________________
INTRODUCTION
113
found general acceptance. It is not explained by the South Indian commentators, nor by Kulanātha and Rāmadāsa. It is, however, included in SC 15 66' with the remark that it is omitted by Sahasānka and Kulanātha, leading one to suppose that it was probably explained by Lokanātha and Srinivāsa, the two other commentators quoted by name in SC. The verse is also cited in a mutilated form in Bhoja's Sarasvatīkanthabharaṇa 5.139 and Narendraprabha's Alankaramahodadhi as an example of rasabhāsa. But not a few commentators from different parts of India seem to have rejected it because of the unpleasant idea involving Sītā in the description.
A general record of the diverse readings followed in the commentaries will be found in the Extracts. We shall here confine ourselves to a few large groups of readings belonging to the different recensions of the poem. Of these the South Indian readings form a distinct group as against a corresponding group of readings consistently followed by Rāmadasa and Kulanātha, representing the Northwestern region and Bengal respectively. For example, South Indians
Rāmadāsa and Kulanātha 1.1 avisāria
avasāria 1.10 visappanti
vidhappanti 2.23 ohāmia4
obāsia
1 पुलअंजणेन्ति दसकन्धरस्स राहवसरा सरीरअडन्ता ।
जणअतणआपओहरफंसमग्घविअकरजुअलणिब्बूढा ।। 2 NSed. 3 p. 97. GOS. 4 Explained by Krşnavipra as abhibhūta. Cf. ohāmiya-surasundari-rūvāisayam Samara
iccakahā, p. 313. The comm. on Lilāvai (204): vaya-pariņāmohāmiya-layanna renders the word as sthagita. The original meaning seems to be slighted, humiliated as in 'jenam vo samanenam mahājanamajjhe ohāmiyā tam pacchannam jiviyão vavaroveha', Vasudevahindi, p. 88. Cf, lahuiam ohāmiam Pāiyalacchi 539. Pátana ed.
15
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
