DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.52359#0037
INTRODUCTION. xxxiii
first quarter of the seventeenth century. The subscriptions
in the London MSS. of the Vai^ayanti contain the state-
ment, which is borne out by the Introduction, that it
was composed by Nandapazzffita, the son of RamapaWita
Dharmadhikarin, an inhabitant of Benares, at the instiga-
tion of the Maharaja K e^avan ay aka, also called Tammasa-
nayaka, the son of Koffapanayaka; and a passage added at
the end of the work states, more accurately, that Nanda^ar-
man (NandapaWita) wrote it at Ka.fi (Benares) in the year
1679 of the era of Vikramabhasvara ( = A. D. 1622), by
command of Ke^avanayaka, his own king. These state-
ments regarding the time and place of the composition of
the Vaig'ayanti are corroborated by the fact that it refers
in several cases to the opinions of Haradatta, who appears
to have lived in the sixteenth century1, while NandapaWita
is not among the numerous authors quoted in the Virami-
trodaya of MitramLsra, who lived in the beginning of the
seventeenth century2, and who was consequently a contem-
porary of NandapaWita, if the above statement is correct;
and that he attacks in a number of cases the views of the
‘Eastern Commentators’(Pra^yas),and quotes a term from
the dialect of Madhyadej-a.
The subjoined translation is based upon the text handed
down by NandapaWita nearly everywhere except in some
of the Mantras, which have been rendered according to the
better readings preserved in the KaZ/zaka Gzvhya-sutra.
The two Calcutta editions of the Vishzzu-sutra, the second of
which is a mere reprint of the first, will be found to agree in
the main with the text here translated. They are doubtless
based upon the Vai^ayanti, as they contain several passages
in which portions of NandapaWita’s Commentary have
crept into the text of the Sutras. But the MS. used for
the first Calcutta edition must have been a very faulty one,
as both Calcutta editions, besides differing from the best
MSS. of the Vai^ayanti on a very great number of minor
points, entirely omit the greater part of Chapter LXXXI
1 Buhler, Introduction to Apastamba, p. xliii.
2 Buhler loc. cit.
17]
C
first quarter of the seventeenth century. The subscriptions
in the London MSS. of the Vai^ayanti contain the state-
ment, which is borne out by the Introduction, that it
was composed by Nandapazzffita, the son of RamapaWita
Dharmadhikarin, an inhabitant of Benares, at the instiga-
tion of the Maharaja K e^avan ay aka, also called Tammasa-
nayaka, the son of Koffapanayaka; and a passage added at
the end of the work states, more accurately, that Nanda^ar-
man (NandapaWita) wrote it at Ka.fi (Benares) in the year
1679 of the era of Vikramabhasvara ( = A. D. 1622), by
command of Ke^avanayaka, his own king. These state-
ments regarding the time and place of the composition of
the Vaig'ayanti are corroborated by the fact that it refers
in several cases to the opinions of Haradatta, who appears
to have lived in the sixteenth century1, while NandapaWita
is not among the numerous authors quoted in the Virami-
trodaya of MitramLsra, who lived in the beginning of the
seventeenth century2, and who was consequently a contem-
porary of NandapaWita, if the above statement is correct;
and that he attacks in a number of cases the views of the
‘Eastern Commentators’(Pra^yas),and quotes a term from
the dialect of Madhyadej-a.
The subjoined translation is based upon the text handed
down by NandapaWita nearly everywhere except in some
of the Mantras, which have been rendered according to the
better readings preserved in the KaZ/zaka Gzvhya-sutra.
The two Calcutta editions of the Vishzzu-sutra, the second of
which is a mere reprint of the first, will be found to agree in
the main with the text here translated. They are doubtless
based upon the Vai^ayanti, as they contain several passages
in which portions of NandapaWita’s Commentary have
crept into the text of the Sutras. But the MS. used for
the first Calcutta edition must have been a very faulty one,
as both Calcutta editions, besides differing from the best
MSS. of the Vai^ayanti on a very great number of minor
points, entirely omit the greater part of Chapter LXXXI
1 Buhler, Introduction to Apastamba, p. xliii.
2 Buhler loc. cit.
17]
C