Vol. VI, No. 6.] $rl Hemacandracarya * Yoga-Sastra. 269 



[N.S.] 



etc., leaf 84 of our manuscript of the work. We find it again 

 in Avassaga-nijutti-chunnI of Jinadasa Mahattara in the line 

 ?TT% OT fa# g« etc., page 70 of our manuscript, dated Sam vat 

 1500. Everywhere I find fam, and see no reason why the critic 

 should introduce ^ in this instance and mark fk*t B. D. and 



^#r A. B. 



I need not dwell much on ^jfe (page 18, line 20) and 



■# 



WW ; both the forms being correct, I should simply say that all 

 my manuscripts give the form qjn. I consulted Mahavira-Carita 

 (4th Sarga, 180th Sloka) on the point, there too I find ww. 



Now for my reading ^tfcj (page 33, line 17): the variant 

 Jjsnr which the critic finds in his manuscript A. is grammatically 

 wrong. According to the rale Hr^CTirtTnfr - R ? I ? ' ^ H (Siddha- 

 Hema) with the ^rfv^TT of faariw^ir ll ^ i ? . ^? II (S- H.) the 

 form is inadmissible here, since there is no trace of anvade£a in 



the lines ^f%: 3P*lf%^ *TC)fiq SNfNpf fTOTftj f 5 ? etc. It is unusual 

 for an Indian Pandit to mention the form ^«nj even as a variant 

 in the present instance. 



Now wh, which the critic suggests in place of my sw 

 (page 49, line 3), when standing immediately after i*wt, may 

 bring in some dubious points in question, and hence better to be 

 avoided according to the rules of poetic diction. &mx is synony- 

 mous with ^*W, and its use in the present case is essential in 

 consideration of the Prasada Guna of a Kavya. I have got 

 5W in all my MSS. It occurs also in connection with the same 



anecdote in the line " ^^r fw« fSrs*PT^: wt fHHwsV— " in 

 the Padmananda Kavya of Amaracandra Suri, 8th Sarga, 



Sloka 171 (leaf 55, of my MS.). 



Then in page 68, line 12, TCrilt^TT^fair m^TTTsftmfnii: i 



f^WTOTf^m«!TW^^[^f^Tsfa^rT*r II ^<J I he finds the variant 

 q iflfiHlftN U T in his manuscripts A, B, and C. Manuscripts con- 

 taining such a reading may be high-class ones, but the Pandit 



discard it as a clerical mistake. ^iXTJ^far 

 refers to ^TTT*r by Utpreksa, and this ^?to* being plural *?*f!TT- 

 irfa must also be plural, moreover the word xjfw (and one short 

 evident point that could be marked even by a superficial reader 

 is that a word like *T*t ending in long I, as the critic puts it in 

 TTiftfwTfar^FT^ is nowhere to be found in the whole range 



sure to 



