________________
3
Dhatuparayanam-A Review Note
43
Some comparisons and parallels with remarks in Madhaviya Dhatuvṛtti and Maitreya's Dhatupradipa are offered. The editors should deserve praise for this kind of enthusiastic endevour.
The editors claim that they have made use of eight palm-leaf manuscripts obtained form Patan. They do not give details about the manuscripts. The references to the readings found in those manuscripts arc sparingly given. I may be permitted to say that they have allowed themselves to accept considerable help from Kirste's edition. It is likely that they have consulted Deccan college manuscripts. However they do not refer to the readings from them. Kirste has mainly followed the Deccan College manuscripts.
1. Against a combined testimony of the mss.
Sam pa 1, Va, Pra; Sam 1, Sam 2, Tapa and Kirste in 'avayavairanyonyam dhavatiti Sarah', the editors read avayavairanyonyam sarati Dhavatili sarah (P. 12, L. 25). Here 'sarati' is unnecessary.
2. The editors read 'sankocitaḥ' iti tu kuca sabde tare' (P. 19 L. 19) against the mss. 'Khè; 'Sam 1; 'Sam 2; 'Pra'; 'Tapa'; and Kirste which read 'sankocak ititu...' (V.L. sankocika ititu...acc. to ms. 'Va'). It seems that Hemacandra might have in mind samkocaka' an agent noun, because already the participle form 'samkocita' has been noted.
3. The editors read 'daci patadbhavati patapaṭabhavati' (P. 6. 1: 12). Perhaps the reading, 'patadbhavati patadbhavati patapatabhavati' acc. mss. 'Sam 1', 'khe', 'Sampa 1', 'tapa' and Kirste is better.
to
We congratulate the editors for this publication and await the publication of the remaining portion of the work with useful indexes.
