he says, he had chanced to secure.' The above is not, therefore, his final view and it is just possible that he may modify it. On the other hard although there are some plausible grounds for the hypothesis that there may be in existence a recension of the Gh differing from that commented upon by Saikara and the other non-KEईmirian commenta tors who followed him, no MS. of a recension answering to the descrip tion contained in Binaparzan 43•7 has yet come to light. There is, however, no reasonable ground for believing , as Sastri J var arm has tried to establish by his fresh edition of the Gita published in 1941 of a Benares Msof the work dated Savat 1665 (A. D. 1608-09), that the additional stanzas and half-stanzas found in the M of the KEsmir recension are the survivors of those 45 which, if found, would go to make up the 745 spoken of in the Bigha¢parea, because the distribution of the stanzas in the Kasmir recension as put forth even by the Sastri does not tally with that given in the said Bisma pa70a stanza. Therefore this much is certain that whether Dr. Belval kar does or does not change his views" as to the original extent of the Gita as it may have existed prior to its being separated from the Mahd Bharata. the existence of the Kamir recension must be ascribed to some cause other than the existence of two such recensions, prior to the time of Sankara as schrader has postulated, i. e. to say, one as commented upon by Sankara, whether or not after some one had added 29 stanzas thereto, and the other as containing 745 stanzas distributed amongst the speakers as described in the Bimparea.
What can that cause be ? To me, it appears to be one of the following two, namely :-(1) The MSS. before sankara when he must have decided to write a Bhasya thereon must not have uni
1. NIA, II, p. 214f p. 2.
2. The unpublished commentary of which a Mshad been seeured by
Dr. Belwalkar.has been found to be that of Anandavardhana and to have been
completed in A.D. 1680. The Doctor himself had, in 1941, edited that commentary
together with the text as Approved by that commentston but it had not come to my notice
til this Introduction was drafted. It appears from the Introduction thereto that he
has modified his view considerably.
3, 1 he learned Doctor characterised the Benares Ms of Shatri Jivarim as "A
Fake Bhagavadgits MSin his article bearing that caption which appeared at pp.
21-31 of the Journal of the Jha Research Institute, Allahabad, Vol. I. P. I, published
in November 1943.
4. In the article referred to in the previous footnote and also in his Introduction
to his edition of the Gita with the commentary of Anandavardhana, which appears to
have been published in 1941 but had not come to my notice till in April 1945 it was
found included in the Bibliography appearing in the Poona Orientalist vol, x, 1-2,
the anid Doctor admits that the in a separate Kadmir इecension of the Gita but
till maintain that it must be of a date later than that of Sankara because it
7atematically tried to normalize the archaic grammar and yntax of the current tart,
