Trishasti Shalaka Purusa Caritra Part 2

Author(s): Hemchandracharya, Helen M Johnson
Publisher: Oriental Research Institute Vadodra

Page 374

349
in 80 years there was a year of 363 days in a peculiar reckoning. But even if this is true, Hemacandra usually uses the year of 360 days. Not only here and in 1. 4. 719, but also in 5. 5. 259, he uses the number 363. If this is a mere lapse on Hemacandra's part, as Prof. Schubring suggests (GGA 32, p. 294), it is strange that it occurs so often. Muni Jayantavijayaji suggests that the error crept in from the title of the work. But trişaṣṭi occurs in every manuscript I have seen. Also in Padmānandamahākāvya 16. 193 (GOS LVIII) the number is 363, but its author imitated Hemacandra avowedly.
APPENDIX
P. 164 (2. 5. 23). This does not seem very clear, as apparently Avali had already paid for the cow; but I see no other interpretation.
P. 170 (2. 5. 114). New' should be corrected to 'dry.' There is no authority for the ed.'s interpretation of rūkṣa as naviņa.
P. 172 (2. 5. 137).
Yojana-ambole
or yojanām bole ? Perhaps there is a connection with the Pk. verb bola, to extend. All the MSS. have the reading of the ed. The meaning is clear.
P. 252 (3. 1. 398). In Prof. Schubring's review of I (GGA 32) he objects to the fact that I did not in my note (I, n. 126) mention Prof. Leumann's sanskritizing of pãovagamaṇa as prayopagamana. My note was entirely correct. The Jain Prakrit name for a specific phenomenon is pãovagamana. The Jain Sanskrit name for the same phenomenon is pādapopagamana. Whether the Sanskrit name should have been something else is a question that, however interesting and important, belongs to an entirely different field. My task is to interpret Hemacandra's language as it is. P. 278. In the Journal and Proceedings, Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1932, pp. 13-15, 'A New Indian Version of the Story of Solomon's Judgment' (Chakravarti)