________________
118
INTRODUCTION We are better informed about Latakanamiśra's text. The recension followed by him is in certain respects somewhat closely related to that of Rāmadāsa. In the first place, there is a considerable number of readings in which he agrees with Rāmadāsa and Kulanātha as against the South Indians. In the second place, some of the readings of Rāmadāsa not found in the other commentators appear in his work. For example, Latakana and Rāmadāsa
Others 1.50 pariņāha
parimāņa 2.12 ņipphaņņa
nivvadia 3.8 Iņialuņņamanta
ņialonamanta 3,20 āhia
ādhia 3.33 dūranta
tūranta 5.62 thavaa (also in 1.40)
theva 6.57 pavitta
parinta 11.62 bhajjanta
tajjanta 11.70 sāņusaa
sāņuņaa Similarly, in 2.16 Latakana reads aņuņijjamāņa-(maggam) like Rāmadāsa?, while others have aņuijjamāņa.
Notwithstanding the affinities mentioned above, there are certain conspicuous differences between the texts followed by Rāmadāsa and Laţakanamiśra. In a considerable number of readings the latter agrees not with Rāmadāsa, but with the South Indians or Kulanātha or both. For example, he has the South
1 Laţakana (Text) has ņialonamanta, but his reading is clear from the chāyā and the
comm. : धुतावमाननिगलोन्नमन्मुखानां अपसारितापमानानगडेन शृंखलेन उन्नमन्मुखानां. 2 Rämadása explains anunijjamāņa as anugamya māna, apparently deriving it from ni
(HC4.162). Lata kana's explanation is ambiguous. He has anuniyamina in the chāyā
and anviyamāna in the gloss, explained as anugamyamana. 3 Explained as anviyamāna. See Extracts 2.16 and SC Text. Cf. annijjamāna-magga,
often found in AMg texts (Vivāgasus a 9; 130, ed. P. Vaidya; Nāyödhamma 16.113, 117, ed. N. Vaidya). Abhayadeva on Vivāga explains it as anviyamāna, anugamyamāna.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
