________________
28
V. M. Kulkarni
point out that the list of nine rasas in the Anuyogadvāra-sūtra substitutes pridanaka in place of the bhayānaka in the traditional lis:. Here it may further be pointed out that the Anuyogadrāra-sūtra gives the pride of place to the vīra and not to the sigara asa as found in almost all the Sanskrit texts de:ling with poetics. The explanation for this change by the author probably lies in the fact that the present work deals with the highest end of human life, viz., mokşa, and that it is attainable through heroic efforts in conquoring the internal enemies (such as kāma, krodha, etc). The definitions and the verses illustrating these nine rusas are such as are not to be met with in the treatises on the science of dramaturgy or poetics. Still further it may be pointed out here that the Anuyogadvārasītra (3rd century A.D.) is the first among the available texts that speak of Santa-asa. It is, indeed, extra-ordinary that none of the Jain writers on dramaturgy/poetics cares to take note of these significant changes in their treatment of the topic of rasa.
Incidentally, we may refer here to a few errors/misprints, although they are very minor, that have crept in through inadvertance: on p. 26, 1.12 (from below) we should read 'We'for 'I' as the Introduction is contributed by the three editors. On p. 35.1.11 (from below.) we should read destroys. for destroy. On p. 49, 1.4 we should read refuted and on the same page (L. 12) Sthavira. On p. 50, L. 16 we should read pāpat for parāt. On p. 59. 1.10 We should read partially. On p. 71 f.n 59a the Kanagasattarī is referred to as 'this Sanskrit work.' Strictly speaking, it is not erroneous. But the Prakrit title is apt to mislead. On p. 92, 1.12 (from below) we should read ucyante. In the English translation of the Gujarati Introduction (p. 107) Vaiśesikam is given as the Sanskrit equivalent of vesiyan. It ought to have been Vaisikan. The appendices at the end meticulously record all the words in the texts as well as the foot-notes. But rare omissions could be detected. For instance, mugundassa (p. 63, l. 17) is not included in the Appendix (p. 415). Further, the Sanskrit meanings of a few words given in the Appendixes hardly add to
