Candragomins Lokānandanāṭaka by Michael HahnReview by: D. Seyfort RueggJournal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 97, No. 4 (Oct. - Dec., 1977), pp. 552-554Published by: American Oriental SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/598639 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 19:05

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

American Oriental Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal ofthe American Oriental Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.110 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:05:30 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Journal of the American Oriental Society 97.4 (1977) Journal of the American Oriental Society 97.4 (1977)

anutpattidharma 'dem Gesetz des (Wieder)-entstehens nicht unterworfen' and anutpddadharman 'dem Gesetz des Entstehens nicht unterliegend'; these terms have usually been understood as meaning 'having the property of not arising (again)'; and for Pali anuppattidhamma and anuppadadhamma the CPD has 'not liable to come into existence again' (for anutpattikadharmaksdnti BHSD has 'intellectual receptivity to the truth that states of existence have no origination'); anudharma 'die Konsequenz des Dharma; das der Lehre

Entsprechende oder sich aus ihr Ergebende (?)'; CPD has a '(right) method' and f 'a minor dhamma', and the second meaning in the work under review would seem preferable; anupalambha 'unfassbar, unbegreiflich'; the first meaning seems appropriate, viz., 'not (to be) perceived (i.e., objectified discursively in a cognitive image)'; similarly, anupalambhauiinyata would be not 'unfassbare Leere' but 'Emptiness of (i.e., consisting in: karmadhdraya cpd.) non-perception'; anekadhdtu-pratisamvidha (see above, p. 502, for this form listed as occuring only in the Uddnavarga xii.14).

Under the list of abbreviations (pp. xi-xvii) the intro- duction provides a useful bibliography of earlier works on the 'Turfan' materials of Buddhist origin.

The present publication is the first part of what will inevitably prove to be a monumental undertaking, and a most valuable contribution to Indological and Buddhist studies. It is hoped that it will receive all the support that it merits so that it may be completed as quickly as possible, thus providing scholars with a major work of reference.

D. SEYFORT RUEGG UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON

anutpattidharma 'dem Gesetz des (Wieder)-entstehens nicht unterworfen' and anutpddadharman 'dem Gesetz des Entstehens nicht unterliegend'; these terms have usually been understood as meaning 'having the property of not arising (again)'; and for Pali anuppattidhamma and anuppadadhamma the CPD has 'not liable to come into existence again' (for anutpattikadharmaksdnti BHSD has 'intellectual receptivity to the truth that states of existence have no origination'); anudharma 'die Konsequenz des Dharma; das der Lehre

Entsprechende oder sich aus ihr Ergebende (?)'; CPD has a '(right) method' and f 'a minor dhamma', and the second meaning in the work under review would seem preferable; anupalambha 'unfassbar, unbegreiflich'; the first meaning seems appropriate, viz., 'not (to be) perceived (i.e., objectified discursively in a cognitive image)'; similarly, anupalambhauiinyata would be not 'unfassbare Leere' but 'Emptiness of (i.e., consisting in: karmadhdraya cpd.) non-perception'; anekadhdtu-pratisamvidha (see above, p. 502, for this form listed as occuring only in the Uddnavarga xii.14).

Under the list of abbreviations (pp. xi-xvii) the intro- duction provides a useful bibliography of earlier works on the 'Turfan' materials of Buddhist origin.

The present publication is the first part of what will inevitably prove to be a monumental undertaking, and a most valuable contribution to Indological and Buddhist studies. It is hoped that it will receive all the support that it merits so that it may be completed as quickly as possible, thus providing scholars with a major work of reference.

D. SEYFORT RUEGG UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON

for a Dictionary of the Prajnfipdramitd Literature, to which the editors of the work under review refer) of course belong to a later stage of doctrinal development, they should not be simply set aside with no attempt being made to show why they might be inapplicable (for Haribhadra's explanations see also E. Obermiller's very useful article in Indian Hist. Quarterly 9 [1933], p. 170ff.). Actually Haribhadra's explanations can be traced much further back in the available Sanskrit literature, at least to Vasubandhu, the commentator on the Madhydnta- vibhdga (i.18f.), who probably lived some four centuries earlier than Haribhadra. Still older exegeses of the forms of siinyatd can be found in the earliest commentaries on the Prajfiapramita now unavailable in their original Indian texts, but preserved in Chinese (and in Ti- betan).

for a Dictionary of the Prajnfipdramitd Literature, to which the editors of the work under review refer) of course belong to a later stage of doctrinal development, they should not be simply set aside with no attempt being made to show why they might be inapplicable (for Haribhadra's explanations see also E. Obermiller's very useful article in Indian Hist. Quarterly 9 [1933], p. 170ff.). Actually Haribhadra's explanations can be traced much further back in the available Sanskrit literature, at least to Vasubandhu, the commentator on the Madhydnta- vibhdga (i.18f.), who probably lived some four centuries earlier than Haribhadra. Still older exegeses of the forms of siinyatd can be found in the earliest commentaries on the Prajfiapramita now unavailable in their original Indian texts, but preserved in Chinese (and in Ti- betan).

Candragomins Lokanandandtaka. Von MICHAEL HAHN. Asiatische Forschungen, Band 39. Pp. ix + 290. Wiesbaden: OTTO HARRASSOWITZ. 1974.

This publication comprises an edition of the Tibetan translation of the Lokdnandandtaka, a drama by Candra- gomin which is unavailable in its original Sanskrit and Prakrit version, and an annotated German translation. The Lokdnanda (L) shares nine verses with the Sisya- lekha, one of a number of epistles by Buddhist masters which is ascribed to Candragomin, and the two works are indeed presumably by the same author. There is furthermore good reason to think that the Cdndra Gram- mar and its Vrtti are also by the same Candragomin since the L (i.6) refers to a grammar written by its author which is easy, clear and complete, precisely the attributes ascribed by its author to the Grammar. It is therefore likely that the L is to be assigned to the 5th century A.D.; and belonging accordingly to the earlier classical period of the Sanskrit drama, just after Kalidasa, it would be the oldest ndtaka by a Buddhist author now available in its entirety (fragments of older Buddhist dramas in Sanskrit were of course published long ago by H. Luiders). As an Indian ndtaka the L has naturally to be studied and appreciated in terms of this literary genre; but at the same time Candragomin, like his Bud- dhist predecessors Asvaghosa and Kumaralata, has made use of a formally secular literary type as a vehicle to convey a message that is in large part religio-philosophical in inspiration (although certainly not in the allegorical manner of the much later Prabodhacandrodaya).

The task of translating such an example of Indian literature which is unavailable in its original text and is preserved only in Tibetan translation is a formidable one in the best of circumstances. In .his case the under- taking has been made even more difficult because the Tibetan translation would appear to be a rather hastily made one that was included in the bsTan 'gyur (mDo.' grel) without adequate revision very soon after its production by the Tibetan translator Yar-luiispa Grags. pa-rgyal-mchan in collaboration with the Indian scholar Kirticandra. This translation and its incorporation in the bsTan-'gyur evidently took place in the early 14th century, for it is already listed in Bu-ston's catalogue of the bsTan-'gyur completed in 1322 (vol. ya, fol. 166a) when the translator was still a very young man (p. 32). These difficulties presented to the translator by the Tibetan version are only partly mitigated by the fact that the Sanskrit original of nine of its verses are to be found in the Sisyalekha, and that the Ndgdnandandtaka of Harsadeva (7th century) is a drama of similar inspira- tion available both in its original text and in Tibetan translation which offers parallel material allowing

Candragomins Lokanandandtaka. Von MICHAEL HAHN. Asiatische Forschungen, Band 39. Pp. ix + 290. Wiesbaden: OTTO HARRASSOWITZ. 1974.

This publication comprises an edition of the Tibetan translation of the Lokdnandandtaka, a drama by Candra- gomin which is unavailable in its original Sanskrit and Prakrit version, and an annotated German translation. The Lokdnanda (L) shares nine verses with the Sisya- lekha, one of a number of epistles by Buddhist masters which is ascribed to Candragomin, and the two works are indeed presumably by the same author. There is furthermore good reason to think that the Cdndra Gram- mar and its Vrtti are also by the same Candragomin since the L (i.6) refers to a grammar written by its author which is easy, clear and complete, precisely the attributes ascribed by its author to the Grammar. It is therefore likely that the L is to be assigned to the 5th century A.D.; and belonging accordingly to the earlier classical period of the Sanskrit drama, just after Kalidasa, it would be the oldest ndtaka by a Buddhist author now available in its entirety (fragments of older Buddhist dramas in Sanskrit were of course published long ago by H. Luiders). As an Indian ndtaka the L has naturally to be studied and appreciated in terms of this literary genre; but at the same time Candragomin, like his Bud- dhist predecessors Asvaghosa and Kumaralata, has made use of a formally secular literary type as a vehicle to convey a message that is in large part religio-philosophical in inspiration (although certainly not in the allegorical manner of the much later Prabodhacandrodaya).

The task of translating such an example of Indian literature which is unavailable in its original text and is preserved only in Tibetan translation is a formidable one in the best of circumstances. In .his case the under- taking has been made even more difficult because the Tibetan translation would appear to be a rather hastily made one that was included in the bsTan 'gyur (mDo.' grel) without adequate revision very soon after its production by the Tibetan translator Yar-luiispa Grags. pa-rgyal-mchan in collaboration with the Indian scholar Kirticandra. This translation and its incorporation in the bsTan-'gyur evidently took place in the early 14th century, for it is already listed in Bu-ston's catalogue of the bsTan-'gyur completed in 1322 (vol. ya, fol. 166a) when the translator was still a very young man (p. 32). These difficulties presented to the translator by the Tibetan version are only partly mitigated by the fact that the Sanskrit original of nine of its verses are to be found in the Sisyalekha, and that the Ndgdnandandtaka of Harsadeva (7th century) is a drama of similar inspira- tion available both in its original text and in Tibetan translation which offers parallel material allowing

552 552

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.110 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:05:30 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Reviews of Books

inferences to be drawn in some places concerning what stood in the original of the L.

The reason for including in the bsTan. 'gyur a transla- tion which is manifestly inadequate technically by comparison, e.g., with Soni'ston rDo rje.rgyal- mhan's

slightly earlier translation of the Ndgdnanda-not to

speak of dPal-brdegs's earlier translation of the Sisyale- kha itself-and which it is therefore difficult to under- standl is not clear; the work could scarcely have ever been employed in Tibet as a means of spreading and

popularizing Buddhism (a purpose that the L was

evidently meant to fulfil in India). No doubt its inclusion in the bsTan*'gyur is to be explained by the fact that even an unsatisfactory translation of a work by such an

important and illustrious author as Candragomin was considered to be better than none at all. At all events its

incorporation in a carefully preserved collection has in fact turned out to be justified also from the point of view of the modern Indologist, since it gives him access to a

major work of Indian literature which would otherwise be lost to him.

Hahn's edition and translation are preceded by an introduction in which he discusses historical problems concerning the L and its Tibetan translation. Having pointed out that the author of the drama refers to his

grammar, Hahn goes on to examine the evidence relating to Candragomin and his date. He concludes on the basis of this evidence-including the much discussed passage from the Vdkyapadiya (ii.489 in the old Banaras edition) of Bhartrhari (whose date was independently but con-

vergently placed in the second part of the 5th century by H. Nakamura and the present reviewer some twenty years ago) and a well-known grammatical example from Can-

dragomin's Vrtti (I.i.81: ajayaj jarto hiundn, where the use of the imperfect tense indicates that a certain victory over the Huns took place in the author's own life-time) -that Candragomin lived in the 5th century. Hahn has also drawn up a list of works ascribed in the bsTan-' gyur to a Candragomin. It is likely that some of them are by a

1 Thus, in i.2 we find the word log 'dren, which literally means something like 'leader into error'; however, the context clearly shows that it is intended as a calque of vi-ndyaka 'guide', an epithet of the Buddha (cf. the Mahdvyutpatti: rnam par 'dren pa).

Technical terms of the drama are also poorly rendered. Thus dmukha is translated by mnon du phyogs nas (in- stead of, e.g., the more appropriate skabs dbye ba found in the Ndgdnanda translation); pravesaka is translated by rab tu lugs pa (instead of the clearer 'jug par byed pa of N); and pari-kram- in the technical sense of 'to move about on the stage' is translated by the obscure yons su fugs (instead of, e.g., yonis su 'gro ba).

later Candragomin, although this probability in no way affects the question of the single authorship of the Cdndravydkarana, the Sisyalekha and the Lokdnanda; but in view of the importance of Candragomin the

question of the authorship of the other works is of con- siderable interest for the history of Buddhism and Indian thought as a whole, and it will have to form the subject of future research.

The following section of the introduction discusses the

literary sources of the drama whose hero is the (Bodhisat- tva-) Prince Maniciida. Versions of the legend of Manicfida exist in Sanskrit (in the Maniciiddvaddna edited by R.

Handurukande, the Maniciudakathd of the SvayambhQ- purdna and Ksemendra's Avadanakalpalatd, as well as in the so far unedited Mahajjdtakamdla and Samgha- raksita's Maniciidajataka) and Newari (Maniciudava- ddnoddhrta, ed. by S. Lienhard); and citing the parallel of the Jimutavahana legend used by Harsa in his Ndgd- nanda, Hahn is inclined to trace the story back to Gu-

nadhya's lost Brhatkathd (p. 21f). There follows a discussion of the translators of the L and some of the

grammatical and lexical peculiarities of their translation.

Finally Hahn gives a brief literary appreciation of the L, calling attention (p. 36) to the fact that the circumstances that keep the hero apart from Padmavati, the ndyikd, are not external ones (as was so often the case in the

dramas) but internal ones inasmuch as they result from Manicfida's own psychological and spiritual attitude: he has understood the transience of things and the

impossibility of finding satisfaction in objects of sense, and he devotes himself totally to the well-being of others. The volume has an extensive Tibetan-(Sanskrit-) German

glossary (pp. 228-273). Hahn's careful and scrupulously annotated translation

brings out the meaning of the drama on the narrative register, including of course double meanings (slesa), despite the difficulties of translation and interpretation mentioned above. Only occasionally is attention perhaps not sufficiently clearly drawn to the ideological register and the specifically religio-philosophical connotation of a word or passage having at the same time a narrative sense; thus, at the beginning of the L (i.2), the words

byams pa, dga'ba, snin rje and btani sioms surely cannot be understood otherwise than as suggesting the four im- measurable factors (apramdna)-the brahmavihdras of maitri, muditd, karutnd and upeksd-a fact that deserves notice in either the translation itself or in a note. Simi- larly, in i.11, beside its obvious meaning the expression sa chen might well be taken to suggest the mahdbhumis or spiritual stages on which a Bodhisattva such as Ma- niciuda resides; indeed rab tu dga' ba in the same verse is the regular technical equivalent of pramuditd, the name of the first of the ten bodhisattvabhimis (although it is

553

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.110 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:05:30 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Journal of the American Oriental Society 97.4 (1977) Journal of the American Oriental Society 97.4 (1977)

to be noticed that elsewhere in the L sa chen [iii.4] and rab tu dga' ba [i.17, ii.41] are used apparently in an

exclusively general sense, and that in ii.15 rab dga'i sa

gii corresponds simply to nandanabhimi [= Si$yalekha 69, where the translation dga' ba'i nags Chal obviates

any ambiguity ]). Such examples of the simultaneous use of a lexeme as a common noun in a general sense and as a terminus technicus respectively on the immediate

literary register of the narrative and on the implicit religio-philosophical register of the ideological message are of the greatest interest in understanding a work like the L.

The present publication is to be welcomed both as a valuable addition to our knowledge of Indian literature and as a useful contribution to Indo-Tibetan philology.

D. SEYFORT RUEGG UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON

The Nilamata Purana Vol. II. A Critical Edition and English Translation. By VED KUMARI. Srinagar: THE JAMMU AND KASHMIR ACADEMY OF ART, CULTURE

AND LANGUAGES. 1973. Rs. 33.00.

The Nilamata, our oldest literary document of Kash- mir, has been handed down in two redactions, a recensio brevior which shows several lacunas and many faulty readings, and a recensio longior in which the lacunas have been filled up and corrupt readings have been restored. The work was edited first by Ramlal Kanjilal and Pt. Jagaddhar Zadoo (Lahore 1924) and subsequently by the writer of the present review (Leiden 1936). Antici-

pating a contemplated revised edition, a Supplement to the Leiden edition was only recently published, based on new manuscript material discovered in the intervening years (Leiden 1968). Though fairly many manuscripts of both recensions are available nowadays, the material is still insufficient to reconstruct the original in a satis- factory manner. All manuscripts known so far show the same lacunas (or nearly so), several corrupt passages, many old wrong readings, and numerous scribal errors. Pending the discovery of the archetypus of the manu- scripts of the recensio brevior, a substantial improvement in reconstructing the original can only be achieved by an exhaustive study of all available manuscripts and their palaeographical peculiarities, and a minute comparison of relevant matter to be found in the great puranas and kindred literature.

Dr. Ved Kumari, Head of the Department of Sanskrit of the Jammu University, who in the present work under- took the ambitious task of providing a critical edition and an English translation (a versio princeps), obviously did not consider it her duty to make such extensive

to be noticed that elsewhere in the L sa chen [iii.4] and rab tu dga' ba [i.17, ii.41] are used apparently in an

exclusively general sense, and that in ii.15 rab dga'i sa

gii corresponds simply to nandanabhimi [= Si$yalekha 69, where the translation dga' ba'i nags Chal obviates

any ambiguity ]). Such examples of the simultaneous use of a lexeme as a common noun in a general sense and as a terminus technicus respectively on the immediate

literary register of the narrative and on the implicit religio-philosophical register of the ideological message are of the greatest interest in understanding a work like the L.

The present publication is to be welcomed both as a valuable addition to our knowledge of Indian literature and as a useful contribution to Indo-Tibetan philology.

D. SEYFORT RUEGG UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON

The Nilamata Purana Vol. II. A Critical Edition and English Translation. By VED KUMARI. Srinagar: THE JAMMU AND KASHMIR ACADEMY OF ART, CULTURE

AND LANGUAGES. 1973. Rs. 33.00.

The Nilamata, our oldest literary document of Kash- mir, has been handed down in two redactions, a recensio brevior which shows several lacunas and many faulty readings, and a recensio longior in which the lacunas have been filled up and corrupt readings have been restored. The work was edited first by Ramlal Kanjilal and Pt. Jagaddhar Zadoo (Lahore 1924) and subsequently by the writer of the present review (Leiden 1936). Antici-

pating a contemplated revised edition, a Supplement to the Leiden edition was only recently published, based on new manuscript material discovered in the intervening years (Leiden 1968). Though fairly many manuscripts of both recensions are available nowadays, the material is still insufficient to reconstruct the original in a satis- factory manner. All manuscripts known so far show the same lacunas (or nearly so), several corrupt passages, many old wrong readings, and numerous scribal errors. Pending the discovery of the archetypus of the manu- scripts of the recensio brevior, a substantial improvement in reconstructing the original can only be achieved by an exhaustive study of all available manuscripts and their palaeographical peculiarities, and a minute comparison of relevant matter to be found in the great puranas and kindred literature.

Dr. Ved Kumari, Head of the Department of Sanskrit of the Jammu University, who in the present work under- took the ambitious task of providing a critical edition and an English translation (a versio princeps), obviously did not consider it her duty to make such extensive

preliminary studies. In establishing the text she made use of eight manuscripts, five of which belong to the Research Library of Jammu and Kashmir Government at Srina-

gar, and three to the Shri Raghunath Temple MSS. Library at Jammu. In doing so, the author not only failed to study other available manuscripts, both in India and in Europe, but moreover neglected to take cognizance of the above mentioned Supplement to the Leiden edition, which being based on fresh manuscript material and data furnished by puranic literature, pro- vides a considerable number of better readings, cor- rections, and emendations. A mere glance at the Sup- plement would have safeguarded the author against numerous errors both in the establishment of the text and in the translation.

As a result of an insufficient study of the manuscript material and its palaeographical features, many old

wrong readings have been retained, e.g., v. 41 irnge krtvd (read: srngi bhutvd); v. 88 Hayasirsam (read: Gaydrirsam); v. 104 anucarantam (read: anusarantam); v. 142 avyak- ta-yonitah (read: -yoninah; v. 148 tyakavd (read: krtvd); v. 156 Nirrtis (read: nrpatis); v. 172 gatvd (read: krtvd); v. 249 bhdvayadhuam (read: pdvayadhvam); v. 365 dpa- tantam (read: dpad-antam); v. 374 tyaktvd (read: krtvd); v. 531 naivedye (read: naivedyam); v. 614 mdnavadvipas (read: navamo dvipas); v. 743 vidvdn (read: visvdn); v. 844 mangala-malibhih (read: -pdnibhil); v. 1026 Gni-

geyam (read: Gd.neSam); v. 1036 Taijase (read: Aujase); v. 1092 pradese (read: prapede); v. 1144 mrtyundnuiya- mdnena (read: mrtyundnviyamdnam ca); v. 1181 bhavane (read: bhavata.m); v. 1189 tena drstvd ca (read: tam na drtuvd na); v. 1221 parvam (read: pirndn); v. 1222 vard- riha (read: surdriha); v. 1235 punyoddm (read: punyode); v. 1236 bhavanam (read: bhavane); v. 1255 bhabhdga (read: -bhdra); v. 1277 Kumundrim (read: Kusundrirm; v. 1304 Gomati (read: Gotami); v. 1429 sambhavah (read: saiIcayah).

Apart from the old wrong readings originating from the archetypus, the text as adopted by the author shows numerous faulty readings resulting from an uncritical selection among the variants or otherwise, e.g., v. 10 bd- lam Gonanda-samjilitam (read: Bdlagonanda-saImfjitam); v. 59 ddsye jitdm (read: ddsyesthitdm); v. 81mdydca (read: mdayd ca); v. 84 desat (read: disah); v. 126 prabhava (read: prabhdva); v. 177 bhavanam (read: bhuvanam); v. 263 iilakhdta (read: uiilaghdta); v. 272 tvdm (read: dydm); v. 297 mdnam (read: ndma); v. 398 pdrsgara- taih (read: pdrsuagataih); v. 464 niinam); (read: nyinam); v. 581 kridamdrgair (read: kridamdtair); v. 718 daksi- ndydm (read: bhaksaniydah); v. 757 sa-vdhandh (read:sa- vdhandh); v. 765 jayed (read: jayad); v. 870 ndgesu (read: ndganadm); v. 879 pijitah (read: pujitdh); v. 895 ksedito (read: ksvedito); v. 899 khani (read: khalu).

preliminary studies. In establishing the text she made use of eight manuscripts, five of which belong to the Research Library of Jammu and Kashmir Government at Srina-

gar, and three to the Shri Raghunath Temple MSS. Library at Jammu. In doing so, the author not only failed to study other available manuscripts, both in India and in Europe, but moreover neglected to take cognizance of the above mentioned Supplement to the Leiden edition, which being based on fresh manuscript material and data furnished by puranic literature, pro- vides a considerable number of better readings, cor- rections, and emendations. A mere glance at the Sup- plement would have safeguarded the author against numerous errors both in the establishment of the text and in the translation.

As a result of an insufficient study of the manuscript material and its palaeographical features, many old

wrong readings have been retained, e.g., v. 41 irnge krtvd (read: srngi bhutvd); v. 88 Hayasirsam (read: Gaydrirsam); v. 104 anucarantam (read: anusarantam); v. 142 avyak- ta-yonitah (read: -yoninah; v. 148 tyakavd (read: krtvd); v. 156 Nirrtis (read: nrpatis); v. 172 gatvd (read: krtvd); v. 249 bhdvayadhuam (read: pdvayadhvam); v. 365 dpa- tantam (read: dpad-antam); v. 374 tyaktvd (read: krtvd); v. 531 naivedye (read: naivedyam); v. 614 mdnavadvipas (read: navamo dvipas); v. 743 vidvdn (read: visvdn); v. 844 mangala-malibhih (read: -pdnibhil); v. 1026 Gni-

geyam (read: Gd.neSam); v. 1036 Taijase (read: Aujase); v. 1092 pradese (read: prapede); v. 1144 mrtyundnuiya- mdnena (read: mrtyundnviyamdnam ca); v. 1181 bhavane (read: bhavata.m); v. 1189 tena drstvd ca (read: tam na drtuvd na); v. 1221 parvam (read: pirndn); v. 1222 vard- riha (read: surdriha); v. 1235 punyoddm (read: punyode); v. 1236 bhavanam (read: bhavane); v. 1255 bhabhdga (read: -bhdra); v. 1277 Kumundrim (read: Kusundrirm; v. 1304 Gomati (read: Gotami); v. 1429 sambhavah (read: saiIcayah).

Apart from the old wrong readings originating from the archetypus, the text as adopted by the author shows numerous faulty readings resulting from an uncritical selection among the variants or otherwise, e.g., v. 10 bd- lam Gonanda-samjilitam (read: Bdlagonanda-saImfjitam); v. 59 ddsye jitdm (read: ddsyesthitdm); v. 81mdydca (read: mdayd ca); v. 84 desat (read: disah); v. 126 prabhava (read: prabhdva); v. 177 bhavanam (read: bhuvanam); v. 263 iilakhdta (read: uiilaghdta); v. 272 tvdm (read: dydm); v. 297 mdnam (read: ndma); v. 398 pdrsgara- taih (read: pdrsuagataih); v. 464 niinam); (read: nyinam); v. 581 kridamdrgair (read: kridamdtair); v. 718 daksi- ndydm (read: bhaksaniydah); v. 757 sa-vdhandh (read:sa- vdhandh); v. 765 jayed (read: jayad); v. 870 ndgesu (read: ndganadm); v. 879 pijitah (read: pujitdh); v. 895 ksedito (read: ksvedito); v. 899 khani (read: khalu).

554 554

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.110 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:05:30 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions