________________
100
INTRODUCTION
which can be rectified with the help of the ms. of Kulanatha's commentary described above.
SC has a large number of quotations assigned to anye, kecit etc.; and even among these there are not a few that are taken from Kulanatha e.g., under Setu 1.26, 2.8 (12 SC), 4.31, 11.41, 12.86 (85 SC), 13.71, 14.1 etc. In the gloss on Setu 4.33, after reproducing Kulanatha anonymously, SC gives a further quotation from him, which is, however, stated to be from anye. Under Setu 13.47 the quotation stated to be from Kulanatha is not found in him; it is the longer quotation from kecit that is actually found in Kulanatha's gloss on the verse. These and other peculiarities may be explained by supposing that perhaps more than one hand was at work in compiling the new commentary. The first compilation based on Kulanatha may have been made early in the seventeenth century, and further quotations from him and others seem to have been added from time to time. Viśvanatha's work probably represents the final redaction made about the middle of the century.
There are other instances of the heterogeneous character of the compilation. The Setu verse 12.26 occurs twice in SC, first as 4.42, and again as 12.25, each time with a different gloss. A quotation from Kulanatha occurs at the latter place, but it is difficult to see how the repetition could have been made by one and the same compiler.
The relation of SC to Ramadasa's commentary on the Setubandha points to a similar conclusion. SC remarks that the Setu verses 15.16, 17 (15, 16 SC) are not included in the text by any other commentator. This is true of the South Indian and Bengal recensions of the poem, but the verses in question are found in Ramadasa and explained by him. This would
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
