Appendix 6.1: additional notes

In the use of the preceding volumes, I have found some errors and some points on which I could make additional comments. A new edition of part of the Triṣaṣṭi⁰ has raised some questions. Some reviewers also have found some errors or debatable points; perhaps more than I have seen. But no one has offered any explanation for the real difficulties, e.g., the mātṛ° and pitṛmedha, the black-flowered tamāla, the gupyadguru, et cetera.

I, p. III (1.2.359). Dīpamallī is a ‘lampstand.’ See II, n. 82.

I, p. 119 (1. 2. 479). Supratiṣṭha is a ‘bowl.’ See II, n. 386. I, p. 123 (1. 2. 533). Prof. W. Norman Brown in his review of I (JAOS 52, 88) suggests emending ‘bālakā’ to ‘vālakā.’ The emendation, as he says, would be trifling, but it is not necessary. References to children being passed from lap to lap are commonplace. Being passed from hand to hand is not so common, but it occurs, e.g. 8. 3. 298. The gorgeous clothes with gold applique of Indian children on festive occasions justify the comparison with gold and jeweled pitchers.

I, p. 129 (1. 2. 618). In the same review Prof. Brown takes ‘dāmagaṇḍa’ to mean a ‘garland-cluster.’ PH gives ‘samūha’ as one meaning of gaṇḍa, but apparently only from a single occurrence in the Ausgewāhlte Erzāhlungen in Māhārāṣṭrī, where the meaning is very doubtful. (See Meyer, Hindu Tales, 56 n.). It seems to me much better to take it simply as ‘ball.’ (Cf. MW, gaṇḍaka, ‘ball’; H., genda or gendā, ‘ball.’). I would correct my definition of śrīdāmagaṇḍa (I, p.475) from a ‘golden ornament,’ to a ‘ball with beautiful garlands.’ I do not understand where PH, s. v. śrīdāmagaṇḍa, gets its ‘daṇḍākāra.’

I, p. 159 (1. 2. 1023). Prof. Emeneau brings out (Strangling Figs in Sanskrit Literature, p. 364), that vardhayitṛ is the tree upon which the banyan has fastened itself and not its human cultivator. ‘Cultivator’ must be corrected to ‘fosterer.’

I, p. 163, n. 210 (I. 3. 24). At the end of the note ‘IV, 719’ should read ‘4. 719.’

I, p. 229. ‘Varadāma’ here and throughout should read ‘Varadāman.’

I, n. 290 (1. 4. 242). Iga here is probably for ekāvalī, a ‘necklace of a single strand,’ rather than for ikkā, ‘earring.’

I, p. 263, n. 321 (1. 4. 719). The new edition of the Ātmānanda Sabhā keeps the same reading with the year of 363 days. But it quotes another reading from 2 MSS which seems to me much better: °graistridinonarkavarṣavat, ‘like the solar year deficient by three days.’ See Il, 160, 348; 111, 315, 345.

I, p. 329, n. 369 (1. 6. 30). See III, pp. 77, 340 for additional references to monkeys falling.

I, p. 334 (1. 6. 99). Better: ‘wearing blue garments, as it were.’

I, p. 339, n. 381 (1. 6.179). See II, p. 350.

I, p. 349 (1. 6. 320). Neminātha is black, not the ‘nīla’ with which the edition interprets the ‘śiti’ of the text.

I, p. 355 (1. 6. 405). For ‘twisted together,’ read ‘made to have hanging roots.’ See Emeneau, loc. cit.

I, p. 365 (1. 6. 557). For ‘princes a lac of lamps,’ read ‘rich men a lac-lamp.’ See II, p. 350.

I, p. 386, line 10. Delete ‘7.’

II, n. 21 (2. 1. 104). The Ātmā. has the same text.

II, p. 13 (2. 1. 153). “Shade of a vibhītaka.” This probably does not refer to the limited shade of the Terminalia bel-lerica, but to the danger from the proximity of the Semecarpus anacardium, which MC says is the “vibhītaka in popular understanding and use.” See III, n. 288.

II, pp. 89, 348 (2. 3. 302). The Ātmā. interprets āttavela as pratīkṣamāna.

II, p. 103, line 16. For ‘prevented’ read ‘presented.’

II, p. 113, n. 246 (2.3.621). Ātmā, reads pramavistṛtau for krama°.

II, p. 199, n. 348 (2. 6. 367). Ātmā. defines Śambara as devaviśeṣa. PH says daityaviśeṣa, but gives no source. It seems to me the name of an individual.

II, p. 209 (2. 6. 523). Mr. Nambiar of the O. I. staff has suggested a better interpretation of the two mahāprāṇas. Mahāprāṇa is an aspirate consonant and in sandhi one aspirate consonant will lake the place of another.

II, p. 254 (3. 2. 5). Pandit L. B. Gandhi suggests that this Mahābala might refer to Hanumat’s father, whose name was Pavanaṭjaya, sometimes shortened to Pavana. This seems to me rather far-fetched.

H, p. 328 (3. 7. 65). For “with an extraordinary body,” read “solitary.” Though I can find no lexical authority for it, ekāṅga must mean ‘alone, solitary.’ Cf. 4. 3. 79 and 5. 5. 199.

III, p. 57 (4. 1. 821). I still think this śloka has a double meaning. But jyotiṣmatām patiḥ is surely ‘sun’ rather than the ‘moon’ of the ed.

III, p. 68, n. 95 (4. 2. 59). Ātmā. interprets śaṅkula (ā) as ‘chain.’ Pk. śaṅkala=śṛṅgala, but Ātmā. keeps śaṅkula (ā).

IV, p. 117 (7. 1. 152), p. 369. Two Gujarātis say that ‘ullalat’ refers to a child, who is lying on its back, raising its legs. This is by analogy with Guj. ulaḷavuṃ, which, they say, is regularly used in that connection.

IV, p. 146 (7. 2. 436). Better: The great confer help even with their lives, to say nothing of (mere) speech.

IV, p. 156, lines 2 and 3 (7. 2. 573). Read: The powerful do not seek wealth so much as victory.

IV, p. 158, lines 5 and 6 (7. 2. 601). Read: “kings, so he crazed (with pride) wishes a pūjā even from me.”

IV, p. 264, n. 166 (7. 6. 288). I came across an explanation for this in Handiqui’s Naiṣadhacaritra, XVI, 199: (Kali) “felt distressed when he saw him exposing himself to the dust raised by cows and scattered by the wind.” Note by Prof. Handiqui, “One of the recognized methods of bathing, known as ‘wind-bath.’”

IV, p. 288 (7. 7. 253). For “Avalokinyā, saw,” read “saw by avalokinī (vidyā).”

IV, p. 298, line 3 (7. 8. 16). For “kingdoms nor in subjects” read “in a great kingdom.”

IV, p. 343, line 23 (7.10. 124). For “an image to be anointed” read, “a plaster model.”

IV, p. 370. For 7.6. 838 read 7. 6. 83.

VI, p. 81 (10. 4. 14). While the construction seems to call for a simple nominative here, Śālāyā does not seem quite normal as a name and it is possible that yā should be separated, though there is no need for a relative pronoun.

VI, Mithyāduṣkṛta, 10. 4. 35: 10. 6. 406: 10. 8. 95; 10.9. 179, 255; 10. 12. 270. This expression is difficult to translate. It includes more than the “I am sorry,” of p. 83. It is an expression of repentance and wish that the fault had not been committed. Vs., p. 215, explains it as ‘akṛtam iva.’

VI, p. 146 (10. 6. 127). Alasamadhyena is rather perplexing, but I take it to mean ‘without effort’ on the part of the host.

VI, p. 164 (10. 6. 399). The Abhi. 4. 296 explains tripadī as a fetter on the two front legs and one hind leg of an elephant, which would leave one leg free, his upraised one. A rutting elephant would be chained.

IV, p. 166 (10. 6. 432). I.e., for as many days as he had lived there.

VI, p. 175 (10. 7. 136). For the 12 bhāvanās, Reflections or Meditations, see I, p. 448.

VI, p. 216 (10. 8. 383). Dramma must be here a coin of very small value, probably copper, since they were thrown away for silver.

VI, p. 228 (10. 8. 551). See UV., App. I, p. 10 n. for the idea that Mahāvīra ate the flesh of a cock, which is extremely improbable, or one might say, impossible.

VI, p. 235 (10. 9. 94). The pippal is a favorite resort of the lac insect.

VI, p. 254. The story of Śālibhadra has been treated by M. Bloomfield in the JAOS, 43.

VI, p. 262. The Story of Rauhiṇeya has been expanded into a novelette by Devamūrti. See Studies in Honor of Maurice Bloomfield; New Haven, 1920.

VI, p. 270 (10. 11. 116). Pāṭūpaṭa. So Muni Puṇyavijayajī interpreted it and a footnote in the edition says ‘cāru,’ but according to Pāṇini (VI, 1. 12. Vārtt. 8, Pat.) it has nothing to do with the adj. pāṭu. It seems to mean: splitting open the earth, as it were, with horses with constant earth-splitting capers..

VI, p. 271, n. 207. These are found in Sth. 4. 4. and Jṭātā. 1. 1., according to PH.

VI, p. 278 (10. 11. 222). Rather: Be happy as my husband.

VI, p. 298 (10. 11. 522). Kaḍadāsa was the name of the gang of thieves and Balabhadra, et cetera the individual names. Uttar. 8 consists of verses ascribed to Kapila, only 20, however. Kapila’s story is told in the commentary.

VI, p. 315 (10. 12. 153). I.e., her wish to eat his flesh.

VI, p. 317 (10. 12. 181). The story of the founding of Campā has points of similarity to the better-known story of the founding of Pāṭaliputra in the Pariśiṣṭaparvan, 6. 21ff. This Campā, of course, is not the historical Campā of Aṅgadeśa. It is not identified.

VI, p. 321 (10. 12. 235). There is something evidently left out. There has been no mention of this miraculous arrow, nor of his promise to shoot only one arrow (p. 324).

VI, p. 326 (10. 12. 316). I do not know the source of the śloka, but there is a very similar one in the Kumārapālapratibodha (Kūlavālakathā) p. 162 (GOS edition).

VI, p. 330 (12. 388). Jove surely nodded. Here Sujyeṣṭhā has a son, but on p. 155 she became a nun. She had not been married previously.

VI, p. 333 (12. 431). The four moon-days are the eighth, the fourteenth, full moon and new moon. See Yog. 3. 85 and I, n. 270.

In later volumes I changed the translation of amāvāsya from ‘night-before-new-moon’ as in accord with the western almanac to the correct night-of-new-moon.’

P. 114 (10. 4. 520). Here and throughout this story, Dadhivāhana’s wife is called ‘Dhāriṇī.’ Later (p. 150) she is called ‘Padmāvatī.’ It is the same wife, as Mṛgāvatī says Dhāriṇī is her sister.

P. 147 (10. 6. 136). With the play on gopālā and rājagṛha which Abhaya understood immediately.

P. 285. The story of Udāyana is familar from Meyer’s Hindu Tales, 97ff.

P. 287 (10. 11. 357). I return to my original interpretation of taking nidānatas with vāryamāṇo: “Being restrained from a nidāna.” It was not necessary for him to make a nidāna in order to become lord of Paṭcaśaila.

P. 345 (10. 13. 165). The total of 72 is reached by dividing the two rivers by Vaitāḍhya.