padhvi 25 ent 2 tia;
from his comments on III
dateable concrete evidence of two separate traditions, one current in
the whole of India except Ka&mir and the other current in the latter
only from about the middle of the 8th century to about the end of the
17th, as shown by the date of the Mson which Dr. Belvalkar's edition
of Anandavardhana's Commentary is based. There is, therefore, no
reason why the text as commented upon by the Pai¢its of Kasmir
headed by Siddha Vasugupta should not be designated as the special
recension of that province. Another great distinguishing feature of
the Gia recensions is that none of them has any sub-recensions and,
therefore, there is no possibility of there being any confiated sub-groups
of any of them like those of the Mahbhairdatc. That being so, both are
available in their original purity.
Nor is there anything in the etymology of the two terms which would militate against the application of the term Tecesion thereout t० the type of the work coming from that northernmost province of India For whereas the term version, derived from certo, to Arn, means 'a change or translation of a work from one language into another or from one script into another, which may be of the same or a different province", and the term recasion, derived from recense०, I review or etaile, means 'a fresh reckoning or re-consideration of a work' and therefore whereas the term sersion can be used with reference to even a translation or a transcript into another language, regardless of the fact whether or not variae lections have or have not crept into the term recension must be used with reference to a work, which, whether translated or transcribed or not, bears evident signs of having been subjected to a review or an examination and consequently con tains emendations made with a view to correct some supposed errors or grammatical irregularities &c., or to supply some missing links, or contains conscious additions made with a view to heighten the effect of a statement or a series of statements with reference to a particular topic contained in the original text. The text of the GEthi as contained in the MSS. coming from the province of Kasmir, whether with or without a commentary, during a long period of several centuries, ia distinguishable by both the said features. Therefore Dr. Schrader cannot be accused of having use made of unscientific terminolog. when in 1930 he published under the caption Kannir Reversion of a Bhagavadgita his booklet based on a comparative study of the contents of the Vulgate and the text as found in the Kakmir MSS., available to him. It appears from his admissions in the Introduction to the edition of the text with the commentary of Anandavardhana that even DrBel. valukar has now ceased to consider that nomenclature objectionable,
