayamangalam
