पृष्ठम्:स्फुटनिर्णयतन्त्रम्.djvu/19

विकिस्रोतः तः
एतत् पृष्ठम् परिष्कृतम् अस्ति
xviii
SPHUTANirNAYA-TANTRA


Namputiri of the Mana, at the instance of his uncle Shri Kanippayyur Sankaran Namputirippad. This is a well-preserved and apparently late ms., legibly written, but with frequent scribal errors. The ms. is not dated. The works contained in the codex are : A. Grahapariksakrama-vyakhya (in Malayalam) ; B. Sphutanirnaya, edited here ; C. Karanottama of Acyuta ; D. Manusyalayacandrika of Nilakanthan Mussatu ; and E. Tantrasamuccaya-Silpaslokah with commentary in Malayalam. The undermentioned statement occurs at the end:Sphutanirnayan samaptam. Sri-Krsnah privata(m), SrimadAcyutā (?)- śrī padareņubhyo namah. Śrī-Mukam(b)ike saraņam. SriPārvatīkānta (h) šaraņam. Namāmīm (?).

 8. Ms. H : A ms. which originally belonged to the Kutallur Mana in Central Kérala and now preserved in the Elamprakkoțattu Mana, Eravoor, Tripunithura, lent by Shri Tuppan Namputirippad of the latter Mana. The left end of the ms. is uniformly rat-eaten, resulting in the loss of two or three letters in each line. Otherwise, the ms. appears old, and bears, on the flyleaf, in later writing, the Kali date : darabhe dhāvatsaumyah kalih (17,49,428, A. D. 1689) and the name of the original owner of the codex : "Katalluru Meletattu Paricabodhadi itu.”

Manuscripts of the Commentary

1-6. Mss. A-F : The text manuscripts A-F, which contain both the textual verses and the commentary, have been utilised and are designated by the same symbols.

Relationship of the manuscripts

 On the basis of the distinctive similarities and dissimilarities presented by the manuscripts, it is possible to suggest their probable pedigree. The two manuscripts G and H, which contain only the text, have close similarities in readings as distinct from the mss, with commentaries, (see footnotes under verses 1. 12; 2. 2, 7 ; 3. 5 etc.), thereby indicating the existence of two versions of the text. Since the commentary is by the author himself, it is possible that he made the emendations when he wrote the commentary.

 All the six manuscripts containing the commentary, viz., mss; A to F, present a common gap for the words suryas ca, (see the commentary on 1. 10), a common haplographical omission (see com. on 3. 5) and wrong readings (see 3. 12 and com. 1. 9, 16; 3. 18 and 4. 10), pointing to their common descent from an original ms.