Appendix 2.1: additional notes

P. 5 (2. 1. 54). Cf. p. 299, where the same idea occurs.

P. 10 (2. 1. 104). Probably gupyadguru is a deśī word.

Additional MSS. have the same reading.

P. 11 (2. 1. 116). Śambī should be emended to śimbī, which does not mean ‘bark,’ as the ed. takes it, but ‘pod.’

P. 40 (2. 2. 173). There is a parallel passage in Kalpasūtra 28. KSK takes tvaritā to designate mental haste and capalā (the KS has cavalāe, instead of our calā) to designate physical haste. Instead of our, yatanā, KS has jayaṇāe, which it interprets as ‘jayinyā, though ‘anye vadanti’ jayanāe=javanayā. Uddhuāe is interpreted as ‘causing the trembling of all the parts of the body’; or, ‘like the gati of a pile of dust penetrating the sky, raised up by a violent wind.’ The KS has sigdhāe (śīghrayā). Chekā is interpreted as ‘skilful in warding off calamities.’ Hemacandra’s yatanā seems to be original with him.

P. 52 (2. 2. 357). Cf. Prabandhacintāmaṇi (Tawney, p. 49), where the king is awakened by the conch. Alberuni (Alberuni’s India, I, p. 337) says “they beat the drum and blow a winding shell called ‘śankha,’ after a watch (3 hours).”

P. 64 (2. 2. 537). Muni Jayantavijayaji explains sūtamātṛkā as follows: Under the old system of teaching the pupils were taught the alphabet in the form of poetry to assist memorizing, and each teacher used different poetry of his own composition. So here mātṛkā really means ‘poetry.’

P. 68 (2. 3. 17). Smelling the head was formerly a method of demonstrating affection. It is, I believe, no longer in use. There is an allusion to it also in the Mahābharata. Roy says (note to 3. 107. 60) that it was a mode of endearment of ancient India that corresponds to kissing on the forehead in the west.

P. 85 (2. 3. 249). Munijayantavijaya says milk was formerly so used on occasions of great rejoicing. Perhaps, however, the gardeners of this period anticipated modern experiments with milk as a fertilizer.

P. 89 (2. 3. 302). Āttavela is extremely puzzling to me. Muni Jayantavijayaji interprets it as ‘one who has accepted limitations,’ i.e. ‘servant.’ That, of course, suits the context excellently.

P. 90 (2. 3. 314). I have not come across any other reference to seizing bears’ ears, but I was told there is a popular belief that a bear is cowed if its ears are seized.

P. 92 (2. 3. 337). Nivṛtti is used here in a peculiar technical sense and means ‘difference, distinction.’ In the eighth guṇasthāna, persons do not make the same spiritual progress, even though they have entered at the same time. There is nivṛtti in this guṇasthāna. In the ninth, all who have entered it at the same time must make the same progress. See PE and Rājendra, s.v. aniyaṭṭi; and Lokaprakāśa (Dravya) 3. 1285-87.

P. 93 (2. 3. 350). Avagraha is the space around the guru which one should not enter (n. 20). But one may enter this space with the guru’s permission.

P. 107 (2. 3. 515). These 1000 yojanas are the upper part of Ratnaprabhā, the roof, as it were. Nine hundred of them are really counted twice; in the 900 yojanas below Rucaka which constitute half of the Middle World (p. 104), and in the 180,000 yojanas which constitute the depth of Ratnaprabhā.

P. 145 (2. 4. 128). ‘A city of Gandharvas’ is an imaginary city, a mirage in the sky.

P. 146 (2. 4. 141). Vīrāsana is usually a kind of posture. Here it is evidently some kind of seat.

P. 160 (2. 4. 344). As I said in I, n. 321, I was told that once in 80 years there was a year of 363 days in a peculiar reckoning. But even if this is true, Hemacandra usually uses the year of 360 days. Not only here and in 1. 4. 719, but also in 5. 5. 259, he uses the number 363. If this is a mere lapse on Hemacandra’s part, as Prof. Schubring suggests (GGA 32, p. 294), it is strange that it occurs so often. Muni Jayantavijayaji suggests that the error crept in from the title of the work. But triṣaṣṭi⁰ occurs in every manuscript I have seen. Also in Padmānandamahākāvya 16. 193 (GOS LVIII) the number is 363, but its author imitated Hemacandra avowedly.

P. 164 (2. 5. 23). This does not seem very clear, as apparently Āvali had already paid for the cow; but I see no other interpretation.

P. 170 (2. 5. 114). ‘New’ should be corrected to ‘dry.’ There is no authority for the ed.’s interpretation of rūkṣa as navīṇa.

P. 172 (2. 5. 137). Yojana-ambole or yojanām bole? Perhaps there is a connection with the Pk. verb bola, to extend. All the MSS. have the reading of the ed. The meaning is clear.

P. 252 (3. 1. 398). In Prof. Schubring’s review of I (GGA 32) he objects to the fact that I did not in my note (I, n. 126) mention Prof. Leumann’s sanskritizing of pāovagamaṇa as prāyopagamana. My note was entirely correct. The Jain Prakrit name for a specific phenomenon is pāovagamaṇa. The Jain Sanskrit name for the same phenomenon is pādapopagamana. Whether the Sanskrit name should have been something else is a question that, however interesting and important, belongs to an entirely different field. My task is to interpret Hemacandra’s language as it is.

P. 278. In the Journal and Proceedings, Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1932, pp. 13-15, ‘A New Indian Version of the Story of Solomon’s Judgment’ (Chakravarti) gives a Tantric version in which the dispute is about the identity of the child’s murderer.

Add to n. 401 in I: Or perhaps lakṣadīpa should be interpreted as ‘a lamp for a lac,’ as a measure of wealth. Cf. Prabandhacintāmaṇi, p. 107 (Tawney).

In I, p. 339 there is a reference to elephants’ tusks splitting in moonlight, for which I could find no explanation. Only recently I have seen the statement in a magazine that ‘some kinds of elephant ivory, when subjected to sudden and extreme changes in temperature, have been known to crack with considerable violence.’ If this is true, perhaps the tusks of live elephants might be affected by the change in temperature after nightfall.