NOTES 157
manuscript is a copy of No6495 in the Tanjore Libra. +y (p. 91 of Catalogue ), and consists of 55 (not 52) verses with a commentary. If it is really the work of Sankara. it must be the original source of the above verses, as it is of that in the sixth line of the commen tary—‘‘मानान्तरविरोधे तु &c." As regards this verse, its reading agrees with that of MSS. CKL in the frst line; whilst the latter half of the second line reads प्रतीतिर्लक्षणोच्यते. So, too, in the commentary on chit- sukhi ; i. 29 (Pandit, vol. V. p. 202 ) where it also occurs. But compare Svatmanirupana,, 32–'मानान्तरोपरोधे मुख्यार्थस्यापरिग्रहे जाते । मुख्याविनाकृतेऽर्थे या वृत्तिः सैव लक्षणा प्रोक्ता ॥ It may not be out of place to note here that in the tika on verse 45 of the Vakyavritti, reference seems to be made to a Brihadvakyavritti. The closing words of that verse are तथा व्याख्यातमादरात्, ' * on which the commentator says “व्याख्यातं बृहत्यां वाक्यवृत्ताविति शेषः। Page 85. जहल्लक्षणा. See above on भागलक्षणा . भागान्तरमपि परित्यज्य. Dr. Ballantyne translates in ac cordance with this reading though, in common with all succeeding editors, he reads भागान्तरमपरित्यज्य. His translation is as follows:—In this sentence, on the other hand coherence is not to be arrived at by our supposing the terms to be indicatory with the relinqui shment of their own primary meaning; because, since there is only a partial incompatibility between the things denoted in the sentence which asserts the identity of the invisible Soul and of the Soul visible [ as embodied ], it would not be fit that, abadoning the resdue of the meaning, there should be indicated something else.” The italics are mine Page 36. अजहल्लक्षणा. See above on भागलक्षणा Page 39. चित्तवृत्तिरुदेति The following explanation of this operation is given in Vedantaparibhasa. “‘यथा तडागो दकं छिद्रान्निर्गत्य कुल्यात्मना केदारान्प्रविश्य तद्वदेव चतुष्कोणाद्यकारं 14
