276 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. [June, 1910. 



commentary intended for the instruction of boys. In page 198, 



line 14, the words xpc^l ^fiiwf are the synonyms of *q*qm wf^fyf 

 in the S'loka 20 of the text in the same page. Again in page 



388, line 4, "ftr^f^l^ffts^ is the synonymous rendering of 



^Erar^f*?*fT£%: in the S'loka 101 preceding. The method which 



has been followed by Hemacandra in this connection may 

 clearly be ascertained by the perusal of the S'loka 11 and the 

 comment thereon in page 92. In concluding the present remark, 

 I must say that to point such a mistake in such a work as the 

 philosophic commentary on the Yoga-Sastra is nothing but to 

 lower its dignity. 



Now I should like to say something on such of my readings 



as <H?PR^T?fa: and *?«rfo 3WT . For the first (page 7, line 8) the 



critic suggests the correction ^«r i^pttar and for the second 



(page 133, line 3) the correction tfsrfeeRVT . That is to say, he 



separates the two words which I have combined, and in a case 

 where the uniformity holds, he combines the two words which 

 I have put separately. I do not understand what he means by 

 doing this. Are not the two cases similar ? Is it not proper 

 to follow the same rule or rules in one connection as in the 



other, the two cases being of like nature ? wfa must come 

 separately, because the Samasa is not possible in **rfes*fT ; 

 according to the rule tf ^fa^fa*^ - 11 \\ \ n \\ (S. H.) *iff* will 

 have the Gati Samjfia optionally, but if there be Gati Samjfia, 

 there will always be Samasa according to the rule jrfwSRTSf- 

 JVW* M H ! a^l (S. i), and when we have the Samasa *jiW|ffT 

 *nni ^ I ^ I ml (S. H.) we must have the form u*rf<i?FHt . 

 But since there is no Gati Samjfia in the present case, there- 

 fore we must have them separately. 



Then again of my reading «TOtff^r^TfTOnRpr> P a S e 

 106, line 7. The way in which I have read it can never violate 

 the rules of prosody. The reading ^fa< which he suggests as 



correct is grammatically wrong, and can give no sense at all. 

 These Gathas occur originally in the Samayika-addhyayana of 

 Avasyaka-niryukti of Bhadrabahu Svami (leaf 22 of our MS.). 

 In the commentary of these Gathas Haribhadra Suri, a writer 

 prior to Hemacandra, has adopted the reading that we have 

 given in our text. Nay ; not only Haribhadra Suri but Malaya - 



giri Suri, Tilaka-carya, the Avacuri of Avasyaka-niryukti 

 (in the Cilatiputra Adhikara), etc., etc., all give it verbatim as 



we have done it. While criticising our reading ^rw, the critic 

 does not consider even for a moment what may be the sources 



