xviii आश्वलायनगृह्यसूत्रभाष्यम् peta 'kim aham karavani' iti. tenoktam artham ahṛtam kṛtvā snanam karoti, athavānujñātaḥ. . .) and also of Nārāyaṇa (vidyante gurum arthena nimantrapate 'kam artham aham to karavani' iti. gurur yam artham aha tam kṛtvā snanam karoti. athavanujñātaḥ snäyāt) would make it clear that the reading was kṛtva and not kṛta-. 8. 4. 1. 11 (p. 224): vitastim avak for vitasty avāk. Devasvāmin explains: adhe vitastiparimăṇam khā- nayet and Nārāyaṇa: dvādaśāngulo vitastiḥ. It is difficult to explain the word vitasti in neuter gender. 9. 4. 4. 1 (p. 235): prajvalayateti for prajoälayateti. Though the latter form is also attested, both the sutra and Bhasya read the former. 10. 4. 4. 12 (p. 238): tailam apaḥ for tilän äpaḥ. Though some of the manuscripts utilized by Stenzler have the variant tailam he preferred the reading tilan. But Devasvāmin repeats the word tailam in the Bhasya. Jayanta in his Vimalodayamālā also has tailam (p. 145). These examples would however make it clear that some of the variant readings of the sutra as explained by Devasvamin are attested by independent sūtra manuscripts. Nārāyaṇa also had a few of these variants in his text though the printed editions do not take notice of them. 1 Obvious printing errors such as brahmaivam itare (I. 23. 12), aviplutaḥ (2. 1. 5), agneya (4. 1. 2) in the ASS ed. are ignored and not taken as variants.
