there were first put on the track of developing their intelligence on the
right lines by the method of Upasana of Siva according to the Trika
rites systematically defined for the first time in his Sivasara by Siddha
asugupta, who is now known to be also the first Kafmirian com
mentator of the Bhagavadgin as known to the Kasmirians of his time,
and that those who had a philosophical turn of mind were organised
into the Pratyabhijia school by Bhatta Somananda, the author of
Sjuadrs. (2) Another probable cause of the existence of the Kasmir
cension is that the Mss. of the Gizz which may have reached Kasmir
before the time of Vasugupta, the founder of the Trika aect of Saivism,
wrote his commentary thereon, which is the earlieut one known to have
been written by a K&mirian Pandit, may have contained just the same
700 stanzas which Sankara has commented upon and distributed amongst
the speakers in the same manner as in hi commentary, but with certain
variations in readings. Afterwards some scribe, who may have copied
out one of them before the time of the next commentator, may have
added the stanzas and half-stanzas just to show of hin learning, and
since then the work as current in Kasmir may have been stamped
with that peculiarity, besides that of the variations in readings, which
now distinguishes that recension from the vulgate . This too is
probable because no MSof Vasugupta's commentary has yet come
to light. However, I believe that there is a greater probability on the
side of the first reason because it is a general belief now that the text
as known to Vasugupta was the same as that known to the later com
mentators and because none of the additional stanzas or half-stanz
has been composed in any of the larger metre in vogue from or after
the 5th century A. D.
Whatever the reason, the recension is there with the ‘distinct stamp of the province impressed upon it by the fact of its having been com mented upon by several writers of the same school just as we have the Pippalada recension of the Atharvaveda peculiar to that province and also a distinct unpublished recension of the Yogadeithe differing in extent and internal structure from that commented upon by Ananda bodha Yati which has been published by the Niraya Sagar Press, Bombay.' A Word-Index to the Bhagavadgild claiming to be exhaustive cannot, therefore, afford to ignore it, especially so when so much importance as is before-mentioned is attached to it by eminent scholars. That is the reason why I have added a separate section in each Part of this work relating to the word occurring in the text according to that recension only. I have preferred to keep them in neparate acctions because the index to the ulgate with its varianta haa itself become
1. Vide my article on "MS, No. 5771 at the Sri Psapaniihn Public Library, rinagar'; in the Bhiraiya Vi Vol. II, pp. 64-11,
