365bet娱乐

(2) TADAPATRIYA-PRANTA-TIPPANI (i.e. MARGINAL NOTES IN THE P MS.)鈥擳he author of this commentary [on the Tilakamanjari] is unknown to us as yet. On the orthographical grounds it might be guessed that it was the scribe himself of the Ms., as these notes are written in the same handwriting in which the textual discrepancies are supplied in the margin. Again, the tendency of preference for '' in particular words, 9. Jina-ratna-kosha, op. cit. 10. These marginal notes have been culled separately by me from the P Ms., and I intend to publish them with the critical text of the Tilakamanjari of Dhanapala at some opportune date.

1104 e.g. in 'vikasa', and for the visarga where normally is expected, e.g. in 'nihkaruna', also indicates to the same probability. These marginal notes might also be the work of Muni Jnanakalasa who taught the Tilakamanjari of Dhanapala to Muni Merunandana in about 1375 A.D., as is clear from the Colophone of the P Ms. quoted in Appendix A. 11 The author of the marginal notes has referred to the Hamalinganusasana, and has often quoted from Hemacandra's Namamala¹? (also known as Abhdhana-cintamani) and the Anekartha-samgraha 13 the latter being referred to as , 14 "yadane-" etc., when quoting a reference from it. At times he touches the grammatical points, gives prakrit or Apabhramsa equivalents), points out the rhetorical excellences, and brings out the defects 17 while dissolving the doublemeaning compound words. He has also noted a few variant readings' . However, his knowledge of the Jain mythology is not very exact. But sometimes he does surpass the Tippanaka of Santisuri. 16 These same marginal notes, not all though, have also been found in the Paper Mss. stored in the Hemavandra 11.e.g.kasparam dhanam | yat haimelimganusasane punapumsakalingesu yadayo karapare krsna vrate ityadi etc. 12.e.g. karmasilastu karya iti namamala vacanat | 13.e.g.Anekartha-samgraha of Hemachandra,1,10-11; II,211; III,555; IV,144-145 &c. 14.e.g. svitadavarne'ghalani in 15.e.g. 335. for niculaka 16.e.g. 313-4211 falutarifa 172.8. damstrayam muktasambhavah 18.别.驳鈥� locanamsusaraya etc. ; 90147373 etc. etc. for paryanam &C. 0bja malaya va pathamtaram |

19 1105 4 Jnana Mandir, Patan. It is probably out of one of these Mss. that Shri Bhavadatta Shastri copied the foot-notes of his editions of the Tilakamanjari of Dhanapala In the Tilakamanjari he claims the authorship of those footnotes, when he makes some remarks as to the availability of only a single Ms. of the Tilakamanjari of Dhanapala, *鈻� .20 at the end of his Sanskrit introduction. This is clearly a case of plagiarism, evidently because Shri Bhavadatta texual D Shastri has failed to discriminate between the/deficiencies, added in the marginal spaces as well as between the lines, and similarly placed explanatory notes. And the P Ms. clearly distinguishes between these deficiences and explanatory remarks by different signs. How could such a gross mistake occur at the hands of one who claims to be their author ? Moreover, upto page No.273 the footnotes are very few and far between and without any remarks, while from page No. 274 of the Tilakamanjari onwards the editor has started suggesting emendations in the texual readings: Till p.273, the f many of the explanatory notes have been incorporated in the body of the Tilakamanjari of Dhanapala itself!! It is from p.274 onwards that the emendations, most of them utterly wrong, are being mixed up with the marginal notes in the footnotes. All this conclusively proves the hollowness of the claim and from p. 274 onwards, theakes **** indicates the hand of Shri K.P.Parab in preparation 19. Nos. 6631; 6831; and 2605. 20. cf.Tilakamanjari, Introduction, p.12: st&t= Sence of etc.

1106 of the press copy for the Tilakamanjari All this has been responsible for suppression of the information about the existence of such a valuable commentary like this. 24 21