Vol. VI, No. 6. J Sri H emacandracarya' s Yoga-S'astra. 215 



[N.S.] 



indisputably correct according to my views. It is an adjective 

 to fl^ift, an( * when the Samasa is expounded we shall have 



5WW ^Efasft sjsjt OT, otherwise if we put ^h^rr<T then the 

 use of the word ^njf will be useless and redundant. 



Now mv Tj^f is the critic's correction for our reading i|rTO9. 

 page 93, line 5 : what is the objection if we expound the ex- 

 pression as xttv ^ nrf w ^fn *jnrwr ? 



Again for my ^f%g: WT, page 100, line 22, he puts the other 

 optionally common form ^f%^rf°, blaming the former as a 

 striking mistake. Does he not forget here the well-known 



Karika which closes with the words wt^ ?J ^T f**vr*Pfr^, thus 

 defending the form we have given ? 



Now for our readings fPJ*?T and lft$«Ti| he suggests the 

 forms ^ft*n and fRjJTNJ as correct. These are the proper names 



that occur also in the UpadeSamala-Vrtti and BharateSvara 

 Bahubali Vrtti in the Adhikara of Cilai-putta (Cilati-putra) 

 in several places. 



Now we have to say something in connection with the critic's 



remark that w^sjfa?: (page 130, line 14) the word of the text 



should be added before ^Tf^cgfarqnin the commentary, the latter 

 being a synonym for the former. In our opinion, it is not neces- 

 sary in a commentary which aims at being didactic and not liter- 

 ary. In the present commentary the author first attempts to 

 make the language of the text clear by a sort of paraphrase known 

 to Sanskritists as Anvaya-mukhi Vyakhya in which he sometimes 

 repeats, as usual, the words of the text before their synonyms 

 and sometimes does not (and this latter is the case in places 

 where the words of the text naturally and unconsciously repeat 

 themselves before their synonyms without being repeated b\ 

 the commentator). This is more so because the writer's atten- 

 tion is not solely directed to the linguistic difficulty of the text 

 of which he is writing the commentary and which is itself a 

 very easy Sanskrit very often. His chief aim is to explain the 

 text from an esoteric point of view and to enable his reader 

 to enter deep into the mystery of the subject which is an ab- 

 struse one, and for this he takes every possible care. The most 

 prominent features of his commentary are, as is well known to 

 every student who has ever studied it, logical discussions, 

 quotations from the canonized texts of Jaina Scriptures and a 

 long series of illustrative anecdotes. The following are other 

 instances (of course, according to my MSS.) which will clearly 

 indicate that the author is not very particular about the linguis- 

 tic difficulty of the text and that lie does not strictly follow 

 the rules of Anvaya-mukhl Vyakhya, etc., as is necessary in a 



