Vol. VI, No. 6.] S'ri Hernacandracarya's YoqchS'astra. 273 



[N.S.] 



evident on reading the neighbouring lines. The consultation of 

 the Gujrati translation of the Yoga-Sastra, page 46, lines 5—8, 

 will make the matter at once clear. 



With regard to critic's reading f^frforww which he 

 thinks to be incomparably superior to the one given by me, viz., 

 fM*CT^lWt3iir, page 43, line 22, I may say that I cannot find 

 much difference between the two. 



Again from the reading ^r mm *^ fkmt: which he suggests 



as an improvement for my reading •? ?* nftnnfot *r: , page 82, line 



13, I cannot make out anything. To me it does not give any 

 sense whatever in spite of my utmost exertion to find one. 



Then for my reading ?r^T SI«IT, page 7, line 7, he puts w^wra F 

 (tad ajnatva). The ajnatva as he gets it from Ti^roivlT by 

 euphonic disjunction, cannot be supported in any way accord- 

 ing to the rules of Sanskrit Grammar 





■rr 



^mw not ^Twrar 



aT* 



^ is preceded by ^TW , therefore, it cannot take pT 

 but it must take *m. Such grammatical mistakes are un- 

 pardonable even for a tyro. 



Again for my reading ^irsrm^, page 36, line 9, he suggests 

 ^f??f nH : this is clearly a mistake, since for ekarthibhava the 

 omission of Vibhakti is quite essential. 



Now of VTRn^iJiTPH which he gives in place of my reading 

 flWT*f <Tf *i^I*I, page 76, line 9. The reading I have given is 



without exception the one to be found in all my MSS. The 

 reading suggested by the critic is not so happy as ours. This will 

 be evident to any person knowing Sanskrit if he cares to bestow 

 a little thought on it. 



Now of my readings ^fs?<f, page 30, line 13 ; ^tr page 7, 



line 9, I have to say that they are authoritative and are to be 

 found in the majority of my MSS. Xot only that, on a little 

 consideration it will be found that they are more appropriate to 

 the contexts than those suggested by the critic. 



The form ^3W which I find only in two of my MSS., and 



consequently which I have given as a variant in the foot-note, 



is not so happy as ^*r^:, page 104, line 6, of my text; this will 

 be evident to anybody knowing Sanskrit considering the matter 



deeply. 



Again rach of my readings as 4H*W fa*f** (page 10, line 



