Kaulārcanadīpikā 43b
Avagraha erroneously placed after, instead before, yaṃ: loko yaṃ ’ → loko ’yaṃ
57a
The two dots written on top of each other (visarga) were misread or accidentally misspelled (or simply give the wrong impression through blurred ink) as being an avagraha:
mokṣa’syād → mokṣaḥ syād
Dakṣiṇāmūrtisaṃhitā 21a
As above (57a):
ṛṣi’syād → ṛṣiḥ syād
So apparently also 55b.
Mudrāprakāśaḥ 11a
Appears to indicate word separation
21a/30a
Word separation and/or exegetical function: separating the conditional clause (yadi syād) from the main clause.
Similarly 18a: separating the scope of iti
from the definiendum.
Regards,
WS
It was suggested offlist that the unusual avagrahas may be used as a gap filler. At his request I'm attaching a pdf of the folios with the unusual avagrahas circled.Thanks,Harry SpierOn Sun, May 7, 2023 at 9:35 AM Harry Spier <vasishtha.spier@gmail.com> wrote:Thank you Elliot,I've been going through transcriptions of a group of manuscripts from the Ragunath Temple, Jammu and in the eloquent words of Charles DiSimone who replied offlist in describing some Nepalese manuscripts, its a mishmash.Some don't have have avagraha. Some have one or two in a whole manuscript and some use avagraha. Where manuscripts use avagraha to elide a afte e or o they also use avagraha to indicate ā+a .But in some cases I'm finding avagraha in places strange places. I've checked these following cases against the actual manuscripts which are in archive.org. For example:dakṣiṇāmūrtisaṁhitā ऋषिऽस्याद्दक्षिणामूर्तिर्गायत्रीछंद उच्यते ।। 4 ।। folio 21a अंते जीवऽशिवस्या तु विद्या वरुण पूजिता ।। 43 ।। folio 55b kaulārcanadīpikā लोकोयंऽजुगुप्सिति folio 43b निःसंग एव मोक्षऽस्याद्दोषाः सर्वे च संगजाः । folio 57a mudrāprakāśaḥ शिखयागालिनीं मुद्रामऽर्धस्यो परिचालयेत् । folio 11a अनामा मध्यमे अंगुष्टेन स्पृशेदित्यऽपानमुद्रा ।। 2 ।। folio 18a स्यादऽपानहुतौ मुद्रा ।। 2 ।। folio 21a मध्यापृष्टेंऽगुष्टौ मध्या क्रोडे स्थितौ कामः काम इति काममुद्रेत्यर्थः ।। 19 ।। folio 30aAny explanation for the use of avagraha in these cases would be appreciated.
If anyone wants to look at the actual manuscript I can provide the images for these cases.
Harry SpierOn Sat, May 6, 2023 at 10:18 AM Elliot Stern <emstern1948@gmail.com> wrote:Dear Harry,The use of avagraha to mark elision of an initial short a is not usual in Sanskrit mss. MacDonell, for example, says in his Sanskrit Grammar for Students (page 5):The elision of अ a at the beginning of a word is marked in
European editions with the sign ऽ called Avaagraha ('separation'); e.g. तेऽपि te 'pi for ते अपि te pi.
Best wishes,ElliotOn May 5, 2023, at 9:14 PM, Harry Spier via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info> wrote:Dear list members,<VERSE 5.pdf>I'm looking at the manuscript ajñānadhvāntadīpikā by somanāthaḥAs far as I can tell there are no avagrahas in the manuscript.For example if you look at the end of line 5 on the attached 1st folioThe end of verse 5 is संन्यासाःसप्रयोगाश्चवक्ष्यन्तेत्रसमासतः ५ Anirban Dash (and several others pointed out that this should beसंन्यासाःसप्रयोगाश्चवक्ष्यन्तेऽत्रसमासतः ५As far as I can see there are no avagrahas anywhere in the manuscript.Is this normal or unusual for Kashmiri manuscripts not to use avagraha.The manuscript can be downloaded from egangotri on archive.org from https://archive.org/details/AgyanDhvantaDeepikaShriSomnath4966Alm22Shlf4DevanagariTantra_201708Thanks,Harry Spier
_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology
_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology