Vakrokti Jivita Of Kuntaka

Author(s): K Krishnamoorthy
Publisher: K Krishnamoorthy

Page 8

-8
(c)
In illustrative verse 1.11 (prakasa-svabhavyam ---), De's edition
reads tatha tatra na which makes sense as Dvivedi's (edition 6 below, p. 18)
Hindi translation establishes. K reads tatha yatra na but does not note
De's reading or translate in such a manner as to justify the choice
of yatra.
(d)
On p. 58 (lines 9-10), there is no difference between the reading
accepted and the one in fn. 2. About kārika 3.14 (abhidhāyaḥ prakarau stah), K remarks that it is not found in De's edn.". This remark can very easily be interpreted to mean that De has missed the karika - is not aware of its existence.
However, De (p. 174) in fact reconstructs abhidh ayah prakarau stah as
a beginning of a karikā. A fair remark would have been: 'The karika is not found reconstructed in its entirety in De's edn.'. The same is
true, to a lesser extent, of K's note 2 on p. 174 regarding karika 3.19.
On the other hand, K's 3.28 is missing in De (p. 191), but K does not
(f)
note this. So also is the case with 3.33 ab (ucyate 'tiśayoktiḥ --- ). There are some cases in which De does not indicate that he has omitted any portion, but K's text contains an additional sentence or two (e.g., De p. 163, last line corresponding to K p. 150, lines 19-20). K neither
indicates nor provides an explanation of this fact.
(8) A reverse phenomenon is also noticed in some instances. Between
ativartate and karuna-ras asya of lines 4-5 on p. 165, De gives the fragment --- stam eva tad api caturasram. This fragment is mysteriously missing from K's edition (p. 152, lines 6-7).
(h)
Although K does not so state, karikas like 3.14 seem to be reconstruc
tions based on the vrtti.
Their agreement with De's reconstructions is
too close to be accidental.