B Benares, Sarasvat¯ı Bhavana Library, MS 86112. Paper, Devan¯agar¯ıscript. Folios 1–76; complete; double sided; 8–11 lines a page.
C Calcutta, Asiatic Society, MS IM-5474. Paper, Devan¯agar¯ı script. 13folios; incomplete; double sided; 12–15 lines a page. Comes with fourfolios from an unidentiﬁed Alam.k¯ara´s¯astra work.
K S¯utra as quoted by Kaun.d.inya in the Bh¯as.ya.T Trivandrum, University of Kerala Library, MS 2018. Paper,Devan¯agar¯ı script.
Folios 1–87 (nos. 1, 8–13, 27, 28 missing);double-sided; 9–10 lines a page. The text for the missing folios 1 and8–13 is preserved on folios numbered 1–11 in a diﬀerent hand andwritten on more recent paper. This may be the handwriting of theeditor of the
Pa˜ nc¯ arthabh¯ as
, who copied this part of the MS fromthe Calcutta MS (cf. n. 1 above). Alternatively someone else mayhave copied it for Sastri from the Calcutta MS. In any case I considerthese eleven folios to be an apograph of part of the Calcutta MS.Orthographical variants in the MSS are not reported. A few commonvariants are: 1)
at the end of a S¯utra; 2) absence of
;3) doubling of
after a preceding
. The above variants are shared byall three MSS, which may indicate their close relationship. B starts with
´sr¯ıgan .e´s¯ aya namah .
, C with
om .´sr¯ı mah¯ agan .apataye namah .
, and T with
harih .gan .apataye namah .
. The edition and apparatus below only refer to thereading of the S¯utrap¯at.ha. Note that the numbering does not correspondwith the S¯utra numbering in the existing edition of Kaun.d.inya’s Bh¯as.ya.References to Kaun.d.inya’s numbering in the notes are preceded by a K.If not stated otherwise K has the adopted reading. In case there is adiﬀerence between Sastri’s edition of the Bh¯as.ya and what T or the othermanuscripts actually have, this is reported in the notes and the siglum K isin general avoided. In such cases ‘Sastri’ refers to the reading of the S¯utrain Sastri’s edition. I have refrained from recording all the variants of theBh¯as.ya readings in B, because they are full of scribal errors and they donot help in reconstructing the reading of the S¯utrap¯at.ha. In general one
Cf. A Descriptive Catalogue of the Sanskrit Manuscripts. Acquired for and Depositedin the Sampurnanand Sanskrit University (Sarasvati-Bhavana) Library Varanasi duringthe years 1951–1981. Vol. VI, part II. Tantra Manuscripts. Varanasi 1991, p. 84.
I am grateful to Dr Abhijit Ghosh for providing me with a copy of the Calcuttamanuscript.
A copy of this manuscript was provided to me by Dr Dominic Goodall and DrS.A.S. Sarma.