________________
105
of the correct ate-faqa: “a gang of robbers”) as the meaning of 98127. This error had obviously resulted from reading as a.
Again under D N. 8, 12 Hemcandra has reported another such case. Udūkhala's commentary on Abhimānacinha's Deśya lexicon first blundered in taking 9731311 as the Deśya item and Flasit as the meaning-word (instead of the other way round). It committed a further mistake in understanding #igsit as equal to Sk. 3718a: 'struck with an arrow'). This he ultimately took as the meaning of 97313it, which in fact means a 'snake'. Here the cause of the latter mistake is homonymy.
Similarly under DN. 8, 17 Hemacandra has pointed out that one authority mistsook aafian (given as the meaning word for, a fost and agrogurt) for aos 311, and accordingly attributted it the wrong meaning daughter-in-law' (instead of the correct one, a broom', literally, 'a multiplier'.)
These cases sufficiently illustrate the confusing force of orthography and homonymy in the Prakrit (and Sanskrit) words, given as meaning-equivalents for Deśya lexical items.
It appears that Hemacandra succeeded in clearing only a few cobwebs-he ruled out some alternatives where his authorities provided him definite guidance. Elsewhere he recorded divergent alternatives supported by different traditions. A little critical probing, however, reveals that the plethora of multiple meanings and formal variation among the recorded items in DN. is to some extent a consequence of orthographic and other confusions and misinterpretations accumulating over centuries. The following few cases are offered in support of this observation.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
