xxii AMARAKOŚA view has been criticized by other ancient commentators who try to establish that Amara was an orthodox Hindu. They interpret the first verse as a glorification of Lord Visnu and the sea. Neither Sürin nor Malli. refers to any suggestion of the Buddha in the verse. The former explains अस्य विष्णोः क्षयो निवासोऽक्षय: । (p. 1 ) and the latter has अनेन परब्रह्मशब्दब्रह्मणोरूपास्तिराचरिता । (p. 3) Bhānujī on the other hand emphatically denies any reference to the Buddha or to Jina. तन्न । जिन- स्वामी तु – 'जिनमनुस्मृत्य' इति स्मरणलक्षणं मङ्गलमाह वाचकपदस्यात्रादर्शनात् . . अमरकर्तुर्नैनत्वे प्रमाणाभावाच्च । In the Brahmavarga of the second Kānda he says: यूपाञं तर्म ... प्रयोगिणः । (pp. 461-2) प्रणीतः संस्कृतोऽनलः । समूह्यः परिचय्यापचय्यावग्नौ These details of the sacrifice could hardly be within the ken of a Buddhist. Minute details are furnished for the performance of the Srāddha ceremony, पर्येषणा परीष्टिश्च.. सनिस्त्वध्येषणा (p. 469) and of Vedādhyayana, पाठे ब्रह्माञ्जलिः . . (p. 472) स्वाध्यायः स्याज्जपः सुत्याभिषवः सवनं च सा । सर्वैनसामपध्वंसि जप्यं त्रिष्वघमर्षणम् । (p. 477) There are again minute details such as अङ्गुल्यग्रे तीर्थं दैवं स्वल्पाङ्गुल्योर्मले कायम्± । (p. 478) 1 Ak., NSP ed., 1905, p. 2. 2 Incidentally, when Amara is obliged to change the metre for
