________________
-25
10. Since ms. no. 328 on p. 139 in Puny avijayaji's catalogue also ends in
yas tasma, it is evident that De's B is a transcript of Jaisalmer ms. 328.
De seems to have returned B to Jaisalmer where it was made part of pathi
no. 30 as no. 379, described by Punya-vijayaji on p. 217. See note 5 above 11. (a) The use of parentheses in the portion preceding p. 147 is very sparing..
(b) On p. 189, an explanation taken from the Kalpa-lata-viveka of a Prakrit
verse is put in brackets. Does this mean that K regards it as a genuine
part of Kun taka's work? Are we then to understand that the paragraphs
given in brackets on pp. 161-62 and 175 are also taken from the Kalpa
-lata-viveka?
12. One possible explanation is that the paragraphs in parentheses are the ones
which are not available in De's edition and have been brought to print by K
for the first time. However, I am not sure that this is always the case.
Moreover, K's procedure gives rise to a serious ambiguity. For example, in
lines 15-17 of p. 147, we read: atraiva (dus ana ntaram u) pak ramate --- raso
Vidyate (tistha) ti yasyeti ---- Here, dusanantaram is K's addition, while
tistha is De's (p. 160) addition which K has retained. Are we to understand in the case of tistha that it is found in K's 'new' manuscript - that De's
guess is confirmed by the Jaisalmer fragments?
If so, why does K read De's
ra(savyatiriktam a)nyat in the closely following sentence by removing the
parentheses as rasavyatiriktam kim any at?
13. (a)
The quality of emendations is to some extent indicated by an instance like 3.163 (illustration): ayan ranas carana-jīvitāntakit nananda(tuś caiva) narasya sainikaḥ/Iha vrato śakti-śirobhir adarāt navasidhara na khalūtpala-srajah // The plural subject in the second quarter does not agree with its verb in the dual number. The word caiva serves no
