MADRAS UNIVERS!ll' SANSKRI f SERIES, No. 3, Part II.

General Editor: Dr. C. KUNHAN RAJA,

Head of the Department of Sanskrit. \

BRHATI OF

- I PRABHAKARA MISRA [ON THE l.VliMAlYISASUTRABH.A'$YA OF SABARASVAl\fiN]

WITH

THE BHA$YAPARISI$TA OF SALIKANATHA

Price Rs. 2-8]

[TARKAPADA]

EDITED BY S. K. RAMANATHI\ SASTRJ,

Junior Lecturer in Sanskrit, University of Madras.

UNIVERSITY OF MADRAS 1936

-PRINTED AT

THE MADRAS LAW JOURNAL PRES~,

MYLAPORE, MADRAS

w:~r~: ~

[ R:(ft-i'r ?;{fif: ]

~ 5ff:ft~~Jit~srUT'Rtl

[ +fTQspf] ~r~rqfi:t~a!Taa:R~r~: ~~~~

Foreword Introduction in English Extracts from Bhii.~?yadipa

SI'T:!::

FOREWORD. In this second part of the 3rd Number in the M11dras

Unive!lsity Sanskrit Series, there is published the text of the Brhati exactly as it is found in the man'Uscript utilised for the edition. In the first part of the number, the Brhati has been published with the commentary on it by Salikanatha called the

~juvimalapaficika, and in editing it many improvements had to he effected in the readings of the Brhati as found in the manuscript. Instead of giving the variant readings in foot notes, I thought it better to reproduce the text of the Brhati as found in the manuscript, separately, and thus it is printed in this part. This covers 68 pages. After that is printed in this part a work called the Mimarpsabhii$yaparisi$ta by Salikanatha. Here also, the text with the accepted reading is printed on the top half of the page and the text with the reading as found in the manu-script is printed on the bottom half. This covers 80 pages.

In the Foreword to the first part, I had promised to print in this second part 1An Introduction to the Prabhakaramimaipsa" by Mahamahopadhyaya Prof. S. Kuppuswami Sastri, M.A., I.E.S. (Retired). But it has not been possible for him to prepare the Introduction and I regret that I could not include in this part the learned Introduction as promised.

A few indices have been added in this part and it is hoped that they will be of use to the readers.

Recently we have been able to find out the existence of a manuscript of the Brhati in the Spigeri Mutt. We have been able to compare the edition as now printed with this manuscript and the variants in reading have been added in this part. The manuscript extends from the beginning to the eleventh Stitra in the first Pada of the third Adhyaya.

In some loose sheets collected by Mr. Ramakrishna Kavi and Mr. S. K. Ramanatha Sastri, some portions of the Brhati for the seventh and the eighth Adhyayas have been found. The manuscript begins : 11gagapataye namal:l." Then the seventh Adhyaya opens. There are ten leaves. On the last page, in the last line but one, the eighth Adhyaya ends and the ninth Adhyaya opens. I give below the beginning and end of the portion available in these s.l:\eets,

2

sri ~gal)apataye namaJ.:t. srutipramii1,1a1vac che~iiJ!iim mukhya. bhede yathadhikaram bhaval;t syat. piirvel}.adhyaya~atke!).aupadesiki pratipattir vicarita. uttarel}.edanim karyato 'vagatis cintyate. tatra yadi yathopadc5am karyam na karyatal;t sambandhantaram avagamyate. atha tu y,!lthii.kiiryam upadesas tata upadesakale 'pi

ke~ucit praptis cintaniya. This is how the manuscript begins. The manuscript ends: yatra punar vise$alingam .bhavati tatra bhavaty eva vidhyantal_l. pradarsitam ca ra~trabhrta iti. iti brhatyam a~tamasya catur-thal;t piidal}. samiiptas cadhyayal,t. yajfiakarma pradhanam tad-dhi codanii.bhiitam tasya dravye~u sarpskaras tatprayuktag tad-arthatvat. visi$takaryavagamyatvii.d fthasya vise$al}.atidesalak$a t).am hetu1;t trividhas coha iti. kim idam traividhyam. karya-bhedal). svasthane vak$yiimal;t. tadbhedac cohyam api bhidyata iti tatraiva vak~yamaJ:l.. anyad apy upodghataditi yathedam adya-prasaktanupras.aktam apiti i$te bhail.kte iii evamadi. kim punal;t karal}.am agnihotradaya evodaharal}.am. kevalopadesaparisa-maptii. hy ete upadesarthaniriipa!).amukhenatidesag pravarlaniya iti etany evodii.haral}.ani. atra paunaruktyam paricodya ul.tara-:vivak~ayety ekal). pariharal_l. yaJ:t punar ayam d\itiya]:l etena ceha -

Here the manuscript breaks.

The leaves are very old and it is very difficult to handle them. The leaves are numbered as na, nna, nya, etc. in 1.he usual l\'lalabar style. The script is Malayalam. The leaves are twenty inches long and one and a half inches broad. It is this same collection of stray leaves that contains the portions of Bhii.$yadipa (mentioned in the Introduction). Extracts from this Bhii$yadipa are given at the end of the Introduction.

University of .Madras. 4th September, 1936.

C. KUNHAN RAJA, Reader iu Smzskrit.

INTRODUCTION.--.. ________ _ The Brhati of Prabhakara Misra, which is now issued in two

parts as No. 3 of the Madras University Sanskrit Series, forms the basic text for one of the Schools of the Mimarrsa system of Indian Philosophy, namely the Prabhakara School. Indian Philosophy is represented by six important systems, namely, the Siitikhya, the Yoga, the Nyaya, the Vaise~ika, the Mimarrsa and the Vedanta systems. Of these, the Siiilkhya and the Yoga systems are allied systems; and so are the Nyaya and the

Vaise~ika systems. While the Siii1khya and the Yoga systems continued to exist as separate systems, with their individuality well preserved, in their later developments, the Nyaya and the

Vaise~ika systems got merged into a single system at some stage in their development. In the latter-day text-books like the Siddhantamuktavali and the Tarkasailgraha, we find a harmoni-ous mixture of the topics of both the Nyaya and the Vaise~ika systems, i.e. the Pramiil}as of the Nyaya and the Prameyas of th~

Vaise~ika system. In the case of the Mimarpsa and the Vedanta systems, the

course was quite different from that of the Nyaya and the Vaise!lika systems. While the two latter systems got merged into a single system, the former two systems were split up into different schools, each differing from the other on very material points. The Vedanta system was split up into the Advaita School of Sankara, the Visi~tadvaita School of Ramanuja and the Dvaita School of Madhva. They differ on their metaphysics and on their Logic; they differ also on the interpretation of their basic texts, namely the Vedanta Siitras and the Upani~ads. There are minor Schools coming under the Vedanta system; but here I speak only of the important Schools.

Like the Vedanta system, the l\fimarpsa system was also split up into two main Schools, the School of Kumiirila Bhatta and the School of Prabhakara. While in the case of the Veda~ta system, the founders of the three Schools wrote independent Bha~yas on the basic texts, namely the Sutras and the Upani~ads, interpreting the basic texts in their own way, in the. case of the Mimiitpsa system, the procedure of the founders of the two

4

Schools is different. There are the Mimatp.sa Siitras of Jaimini and there is the Bha~ya on these Siitras by Sabarasvamin. Then there is the Brahmai.J.a portion of the Vedas. The Mimatp.sa Siitras divided into twelve Adhyayas (each :Adhyaya being sub divided into Padas), are grouped into a large number of ~dhikarai.J.as. Kumarila Bhatta and Prabhakara take as their basic text, not merely the Siitras and the Brahmal).as, but also the

Bha~ya of Sabarasviimin on the Siitras. They both wrote com-mentaries on the Bhiieyya of Sabarasvamin and in these commen-taries they expounded their own doctrines. While in the case of the Vedanta the founders of the schools differed not merely on the interpretation of the Siitras but also on the grouping of the Siitras into 'Adhikarat;1as, in the case of the Mimarpsii there is practically no such difference. The Siitras are grouped into the Adhikaral).as in the same way in both the Schools,! While there is considerable difference in the Interpretation of the U pani~adic passages among the three Schools of the Vedanta system, there is no difference between the two Schools of the Mimarpsa system in regard to the interpretation of the Brahmat;1a passages. But Kumarila Bhatta and Prabhakara differ materially in their inter-pretation of the passages in the Bha~ya of Sabarasvamin on the Siitras.

There is considerable scope for further research regarding the dates of these two authors, their relative chronology, their native home and their works. While Mahamahopadhyaya Ganganath Jha has suggestedZ that, considering the doctrines which Prabhakara expounds and also the style of his writings, he may be earlier than Kumarila Bhatta, the view commonly accepted is that he is the disciple of Kumarila Bhatta. Kumarila Bhatta is accepted as having lived before Satikara. Considering the present state of our knowledge regardingthe works of these authors, we can at best only suggest certain hypotheses; it will be unsafe to commit oneself to any definite view on such matters. The date commonly accepted for Satikara, namely about 800 A. D., is liable to be upset. By saying that Kumarila lived earlier than Salikara, we are not saying anything very definite. Kumarila is supposed to have lived after Bhartrhari. But the date of

1. The number of adhikaranas in the Mimamsa Sastra is 907 as. given in Jaiminiyanyayami'ila~istara (AnandMrama Sanskrit Series, p. 14, prefatory matter).

2. Prabhakara Mimarp.sa, pp. 12-17.

5 Bhartrhari is as unsettled as any other unsetlled date in the history of Indian Literature. 1-tsing reports that Bhartrhari died about 644 A. D. But there is considerable difficulty in accept-ing this report.l Taking all things into consideration it is safer not to say anything definite at present regarding the date of Kumarila Bhatta and Prabhakara.

Regarding the relative chronology of the two authors, there are certain anecdotes which connect Prabhakara as the disciple of Kumarila Bhatta. There is no need for me now to repeat them here. On an examination of the works of Kumarila Bhatta and Prabhakara, it is found that while there an many places where 5alikanatha says that Prabhakara is refuting the statements in the works of Kumarila Bhatta,2 there is no place where he asserts that the refutations by Kumarila Bhatta in his works refer to any statement in the work of Prabhakara. It is true that Kumarila Bhatta refutes many doctrines that belong to the School of Prabhakara. But they may be only refutations of doctrines and not refutations of the actual statement of Prabhakara.3 What is likely is that the Mima:rpsa system, on the doctrinal side, was more akin originally to the Prabhakara School; that Kumarila Bhatta was a reformer; and that Prabha-kara endeavoured to re-assert the earlier phase of the system.

There is a tradition that Prabhakara belonged to the house called Kuttulli in Malabar. The tradition about Kuttulli Prabha-kara as I have heard it in Malabar is as follows. He was, when a student, a very precocious boy; but his teacher was very harsh on him. The boy found life in his teacher's house so hard that one day he decided to kill his teacher by dropping a stone on his head from the ceiling of his bed-chamber at night. He made the arrangement by moving the planks in the ceiling just above the bed and at night he stationed himself on the ceiling with a big stone near him. It happened that that was a moon-light night and the teacher's wife spoke admiringly of the bright moon. Then the teacher said: "But this moon is nothing com pared with the brightness of my disciple Prabhakara." It was then that the young boy knew in what high esteem his teacher held him.

1. Cf. Dr. S. Krishnaswami Ayyangar Commemoration Volume, pp. 285-298.

2. Cf. Brhati, pp. 1,116 etc. 3. :But Slokavartika I. I. 2. st. 102 ff. seem to refer to the

text of the Brhati: "yat tu laukikam vacanam" on p. 26,

6 He came down, fell at the feet of his teacher and asked for his pardon for the detestable crime he was about to perpetrate. He understood from the teacher that his teacher was harsh on him because of the genuine admiration he had for the preco-cious boy. The teacher knew that if the boy was not held under proper check, he may become conscious of his intellectual abilities and may get spoiled. This was the reason for the teacher's harshness towards the boy. The teacher also told him that the boy need not perform any expiatory ceremony to be free from the sin. But the boy insisted on undergoing the penance prescribed in the Sastras. The proper penance is that the boy should let himself be burnt in a heap of grain-husk after setting fire to the heap. In spite of the persuasions of the teacher, the boy was firm. So a heap of grain-husk was prepared, he standing in it covered with husk to his neck. They set fire to !he heap at the bottom. The husk began to burn gradually. The tradition goes that in that position the boy began to compose the poem called Sri Kr~t;tavilasa. Before he was able to finish to poem, he was disabled by the burning fire. The poem still remains in an unfinished form.l

It seems there are other versions of the story current in Malabar.2 According to the tradition as I have heard it, this Prabhakara3 cannot be the great MimaqJsa teacher, since he died as a young boy and did not live to write any works on Mimal!lsa. But it is very likely that Prabhakara, the Mima1"!1sa teacher belonged to Malabar. His system was quite in vogue in Malabar.4

1. The tradition says that the poem stops in the middle of a verse, namely the first stanza in the 13th canto. The last line, according to traditi9n is: parasritaQ. pascimavarirase~ pa::iya priye konkal).abhiimibhiigan. But, this is the 2nd half of a stanza and after this in the Ms. I have consulted (R 4480 in the Government Oriental Manuscripts Library, Madras), there is the colophon: iti Sukamarakrte Kn~tavilase dvadasaJ:t sargaJ:t. But evidently this is not the end of a canto.

2. Cf. Indian Historical Quarterly, Vol. V (1929), pp. 677-78. 3. I must also state that the Sri Kr~IJavilasa manuscripts

ascribe . the work to Sukumara and not to Prabhakara, although according to tradition the work is ascribed to an author of that name.

4. Note. the reference to the two schools of Mima!"flsa in the stanza: dvatte lak~advayadhiti (quoted in the following para-graph).

7

Even now it is from Malabar that manuscripts of the commentary on Prabhakara's Brhati and of other works of authority in the Prabhakara School have been obtained,

In this connection, I may narrate another story current in Malabar about a Namboodiri Brahmin and his connection with the study of the Priibhakara School. There was a young Namboodiri B.rahmin belonging to a house called Pallippuram. He did not have any high edue".ation; but he was very proud of his looks. He always dressed with fastidious care and he made himself prominent in all assemblies. One day he went to an assembly and seated himself on the first seat. Then he was asked to move and make way for a great scholar. He moved by one seat and when another great scholar came he was asked to move by another seat. In this way he moved on slowly and at last he came to the edge of the platform. Without noticing it, he moved on further and he fell down. All the people laughed at him. The shame and insult was too much even for that simpleton. On that day he decided to go out of the country, apply himself to study and become a great scholar. This incident took place in the Palace of the Zamorin of Cali cut. After some years, the Raja of Cochin, the traditional enemy of the Zamorin Raja, wanted to send for this Brahmin, who by that time had become a great scholar. When the messenger of the Raja of Cochin went to him, he sent a reply as follows:

dvaitc lak9advayadhiti cadvaite lak!)aparagai:J 1 adyapi vidyaliibhaya jagarmy eva jarann api f1

8

stage, this P rabhakara Schcol dwindled into absolute oblivion in Malabar as in other parts of India. The works known in the Prabhakara School are much rarer than in the Bhatta School; and the mansucripts available in the field of Prabhakara Litera-ture are practically negligible in number compared to those available in the Bhii.tta School. It is only during recent years that works like that of Salikanatha and Bhavanii.tha were discovered. Few books are available in print also.

Regarding the works of Kumii.rila Bhatta and of Prabhakara, there is considerable scope for investigation here also. Kumii.rila Bhatta's work called Slokavartika, forms the commentary on the first Pii.da (called the Tarkapii.da) of the First Adhyaya of Sabarasvamin's Bhii.~ya on the Mimarpsii Sutras. This is an elaborate commentary in metrical stanzas (as is clear from the title of the work, Slokavartika) containing about 3300 stanzas. This is published in the Benares Sanskrit Series along with the commentary of Parthasarathimisra called Nyii.yaratnii.kara. There is a translation of this by Mahii.mahopii.dhyaya Ganganatha Jha.l From the second Pii.da of the first Adhyii.ya, Kumii.rila Bhatta continues his commentary on the Bha~ya of Sabarasvii.min in prose with an occasional metrical passage and proceeds to the last Pada of the third Adhyaya. This portion is called the Tantra-vartika. This too has been translated by Mahamahopadhyii.ya Ganganatha Jha.l This commentary is also fairly elaborate. From the first Pii.da of the fourth Adhyii.ya, Kumii.rila Bhatta's commentary becomes brief, and this portion of the commentary up to the end of the twelfth Adhyii.ya is called the Tuptikii..~

There are some other works attributed to Kumii.rila Bhatfa. :Madhavasarasvati says in his Sarvadarsanakaumudi3 that Kumii.rila Bhatta has written the following works: "tatra bhatta-caryii.IJii.m pafica vyakhyii.nii.ni-ekii. brhattikii.; dvifiyii. madhya-matika; trtiyii. tuptikii.; caturthi karika; paiicamam tantravii.rti-kam uktanuktaduruktacintakam.'' Then he addas: "tatra brhan-madhyamatike samprati na vartete." The stateme11t of Madhava-sarasvati raises many diffi'cult problems. Only two out of the five names are well known to us. 'fupf1ka is ihe third of the

1. Published from Allahabad in the Sacred Books of the Hindus Series.

2. That is, a brief comment. 3. Government Oriental Manuscripts Library, Madras; R

3085 (a), p. 122,

9

five and the one just before that is called the Madhyamatika and the first is called BrhatFka. Tuptika, we know, is the commentary on the Bha~ya of Sabarasvamin by Kumarila Bhatta for the nine Adhyayas (IV to XII). Can it be that the Brhattika and the Madhyarnatik~ are commentaries for the earlier portions? For the Tantravartika there is a qualifica-tion, namely, uktanuktaduruktacintakam. That means that in this work there is a revision of what has been said, addition of what has not been said, and correction of what has been wrongly said, in previous works. But the Tantravartika that we know now forms the commentary on the Bha~ya of Sabarasvamin from the second Pada of t11e first Adhyaya to the end of the third Adhyaya. From the statement of Madhavasarasvati it is a complete revis1on of an earlier work. In the list given by Madhavasarasvati we do not find the Slokavartika, and \ve find the name of another work called the Karika. 1 Is it likely that by the term Karika he means the Slokavftrtika?

From the statement of jMftdhavasarasvati it is possible to surmise that Kumftrila Bhatta wrote an elaborate commentary for the earlier portion of the Sftbara.bha~ya, and called it the Brhattika; for the middle portion he wrote the commentary, less elaborate than the commentary for the earlier portion and called it the Madhyamatikii (both from the point of view of its position and from the point of view of its size); for the last portion he wrote a short commentary and called it the Tuptikii (the brief comment). Then perhaps, he wrote a very lengthy commentary for the entire portion in the form of karikas and this is the Sloka-vartika, or the Karikii mentioned by Miidhavasarasvati. An additional prose commentary for the middle portion may have been written after this, and this is the Ta.ntravartika. Perhaps he did not write a later commentary for the last portion. I will return to this topic after describing the works of Prabhakara.

Prabhakara has written a commentary on the Bha~ya of Sabarasvamin and this commentary is called the Brhati (of which the first Pada of the first Adhyaya is now published). This is a prose commentary uniform in plan and in execution from the beginning to the end (unlike the commentary of Kum:arila Bhatta). This work is also called Nibandhana. Salikanatha has

1. Note the well-known stanza:

B

Uf!lveka~ karikarn vetti tantram vetti prabhakaralf I mai].

10

written a commentary on this Brhati and it is called the ~juvimalapaficika (the commentary published now). There are reasons to believe that Prabhakara has written another commen-tary on the Bha~ya of Sabarasvamin and that this commentary is called the Laghvi and also the VivaraQa. Sa!ikanatha has written a commentary on this work of Prabhakara and this commentary is called the Dipasikha (This is the work referred to in the stanza quoted above on p. 5).

Now the question arises: why did Prabhakara write two commentaries on the same work ? From the fragmen~s of the VivaraJ.]a available in quotations, it is noticed that there are differences of opinion between the two works. It is held that the Vivarana was written first and that the Nibandhana was written later.l Salikanatha states sometimes that in a particular passage Prabhakara is refuting the interpretation of Kumarila Bhatta. It is plausible to argue that Prabhakara wrote his Vivarat]a first and Kumarila Bhatta's Vartikas came after that. Then in his Nibandhana, Prabhakara criticised the interpretations of Kuma-rila Bhatta and asserted his own doctrines as originally pro-pounded in his VivaraQa, with slight modifications, additions and corrections. In this case, we may also assume that Kumarila Bhatta wrote his commentary on the Bhalya of Sabarasvamin in three parts called respectively, the Brha!tika, the Madhyamatika and the Tuptika (the three works mentioned by Madhava-sarasvati); then Prabhakara wrote his VivaraJ.]a criticising the views of Kumarila Bhatta. Kumarila Bhatta defended his position in his later and more elaborate works, namely the Karika (the Slokavartika) and also in the Tantravartika (the two other works of his, mentioned by Madhavasarasvati). Prabha-kara in his turn defended his position in his Nibandhana,2 There is a symmetry and logical sequence in such an assump-tion3, But the question as to what extent such an assumption corresponds to facts must be

11

One thing must be noted. Neither in the Prakaral}apaficika nor in the ~juvimalii (now printed) is there any mention, or even a hint, of anothr work of Prabhakara and Salikanatha's own commentary thereon. If Prabhakara had written a shorter com-mentary on the Bhii~ya of Sabarasvamin and if in his longer work, the Nibandhana, he were defending his original shorter work against the attacks of Kumarila Bhatta, we have reasons to expect mention, or at least a hint, of it in the commentary of Siilika-natha, especially since Salikanatha says that Prabhiikara is criticising Kurniirila Bhatta in many passages. But there is no doubt about the tradition of Prabhakara having written two commentaries. Besides the references noted in the Journal of Oriental Research, Madras,I I may mention that the two works of Prabhakara are mentioned in another small work on the Prabhakara school, called the Amrtabindu by Candra. I know only of two manuscripts of this, one being in the Asiatic Society of Bengal2 and the other in the Adyar Library, Madras,3 The following are the passages where the works of Prabhakara are mentioned:

N ibandhanakara aha-putra j anmanimitte' nuvada vagata phala-kamasya pitul:]. putre~tiivadhikaral:]. sukhapasvadivat putragata-syapi phalasya kiimyanvayasambhavat. tad atrarthavade para-sabdaprayogo'sti. svargakame tu naivam. jyoti~tomadi~u phala-vat putrajanmano nimittatvat na nirapek~asya nimittata. Atraha.'

Vivara!Je tu: kamadhikara eva jiita eva putre tatphalam kamyata iti.s In an earlier section of the work, 6 the author of the Amrtabindu quotes from the Brhati itself. There he does not say anything about the name of the book from which he is quoting. The quotation is as follows: 11Tad uktam: (na) prayuktir angatve hetu~; kas tarhi ? viniyoga~-iti."7 It need not be that this difference in the way in which the works are referred to indicates a difference in the works themselves. The passage introduced with "tad uktarn" is in Prabhakara's Brhati. But the

I. Vol. III, p. 283 ff. 2, III. F. 149. (p. 4. Catalogue by Pandit Kunja Vihari.

1904). 3. Adyar Library, 39, H. 6. 4. Adyar Library Ms., p. 182-3. S. Ibid., p. 184. 6. Ibid., p. 148. 7. Cf. Brhati, p~ 3~

author of Amrtabindu does not mention any name for the work. But there are quotations from works of which the names are given, as in the case of passages like "nibandhanakara aha" and "vivarat;J.e tu." We have such methods of introducing an earlier author, in the case of quotations from Slokavartika, where the quotations are introduced both as 11tad ahur vartikakaramisriil;t" and also as "tad uktam."I The author of the Am:rtabindu may also have quoted from the works of Prabhiikara in the same way through different expressions, sometimes by naming the work and sometimes by not mentioning the work.

Salikaditha quotes from a large number of authors in his commentary in the portion now published. He quotes Dharma-kirti as follows:

Tad aha kirtiQ. 2 Tad uktam3 Tad uktam kirtinaiva' Tatha ca kirtinoktam s Yad uktam paraiJ:l'

He quotes from the Slokavartika as follows: Tad ahur vartikakaramisral;t7 Tad uktams Tad uktam matiintares YathoktamiO Tad uktamll

Besides the passages that are tracable to the Slokavattika, there are many quotations from a Vartikakara in the portion now published. They are as follows:

1. Cf. quotations from Kumiirila Bhatta's Vartikas by Salika-natha, given below.

2. Brhati, p. 51. .3. Ibid., p. 79. 4. Ibid., p. 79. 5. Ibid., p. 144, 6. Ibid., p. 194, 7. Ibid., p. 91. 8. Ibid., p. 99. 9. Ibid., p. 122.

10. Ibid., pp. 225 and 279. 11, Ibid .. p. 300.

13 Tad aha vartikakaralp Tad aha bhagavan vartikakaral). z Tad uktam bhagavata vartikakare:t].a3

Salikanatha does not mention the name of Brhattika. But it must be noted that Salikanatha refers to Prabhakara as the 'J.'ikakara,4 that in some places at least, his reference to Vartika-kara is a reference to Kumarila Bhatta and that in all these places, whether the quotations are tracable to the Slokavartika or not, Salikanatha brings out the differences of opinion between the Tikakara (Prabhakara) and the Vartikakara; therefore it is certain that even in places where the references are not tracable to the Slokavartika, the quotation must be from some work of Kumarila Bhatta.

There are some quotations which it has not been possible now to trace to any .source. They are on pp. 109, 122, 226 and 385. The stanzas on pp. 114 and 115 are found in the Prakaral).apaficika. The two stanzas found on pp. 221 and 222 are from the Sankhyakarika. There is another quotation intro-duced as: Yad 1ihuq. The stanza is:

agnihotram trayo vedas tridal)c;l.am(pm;Q.ram) bhasmagul)thanam j

buddhipauru~ahinanarn jlviketi brha.spatiqs 11

This stanza is found in the Sarvadarsanasangraha also.s There is also a mention of one Kasyapa. The passage is:

tad aha bhagaviin kasyapal]-karal)iijfianat karyajfianam; karyajfianat karal)ajiHi.nam. 1 All these quotations in Salikaniitha's ~juvimalapaficika from other works are in the portion now published. I have examined the later potiions so far as they are available in manuscript in the Adyar Library.8 The following are the quotations:

1. Brhati, p. 108. 2. Ibid., p. 116. 3. Ibid., p. 191. 4. Cf. Brhati, pp. 1, 116 etc. 5. Brhati, p. 285. 6. Sarvadarsanasangraha. i\nandasrama series, p. 5 in the

Ciirvakadarsana. 7. Brhati, p. 211. 8, Adyar Library, 39. C. 23.

14 1. raddhantyekadesy aha-yadi yiipadisabdatulyata.1 2. pararnasiddhanti sarnarthayate. 2 3. tatha ca vrttikaro'pi paryudasarn eva darsayati3 4. Tathahur vartikakarapada{:!:

ekavyaktisadrk~atvad dvitral;t kuryur rnahitale I kiiicid alekhyalehyabhyam ne~takabhig kathaficana11

5. tad iihur vartikakararnisrah : anu~ngi padam yat syad adimadhyantavarty api 1 apek~iisattiyogyatvais tasya sarve!).a sailgati}:! ns

6. yad ahur vartikakaramisra{:!: yathaikabandhanarhatvat palasakhadiradaya:f.l 1 tadbandhane vikalpante yage'srnin devatas tatha 11 11

7. Tad iihur vartikakarapadal;l: siinnayyam vii. tatprabhavatviit.7

8. Tad iihur viirtikakiirapiida}:!: . yathaiva~takapaladau sraute hi sati vakyatal:t 1 vrihyiidayo vodhiyante tatha some vidhasyate 11 1

9. Ekadesi vadati' 10. Taiba caha vartikakaral;l:

ekayagatvapak~e syiid eka evatra codakal;lj tatas caikagu!).apriiptya na sarvapasus11ilgraha}:! 111

11. Tad aha vartikakara.J:l: sandigdhe vakyase~ebhyo nirl).ayal;l prak samarthital;ll samarthyiic ca tad atriisti dvayam nir!).ayakarai]aml!ll

12. Tad uktam kiisyapena,1z 13. Raddhiintaikadesi samarthayamana aha. IS

1. Adyar Library, 39. c. 23, pt. G, p. 14. 2. Ibid., p. 15. 3. Ibid., p. 61. 4. Ibid., p. 100. 5. Adyar Library, 39. c. 20, pt. 4, p. 53. 6. Ibid., p. 44; this is from Tantravartika, 2nd adhyaya, 2nd

pada. 7. Ibid., p. 76. 8. Ibid., p. 91, 9. Ibid., p. 95.

10. Ibid.,.p. 97. 11. Ibid., p. 99. 12. Ibid., p. 125. 13. Adyar Library. 39. c. 23, pt. 5, p. 221,

15

14. ucya(e: hetave puru$iirlhanam jyayasam desine pathal).I

15. Tad aha vartikakaral]: yavad ajiiatasandigdham jfieyan tavat pramitsyate 1 primate tu prama!fl).am pramautsukyam vihanyate 112

16. Atra sloka bhavanti3 (here there are thirteen stanzas quoted). These are the various quotations found in the portions of Salikanatha's B.juvimaliipaficika beyond what has been now published.

Besides these, there are, in the portion now published, quo-tations from Brhadarai)yaka, Taittiriyasarphita, Mahabha~ya, Kiratarjuniya, Vaise~ikasutra, Vakyapadiya and Bhagavadgi:ta, besides many quotations from Pii.l:)ini. Neither in the whole of the portion now published, nor, so far as I have been able to examine, in the later portions, is there in the work of Salikanatha a hint of Prabhakara having written another work. It is rather surprising that while there is a mass of evidence, all belonging to a later date, in favour of attributing to Prii.bhakara, two separate commentaries on Sabarasvii.min's Bha~ya on the Mimiilpsa Sutras, the greatest author in the field of Prabhiikara Mimarpsa who immediately followed the great Mima:tpsa Teacher is silent about it. This is one of the many knotty problems in the field of Sanskrit Literature which has to be tackled and solved as a result of future research. In the field of VyakaraJ].a, there is the difficult problem of the authorship of the Kasik~t. Traditions attribute the authorship of this work to Vamana and Jayaditya conjointly. But there are many difficulties in accepting this tradition. If the work of Salikanii.tha called Dipasikha, which is a commentary on the other work of Prabhakara, namely t.he Vivarai)a or Laghvi, 4 is discovered there is a possibility of solving t.he problem of the two works of Prabhakara. Mr. M. Rama-krishna Kavi and Mr. S. K. Ramanatha Sastri say in one of their articles5 as follows:

I. Adyar Library, 39. c. 23, pt. 6, p. 6. 2. Ibid., p. 292. ,), Adyar Library, 39. c. 23, pt. 7, pp. 126, 127. There are

thirteen stanzas quoted here. 4. For the imformation that Salikanatha has written such a

work we depend solely on tradition. 5. Journal of the Andhra Historical Research Society, Vol.

II, pp. 260 ff.

16

uwe have very recently obtained a fragment of a Mimamsa work on broken leaves whose colophon runs thus:_:_iti bhawadipe prathamsyadhyayasya dvitiyai,J. padai,J.. A cursory glance over the fragment will convince anybody that the work deals with the theories of the Prabhakara school. It begins with the second pada of the first chapter and professes to explain the misunderstood terms of expres-sion in the Bha~ya of Sabarasvamin."

On this last sentence there is a note by the writers of the article, which reades as follows:

The first leaf broken in the beginning reads as follows: vakyani sabare. durjfiiitarthani drsyante te~am arthal;. . . .

have been able to get at the fragment referred to by Mr. M. Ramakrishna Kavi and l\.fr. S. K. Ramanatha Sastri. I am giving some extracts from it at the end of this Introduction. But the portion available is so small that no conclusion is possible. Mr. Kavi and Mr. Sastri say in the article that a copy of Salikaniitha's commentary on the work of Prabhakara called VivaraQa or Laghvi is available in Malabar. I have been trying to get at the work. But till now my attempts have been failures. If I succeed in getting the work, I will take another opportunity to give out the coutents of the work.

The work, supposed to be by Prabhiikara, to which our attention is drawn by Mr. Kavi and Mr. Sastri in the above-mentioned article, does not solve any of our difficulties, since the portion available is so small that we can arrive at no conclusion from the material available in it. But it raises new difficulties. Till now we have been speaking of one of the works of Prabha-kara as Brhaii (the work now published), with its other name of Nibandhana, and of the other work of Prabhakara as the Laghvi with its other name of Vivaral).a. Now the colophon in this work, which is supposed to be by Prabhiikara,l gives the name of the work as Bhii.~yadipa. The question now arises whether this Bha~yadipa is a third work of Prabhakara or is identical with the Laghvi. The name of Salikanatha's co~mentary on the work of Prabhakara called Laghvi, is known to be called Dipasikha, and this name will be very appropriate if .the original work

1. There is a great possibility that this Bha-i!yadipa may be a work on the Prabhli.kara School by a later author. There is no evidence. at present to show that the work belongs to Prabhi.ikara.

17 of Prabhakara which ~alikanatha explains is called Bha~yadipa.

But I have not been able to get at the name Bha~yadipa attached to the work of Prabhakara. The two names familiar till now for each of the two works of Prabhakara are Laghvi or Vivaral:}a for the one, and Brhati or Nibandbana for the other. Thus the new name Bha~yadipa found in the fragment, fascinating on account" of the name Dipasikha of a commentary on Prabhakara by Salikanatha, only adds to the difficulties in the already com-plicated position regarding the works o Prabhakara.

At present we can be certain only of one work of Prabha-kara, and that work is the Brhati. About the other work, namely, the Vivara~ta and also about its commentary by Salikanatha called the Dip;~sikha, it is safer to reserve our opinion till more material comes to our rescue. If Prabhii.kara has written two commentaris on the Siibarabhaflya, each going by more than one name, then there is no doubt regarding the allocation of titles; Nibandhana must be the other name for the Brhati and Vivara!)a must be identified with the Laghvi.l Perhaps there is one more name for the Laghvi and that is Bha~yadipa (a very appropriate natne when we consider the name of its commentary by Salika~ natha, namely Dipasikha). The ~juvimalapaficikii. of Salikanatha gives no support to the view of Prabhakara having written another work. And the silence of Salikanii.tha cannot be easily dismissed. It is held that Salikanii.tha \Vas a direct pupil of Prabhftkara. In the beginnings and ends of the various sections in the works of Salikanii.tha, he speaks about Prabhiikara. There is only one place, so far as I could discover, where there is an indication of Salikanatha being the disciple of Prabhakara. The following is the passage where Salikanatha speaks about Prabhii.-kara being l;is teacher:

Arthibarpsparsitii.sanka yathii sabdasya varyate I Prabhi"tkaraguroJ:t si~yais tathii. yatno vidhiyate IJZ

If Sii.likanii.tha was a disciple of Prabhakara, it is certainly strange that" there i~:> not even a hint about his teacher having written a commentary on Sabarabhii.~ya other than the one on which he has written. the commentary called the ~juvimalii.paficika and that there is no hint of his having himself written a commentary on that work of Prabhii.kara also, especially since, as it is held,

1. Cf. Passages cited in Journal of Oriental Research, Madras, Vol. III, pp. 284-86.

2. Prakara:Jtapaficikii, 2nd prakara:Jta, 1st stanza. c .

18

the Brhati is the second of th~ two commentaries on the Sabara-bhi:i.~ya by Prabhi:i.kara.

I leave it at this point. Now I must revert to the works of Kumarila Bhatta. In Si:i.likanatha's ~juvimalii, and in his Prakarat;1apafi.cika there are many quotations which are not traceable to the available works of Kumarila; but which must be from some work of Kumarila Bhaga. There are similar quota-tions in some Nastikadarsanas.I By a comparison of these quotations with passages in the ~lokavartika, there is a possibility of concluding that these quotations may be from a work of Kumarila which is 1nore voluminous than the Sloka vartika. So far as the quotations by ~alikanatha in his ~juvimahi are. concerned, there is a very interesting point that I have noticed. Among the quotations found in the first pada of the first adhyaya of the ~juvimala, those passages that are traceable to the available works of Kumarila are confined to the Slokavartika, i.e., to the first pada of the first adhyaya in Kumarila's works also. Among the quotations from the second pada of the first adhyaya to the end of the third adhyaya in Salikanfttha'$ ~juvimala, those that are traceable to the available works of Kumarila are confined to the Tantravartika, i.e., to the corresponding portion in Kumarila's works also. And most of these quotations are in the form of karikii.s. So far as quotations in the subsequent portions of Saiikanii.tha's ~juvimaUi. are concerned, none are traceable to any work of Kumii.rila now ave~ilable. They are in the form of kii.rikas, and in the 'fuptika, there is only one kii.rika, which is at the end of the last pada in the ninth adhyaya. 2 From this parallelism, it may be concluded that these quotations are from a work of Kumlirila which is called the Vartika, which is in the form of kiirikas, and which covered the entire twelve adhyii.yas of the Bha~ya of Sabarasvii.min. This work may be identical with the Karildi. mentioned by Madhavasarasvati. This work cannot be identified with the Brhattiki:i.. Salikanii.tha refers to Kumarila only as Vartikakara and never as 'fikakara. To him, 'fikakara is Prabhakara. The work from which Salikanatha quotes was known to him only as Vartika and not as 'fikii.. From the way

1. Cf.Journal of Oriental Research, Madras, Vol. I, p. 131:. 2. The stanza is :

tasmat prapripadadinam naiva syad apragitata 1 padarthatvapradhanatvad vakyasya syat pragitata II

closing of 1st pada in 9th adhyi:i.ya.

19

in which Madhavasarasvati enumerates the works of Kmnarila, it is possible to surmise that the Brhattika is a commentary, very elaborate, on the first portion of the Mimarpsabha~ya of Sabara-svamin, that Madhyamatika is the commentary, less elaborate than the former, on the middle portion and that ':fuptika (which is now a\ailable) is the commentary, very brief, on the last portion. And this Brhattikfi cannot be identified with the Sloka-viirtika either; passages quoted from the Brhattika are not found in the Slokavilrtika. The exact identity of the works of Kumiirila enumerated by Madhavasarasvat'i and of the works like Vartika and Brhattikii (from which passages are quoted by Siilikaniltha and quotations from which are found in Nyayasudhiil and in Manmm:yodaya2) and also the exact relation with one another of these various works of Kmniirila, are matters on which nothing very deiinite could be asserted now.3.

We can make a surmise in the following way. Kumarila may have first written the Tikas; then Prabhakara may have written his Laghvi or Vivarai).a (or Bha~yaclipa?). Then Kumiirila may have asserted his position in his Vartikas (of the nature of uk!iinuktaduruktavicara). Af1er this Prabhiikara may have asserted his own position in his Brhati or Nibandhana. Then it is understandable why in the commentary on the Brhati, Salika-natha speaks only of the Viirtikas of Kumarila and not of the Tikas, since the Brhati was written to refute the Vartikas. If we are able to get at the commentary of ~alikanatha on the Laghvi, then it is likely that there we may find references to the Tikas of I

20

the further indentification of Ul!lveka with Suresvara and Srika:Jttha. All such opinions can llt present be taken only as -hypotheses and stand in need of evidence for confirmation. There is evidence to show that U l!IVeka was a disciple of Kumarila.l Urpveka has commented on the works of Mal)

21

chandogo 'yam iti prabhiikaragurur desiic ca nirvasito madvrttantavijrmbhitena mahata tat sarvam alpikrtam 11 1

There is a tradition in Malabar that many families that originally followed the Samaveda became converted into ~gvedasakhii, since the followers of the Samaveda were under some disadvan-tage socially. Now there are very few families following the Sftmaveda in Malabar. It may be that the above stanza refers to whitt happened to Prabhftkara in Malabar. I know that this can at best be only a conjecture.

In a rather recent work called the Kokilasandda by Uddat)Qa Kavi, there is a description of the Pnrali Kings who ruled in that part of ancient Malabar which is now called Kottayam in Travancore Slate, in which it is said that the revival of the Bhattn. school of MimaJYlRft was due to these kings. The stanza is as follows:

pratyapatti]f pataga yaclupajfiafi ca kaumariliinam 2 If there was a revival of the Bhii.tta school of l\limi"U11sa, the're must have been a suppression of it in Malabar and it is only reasonable to suppose that this suppression must have been due to the prevalence of the rival school of Prabhakara. These are some of the stray references to the connection of Prabhftkara and the school of Prabhakara with Malabar.

When we come to problems of the native country of Prabhakara, his date, his chronological relation with other authors and such other matters, we are landed in a whirlpool of conflicting currents. We are on safer ground when we come to the doctrines propounded by Prabhii.kara.

It is the Vedanta system, especially the Advaita of Sailkara-dirya, that has appealed to modern scholars; in the estimation of modern students, Mimiirpsa occupies a very insignificant position. If we look into standard works on Indian Philosophy written in modern times, works like .Max Muller's Six Systems of Indian Philosophy,s Prof. S. 'Radhak:ishnan's History of Indian Philo-

1. Sp1giiraprakasa by Bhojadeva, Government Manuscripts Library, Madras, 1

22

sophy,l Prof. Das Gupta's History of Indian Philosophy, 2 and History of Indian Philosophy by Prof. M. Hiriyanna3, it will be found that many pages are devoted to Vedanta Philosophy, but the entire Mimaljlsa is disposed off in a few pages. It is not my intention in this Introduction to enter into an elaborate description of the Mimiiljlsa doctrines, with special reference to the school of Prabhakara. That I reserve for the Introduction of a later volume in this series, namely the edition of Nayaviveka1 a standard 'vork on the Prabhakara school of Mimiiljlsa. Here I want to emphasise the fact that it is the Mimaljlsii philosophy that reflects the real spirit of Hindu civilization and that a true evaluation of Hindu civilization can be made only if more atten~ tion is paid to the Mimaljlsa Literature.

The Mimiiljlsii deals with the problem of the moral order in human society. What is Law, whence does Law deri\'e its authority, what is the source from which we can understand Law, how docs Law operate on man, why should man obey Law, for whom is Law meant (i.e., who is the adhikarin for Law), these are some of the most important topics dealt with in the Mimaljlsii Literature. To explain in a consistent way the various points arising out of a consideration of the problem of Law, the Mimaljlsii Philosophy enters into an examination of the nature of man, the nc.ture of the Universe and man's relation to the Universe. The nature of man and of the Universe and the relation of man to the Universe as ex:plained in the other systems of philosophy do not satisfy the needs of Law. It is a fundamental requisite of Law that there must be a real individual who can be held morally responsible for his actions. In the Sali.khya-Yoga system, there is no individual who has a real moral responsibility. In his absolute nature, he is pure cit without an object for the citi. The entire Universe is a manifestation of Prakrti, which does not in the least affect the individual, i.e., the Puru~a. A Puru~a or the individual who is absolutely unaffected by the Universe is not ultimately subject to any Law. In the Nyaya-Vaise~ika system also, the Universe and the individual's experience of the Universe are only accidents. The ultimate goal which man aspires to reach is a condition in which the soul is for ever free from all accidental attributes, all attri-

1. Mimal]lsii only 55 pages. Advaita Vedanta occup!es 230 pages.

2. Vedanta 320 pp.; Mimatpsa 40 pp. 3: Vedanta 70 pp. ; Mimarpsa, 38 pp.

23 butes which, in the worldly stage of the soul, are peculiar to it; attributes like knowledge, desire, volition, happiness and misery, virtue and sin. Again the Universe is created by God for some purpose; some accident in the soul, its adr~ta, is the occasion for the creation. Law, and Veda which comprehends Law, are all within the sphere of God's creation. All these factors take away the real moral responsibility of man, and Law itself, being the consequence of an accident, ceases to be really Law. In the Advaita system, there is no Law and there is no individual who is responsible for fulfilling the requirements of Law. In the other two schools of the Vedanta, there is a real individual who can be held responsible for his actions; but the domination of God takes away practically everything from the imporatance of Law as the supreme factor in man's life and practically reduces tnan's moral responsibility to zero. Further, in all these systems, "perfection'' is the ideal aimed at, and in a state of perfection, Law or Dharma has no function. Thus in all these systems, Law occuppies a subordinate position and man's obligation to fullfil the require-ments of Law is only an accident.

The Mimam~a philosophy makes Law supreme and man's responsibility to fulfil the requirements of Law unfettered. Law, if it is to be really Law, must be eternal, absolute and supreme. The Universe in which the Law operates must also be real and eternal, not a mere accident; it must also conform to Law and not to the wishes of a creator. Thus, from this need for placing Law on a high pedestal, the Mimarpsakas regard the world as real, with neither a creator nor a controller and as having no beginning or end. Law is something which rises above all human and superhuman intelligences. Law can be known only from a transcendent Pramfu)a, which the Mima~psakas call the Veda. Niether human experience nor his intelligence can create Law and neither of them is the Pramai}a for Law. Law does not derive its authority from any external source, like the State and the King. Law derives its sanction from itself. Man can understand Law; but no man can make Law, not even the King and not even God. Law is there; Law is supreme. This is the Mimii.Ipsa view of the world, of man, and men's relation to each other and to the world. Logic, epistemology, psychology, metaphysics, jurisprudence and ethics, all in the Mimarpsa philosophy are built on this supreme position assigned to Law. The l\.fimilJ11Sii system of philosophy stands apart from all other systems of Indian philosophy.

This l\1imal1Jsa system, as has already been said, was split up into two schools, namely the schrJol of Kumarila Bhatta and the school of Prabhakara. In the attitute towards Law, towards the nature of the world, towards the nature of man and towards men's relation to each other and to the world,,Ulere is not much of a difference between the two schools. In both the schools, Law is supreme, Law derives its authority from itself, the world is eternal, uncreated and indestructible, and men's relation to each other and to the world is defined by this Law.

But there are many places where the two schools differ on important points, especially on the problem of morality. In the Veda, which is the source of Law, there are what arc technically cai!ed 11vidhis", prescriptions of what man shall do. These "vidhis" are e1ther 11nitya" or "kamya". According to the school of Kumarila man performs the actions enjoined by the "nityavidhis" to avoid sin and he performs the actions enjoined by llkamyavidhis'' to attain some desirable result. Some definite result, either in the form of the avoidance of sin or in the form of the attainment of a positive good impels man to perform the actions. According to the school of Prabhiikara, there is the distinction between the "nityavidhis" and "kamyavidhis". But man performs the actions because they are enjoined in the Vedas. In the case of "kiimyavidhis", there is a positive gain resulting from the performance of the action; in the case of the "nityavidhis", there is no result at all. Man does his duty because it is his duty as prescribed in the Vedas.1 Modern terms like t;Itilitarianism and categorical imperative may find some approxin1ation to ihe two views of morality according to the two Mimarpsii schools.

According to the school of Kumarila, some good result or avoidance of some sin is the important thing in morality. This may be called the utilitarian view of morality. But accord-ing to the school of Prabhakara, good and bad, desirable and

1. cf. Bhamatr Catussiitri, T. P. H. Edition, p. 304: For this (Prabhakara) School, karya, l'liyoga and apilrva are synonyms. What is to be done (karya) is that which prompts (niyoga), and this is the trans-experiential potency (~piirva) which secures heaven. The determinent of karya is volition (krti), and of this the determinent is the particular act (kriya). The fruit (bhiivya or phala, e.g., heaven) is emphatically not what prompts nor the determinent.

25 undesirable, these have nothing to rlo with morality. One does his duty, because it is his duty to do so. It is prescribed in the Vedas and man does it. Question of good and bad does not arise. Law prescribes what man shall do and it is not for man to consider whether what Law prescribes is right and then to do what is prescribed if he feels that what is prescribed is right, accepting final result as the standard for fixing whether what is prescribed is right or not.

Then: are many other points on which the two schools differ from each other. In the very opening section of the Mimfup.sa, namely the first Siitra, the two schools differ. The first Siitra is "athato dhannajijfiasa". Here the word "atha" means "after the study of the Veda". Then the problem arises how the study of the Veda comes in at all. According to the school of Kumarila, every Brahmin shall study the Veda accord-ing to the Vidhi

Z6 is called a

27

in the nature of cognition, in these and various other matters, the two schools differ. It will be more appropriate for me to enter into these details after publishing more works of an authoritative nature on the subject of the Prabhakara Mimarp.sa. The Department has alreat.ly taken up the publication of some of them. At a later stage, it may be possible for the Department to present in a complete form the differing interpretations put on the passages in the Bhai?ya of Sabarasvamin by the two schools and the different doctrines held by these two schools on the various points raised in the l\Hmarp.sa system.

As said above, the l\1Imarpsa deals with the problem of moral order among men. Essentially, Veda is the prama~ta for knowing what morality is. But everything is not said in the Vedas as we have it. In such cases, Smrtis (including Itihasas and Pura~tas) and the conduct of great men (SiHas) are also

prama~tas for morality. In the body of the literature we call Vedas, there is a considerable portion which does not prescribe what man shall do. Such portions must be brought into some sort of syntactical relation with those portions where there are statements of what man shall do and what man shall not do, and such portions are mainly classed as arthavadas. Then there are other such portions which are called namadheyas (names of actions which man shall do) and still other portions which are called mantras, formulae which have to be recited at sacrifices and other actions that are to be done. There is no portion in the veda which is meaningless or purposeless (the purpose being the definition of dharma).

If in the extant veda there is no statement of something which has to be done, and if there is a statement in a Smrti to that effect, then a Vedic passage, now lost, has to be inferred. In such cases, one has to be very careful. For every statement of such a nature found in the Smrtis, one does not assume a lost Vedic statement. This is. brought out in the third adhikara~ta in the third pada of the first adhyaya. Here the question is about clothes that have been used in a ritual-how to dispose of those clothes. There is no Vedic passage to say what has to be done with them; but there is a Smrti passage which says that the adhvaryu receives them. In this case it is said that one shall not

28

If the Mimarp.sa places the eternal Veda on such a high pedestal, it is not due to any intellectual cowardice and the object is not to compel man to kneel at the foot of the pedestal. The Mimarp.sa takes a very independent and rational view and its atti-tude to man's obligation to do what is given in tQ.e V~da is not one of "do it; there shall be no question of why". The attitude is more one of understanding and conviction. That is why there is so much insistence on study and understanding, and on submitting Veda to a thorough and systematic investigation. Man finds himself in some particular surroundings. He can be his own master. He cannot and shall not get away from where he is. This is a system of thought in the field of Indian philosophy which deserves better study and appreciation than what it has received till now at the hands of modern scholars.

C. KUNHAN RAJA.

N. B. On p. 21 omit " in the Travancore State "after '' in that part of Malabar now called Kottayam ".

ADDITIONAL NOTE

After printing the Introduction, it is noticed that Salikanatha refers to two of his paiicikas other than the Prakara'l}apanctka. I have &tated on p. 17 of the Introduction that there is no evidence of Salikanatha having written a commentary on any work of Pra-bhakara other than his commentary called the JY.juvimala on the Brhati. In the Prakara'f}apancika, Chowkamba Sanskrit Series edition, p. 46, the following passage occurs: yat tu sarpyukta-samavetatvat karmal;).al,l pratyak~atvam uktam, tad ayuktam; tasya sarp.yogavibhagalak~al;).aphalanumeyatvat. Etac ca pancikadvaye prapaficita1n; atrapi ca anumanaparicchede vak!?yam~. This shows that Sahkanatha has written two works called paficikas other than the Prakara1Japanctka; one is the [f.iuvimalapancika which is the commentary on the Brhati; the other, it is likely, is a work called the D~pasikhapancika being a commentary on the Laghvi.

Extracts from the Bhal?yadipa, mentioned m the Introduc-tion, p. 16.

Beginning of the 1st leaf.

r-.. ~ ~ ~,..... ..... ""' _tt q]

30

~RI' +rr~>~tt ~~nr~

Jl: h rw~~ ~ I'E: p ~ I ,_ -~ l! { .. tr' 'If ~t: NS -lioi lr I;'~

32

6. ~rf~oo: 700 !l'ili:T 750 ~ qcii:i~~(q~~~ li. .... '"' et+n~cc'f :;r ~~2~ 1 UOI(F.f~1:l~R~~ ~ ~. ir1.oT~ t~ffi'sr?til'Q'T~GJ qRm!~~ 'if ijtrqorr"'~ m"[W-~+~i!'fcQ'T~mt'li~Till~m iif~ir ~~ur;r~~ 1 "'"" ,.....,,...~c. 0 "" ~lSfM~Ol' oO:ilOJl:~'fiOe(f;; 1'Rl'

(a) 'Pi~RJ

34

7 ~if

Govt. Oriental Mss. Library. I. 35.14. Madras.

~en ~~~~~

o'ir 'iir~r'fr+rfffi sr~~or+r,. if ~~ +r~ ~ ~'ir~itif ~rsrn)'O

~~~o:rra: '{~ \:'fij~:tm=w:rr srffi" o-~cfi ~'~ ~ffi'riey

fcfif~rffi ~~riil:ff (~sq: ~~ 1 ~~ if ~( ~~In~ f.tl:l''t

a~a:~m~ t~r (( o~ i!Hnfii"'~ a-mi 1:1mt1T ~~t~r t~ !iif: cr.'-l ~!ifT~o

o:r~ :q Ut~fif ~N~r~ ~rlcn"En!i orr

rr~ er~ ffc:;tq Cfi~'1-1r1:1W-r rr s:rRI~cemr. \%fcrc::: ars:r~cer~~~~q ~~ilrffC:N fff.I'Cl. !I~!Sf.l"rti'I'Tifr~rsc:rq: l!: s:r~lll"Tll ~it;;r~Rfu frr:.;;lf\1?.Tcll"srr~PdoT en:W:r~tcrgm~ Q".el :q{qa;fr

efiffo>;[C'f~l =q iffq~~ff "tlG:Off~~IJ'ff ~fa ~~l~OJftrea:qf ~ =q Cfiq ~\Rr

~m.hr~rl{ g~~R(lfrart ~~~;q c=rcS~W~qfi% fil:ij- Pe!cr11r-;:itq(.?'~tcrr~ I 311!l ~~~I=Ji"fT~~Ji:{f?RI'~l=!_ 313l=lf"flfSflW-Jlqf.:a(~:tt"fr~fih'ff ~ c=rsrrfct u';ijcn~llTl=!~'ffi' ai~Fa( ~~Of n ~r fcfi Of ~ffi" ~~;~a ~11tlf~cr ~GfiT(qq{;:~om;:f =er feti;rsr ~ct ~'tfq{r!'ifoi Of cna;qfir~:crrera:~m+( "f~rs!fa-cerre:.

SJ~~ P

a~~~

~ ~a mircrr il'tte~+r, ~ ~~t:l"R~~'li~ ~ ::q~f{ffi am: ~Cfi~ a1or~ii!'"Tif \'iiaiiSfi'fiif"!"'fq~ ~ i:fi~'l ~ 101~~) f+r?ftsrr-~mCfil~$TOf~:

o:r::orq(~q~sfq eJrlffCfil~ fef!i.llrf~tfr;:qrcm:q~.i=ffilfcf ;ftqq~ ~~~or ~R?+iSfiRt!T~;:r~ lf:amqr1.fiT\JJ or iiDrfij(qJ

~ t

~

-

l~~~~6fiT~~~~~-~~~~~~~~~~~~~s~~ ~~~E tt:;~~.tt:;~~~~~ ~~wr;r~tv~~ If [ W [E 1$ ~ b" ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ fiii. J:it I & . l+ ~ ""~E~ ~i~~~E1f~~~~~~ ~~E~~-~ ~ S" S" It'? '~ ~ tw "-' ~ ~ ~ liT l+ .. ~ It; 16= ffi: bt-tc; IS' E!: If ~r s -zro t: If w I+' ,;;: ~ ~ "" $_ . ,.,, !g It; ~ f -li? fiT .... ,It;

V)"''tt:; IL'>h.7' IP~ b*,_:l>'l;i IU!+ ~ ...... ~ ~ I~ ~ ~ r '~ g (~ ~~ IV(~ ~ 1 ,g ltf i :: "~ "~ =~oc,~ iC -~ it~ E~~~~~.~hf~~-w~~~sw ~~-EIP ~ ~ ~ 1$ l!t W J;T (jiir 'g? ~ '~ [ -~ (Je tt:; ~ cv C!!! ~ ~ t (~ ~~ 15" fiT *~!~~~!~~~ir~wM ~~~~F~ ~~~r;r ~w~~~fl!~~~""'~~ftdw~~~~~~wrJ~; I.~~(~ ~ ,_ ~ ~ ~- I;T ~ ~ ~,.,. ~~~1;1" W ~ ~ ~I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ hf~ w tv tc;(~ tc; ~ tt tv Er~'W. ~I+' S~!S'E~S$ ~~l~$~ ~~ ~~~~IP~~ S" ~~(~~~ t~~ ~~~~~%:~; J%1~~~ ~ ,i ,r if : : ~ !! ~~ ,~ ,~ ~ r;r : ~ -~ t;, '~ ~ tt; r ~ ~ ,tE '~ ~ ~ =

,f If

c@

i Iii ~ r:t:: ID It' ffi: w; .... If w 1\t 11:; t:v r.;: l:r' ~ s tuY :- dE 12: IW l+ w ,w 1:::: r. '! 1:r fP' .n.IIIJ i;;= - 12\l ~ f!;r !2: e: w ~. -. u; fP r;r !:!: m- ~ IF IY J,:!.. ~ (~ .. ' f6= l;r '-' ,~ Jg IE' ~ ~ ~C[ If If 1P (~ ~ [ g_ ~ li',? itv ~ [ fi ft i ft If C~ k! ~ ~ ~

r ~

,_ .... IE tr g . . ~ I;" ,.... I+ ..... ~"I .. (.... r. IC If ~ ,.,. .. t:r9 I;T' .(\;' ~ ~ ~ '(s ~ ~~ g ~ 'It; ~~ ! ~ !i ~ ~ ~ r;; ~ 1} ~ ~ :v ttr ~ ~ "" tl" 1 ~ ~ ~ (tt:; ~ ItS ~ df ~ ~ [ ~ ~ dE ~ dE ~ tt:; ~ LEE I'Je ~ ~ .r;r l:r' ,~ w :==! liT ._![ f ~ fd tu' ;!l ~ ~ !L w rE r;r '~ 'llf ~ iF IE' ~ '~ .li' tf ~g E ~ ~ I' * w fifll+

(;:r~ Bcf ffiy~a:{if: ~Ri1fQ;. Q(~q: ~ffffi~~gtfite{;Jo~~ srr l(;; fq~~ ~~li1~ a-CJ(?~

ern ~~ I cnl.TJJ~~~f!m~ fir~~~=i@ii:~: Cfi~q;;r~"i!fmSil

cmrra~ur ~cr. ;; :qrcnrU"d"mr.r(.?qr~~ ;fr~crrn:i:Jer ~4 ~?crl=l'rfa' Q;Cfil

ft aif~:qlf_ , fer!ft

e;;ror: sr~~: f.ti !J

a~ f{~!!ffi:lfa' fofi~ ~ ~l~q fft

ffa ~e~ go:r: ge:r~~m~ ~~c:r ~Rt c:rr~tl~ l:TriDm e:r 1 Bl~li!Im+I_ I ;;- litBI~l'.l'll. I ~ oN: ('!~

ElJ'.liqRmCr ~~= ~m ::rrifwf fer;:rr e~J;fi ifrqqoq'ff o~ir ;;nr~e1: EfiRUTT~lWf!J~Rta if srl:!Iurrro{fi:. 1

~~~ ~C'i~I:J~~~~t:!Tift?l!(faf ~ffi~T3l ij~~ffl-",....., . .... . ~TQ_ ~lUTl:o{lllfff o~~'mlf.. I Efi!fJ:!~ffff: tfJ

J4!i~lhl.Q :~ ~b~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ .l:tll:! ~ j~ ~h~ -~dltJJittt .I:!. ~Jal:tf:t ~R ~!=:e .~g~~.ta ~ll:tl.!.ta.l~lnllttt lliQ -~l~}~l:!le :~J.Il~l .1:! ~.1?~00 JQ~ll:te!b1~lhltY ll:l.l:!J:t:teh ~.lt.&ij .Jsl.Ya I l~lb~ ~~h ~~h lh.Js~j ~t:t:t~b~b ~hlt~h -I.I:!.IJ:tl:!t:.l tl:fSJhat.I:!JM hl.l:!. & 1 :122~.1:! Jhsel n!YZ!ll:iilkil .t.b htW9.1.1:! ~ '1 ~ ..,. -...JV '- t:J .._ .)

:hat~~Jl:i~~~ I~~~ lu~~ 12~~ :@1 ~Wanl:ldlnll:ttt -!::jha~ aeJ~~ .l!oJ:t~ WL~J:th!=:Je ~l.t~~l:!!ij :.k!l:t:t&!!:!.h ~ 1 ~~ !! ~~ ~JihniJ:t!H lh.l:lli211:t W! ~S.(!l~~g~lt :~!I! I 11lt::e!!JI:ltt~

-1,l:r15l:tbl:!h:tl.tlal~Jl.Qd11Jll:tH ~1:2tl~l:'tlb!!J:t!:Q'.2h :hlHJ:tll:tble :b!Hlfl .,) 'J...} .... ~ 'l SJ~ ~JYlnll:t~ .1:! fi~ ~llnll:t~ ~:eel:t ~hd}!l:'tl~H I .Le!:b~b :~~ ~ I ~h:t>hll.E: .t:&h ~~l:!h.flt!l~ .1:!: .1:! I ttl!!l)ttb ~JJ:io -~,Je: @.l:!lt:tt!b. I lt.l.ols~ ~R& lhh ~.!J.I:! 9 ~b:tt!bl~ J~.b~

.,.

-~.ttl ~ ::2!!R !ill:tH.!:tB!tita.te I ~l!lt:tt!bl._l:!ll:l~ ~-tale : ~ I ':Wnut.rs !! ~~~ ~lln!J:ttt lk.e1:t ~~tr~::L:2Jtanw

lllt.B~~ ~:tll/h~ll:~jli ~ll:t~~ lnl:'tl~l:l .I:!.~';_}~ ~~'tln~ -~~(.E~) I :~11> I :}:J9J.E~hdln11:t(Jhl:t).rs lliJEahd}l~J:.l22 ~~ !! :t:t~

~v ~ v ~

%1 ~h::l:t ~ll:elln}J~ (lhftH) ~~.!=~nd}J:l!.l?~2!!Ii ~h I ~.E~J#~ -~h2~~~tt :~l@i :,IDI:l t

trr;rf{fq ~ ~m ~lcrer'Cliol:f: cr~~ ~cr ~clffi~q ~J>o.l~ for~mrit-" q04i"i11F1Tl~~'Q{+r._ I

oto:~;:.i w~ ;;q~qgp:rrir cr:ael't

~~ ~ ~11TOTT"ffi:.llrnr:rre~'iT~lfo: ,..... ~ ..... ,..... ,..., ......

6~~: ar~~tflliHQ' T"i\T'fi\IJfl=fO:\f'l~ll=fi:l:ll

i 1

:)~) &Y'

t - t ~ ~ ~ ""'"!: ; ~ ,! ~ g: ~ fir lA IU" - iii=

,( !" ~ !;I" IU" 1': "" ~ lf!: It 'Iii- IU" i;= .... w 'I!! w S!:.s-w fiT le t&) ~ -fiT '= I:P ,~ tc -

le) !;" - iF ~1' ...... I;' dE IW" (nz ~~ ~~~~~tr;;;i~~~IAM~~~~

IIW ~ -~ t:r ~ tc ~ b" ~ I;T ~ ~ ~ E ~ tc iiT ..- 1:;- jS ll/ j:V ,_ EX ! (.kr ~ ji ,~ j6: i~ ~-l:r'~~~~~~-~~ lAg ~~~~~~~~~~b~E~!& to~ I;' ~t= 'c 1G ~ iC - ~~ o-/ - ; 1P it: II) ~ ~ ~~~ w ~ ~ ~t:r ~~ ~ ~-lfL ~ ~~-m-~r:pdE~If~fiT~ ~ !l' . . s IP no ~+ ~ ~ ,.. '"" "" ~ft{M~~~r~~t:rtcre~~~~~,~

- t:rf:r~(.J:+""~(.~I..-6 I>T-F,:r ~~~ "~ "~ '~ ~ '~ ~ ~ f ~!' ~ lh!' ~ 1 .tl ~ ~ ~ iji w lir "" tc ~ '1;;: If; ~ g ~ liV ~ tP li tl;:: 4~ [ (~ tit: ,~ !; "fi I

~rqfei,~::r.~'-i q~ ar:;rq:_ ~a::r.: sr.tq'[ o:r erJ:t~S{l(flf~Slll:l: ~q6fi\:ri

~ F

- (~ "' . i:T ~ a w t.!:r """' .. s- tiP ~ b; w

'" rn' r.') - 1\f IU t:r (.[ ~ "" !! (! Il-l ru 1c r:v - ,i;T !:A w h.1 ........ ~;;r

rtr" tc' lllo -r!iT !:U ('!:: 'tc ~ L~(~rrcw~:r

!;< tic lV It

1-i ~s.;: ::. !:iT ..

R-- ~ 5" - ttr 0' 0' - !B ';T ~>'S: ~ [C (;!...

,._ etc "" w 1:;1' '~ l'ir - ... rc liY (+ ' (.fC tic -le ::: 1') !;-( I~ ,_ ,;;. '" ,[. ~ (.~ tlf" ft (~

'"" tr;; kr ::: Ill" t!!:1 h.'l' (t!::: '[ ~ IP" n:;,:;- (I)~~~

dt liP t:.T"

C;E. !:A

"" t!+ ~ (Zr" C!!!

~ tY' c::!? ~ et-C cr. - -

- c..tc "" lti= ~ hS l'ir .[p ... -,,_. '~ c.~JtoJ rc s rc ii= - t.' 't...S t;r IV ,_ (t= ~ ~ 1c 'w- flj' rc

~ u:: ..... llii' ~ If r" "'~ (rtf' w ~ '~ ~~ rc rc W> t;r tV w

"'2: ~ !\!( ltr. tY (b: R:' liY

c'! l'ir I~ 1\i' ty' IV

w ('!!: "0'

'" Ill"

It"'~ ~? ii'

tr r!v 1;1" ~ .. ~ - nr ,_ l:t' .. ..,.,

~ !!? AS ~ l~ I~ ~ IY

.s ~ 1/tg. l;l' t~ c:.rc: ;: ~ It: rtf'lf. I.C d!! w

!;;l" ..... If '" t:V IV.

~::r a~~>:J~{'mll_ 1 f1il=l'9;ml{_ ~r =tr :rr~

~~~~;J ~iii ~: ~:q'!?[ ~

;:itqq~ ~~~t'iR:~orrq I SJ~~~ {( ;:r f.fi~~~: I ~: ~fm: ~ui'r "1 .-r~rx ~rtqfficr.t'er cn~rn:~n 1 eR~4'r "EE14 ~

ifl~ ~T~Fff :q~t9;i.aCRfilft~ ~~t;:rtfi:iJ'if ~Uiilf'il"'~l~!l " """ " " .... ~ m ol~f'W-f'q'fC1H~~IT~!i I o~l(l. Sl''ltff..lt'al~tr~: I ~~1'1 ~~~~~~~ 1 Sflill:q+n'il~srp:r: ~~il~UTtflrsr~Ji:ifo aJ'l{T{q sr~cr~~srti!~ ~ ~+tf!t ~~ ~~ oqRfi~~: aJ"lt{q ~r'!Fq~~ ~ R?i~: I f-r~f'lrf.i'lf~r:qf ::cr wil~ct cqarj:J~'I:ftwi ., !Pf:

ffiq~ar~+r--.:r~~ ;,1~1rri~ q~trT+T: ~{q~ern~.:rt~ "1 1 (il+f't"'+To:ctsrtir~o-r s:r~~~: I ar-il'6ll'ft' I illl'

~~:g~:r.rt :J~1FI'l Wfl+ilff ~flm: 6 lilT>:Jrliien: q~: I 3iSf.rliP-!r ~ ~~~r ~~"if ~f:af.";l'"l~flmi{. I ~

~tlf'lt~

'"" ,...... .... . "' ~ ~(;:!fl1HI({_ Rr'{f ooc':lT~cR"TI fi:lfu er;~ c:rrqr:r~) ar:! 111

a~tnqUllfr~fiROT ~~ro 1 asr~~Ot ~SI~ !Wffi:qrrnR: 1 ;r :q !l~~rrr: ;n~q~ffi" ffi;yM'ijif ficr:r.q~ fi: acm~no~R\

mt.Tto~ ~RI:. 1 or fil~s:r~~a:qr R~: ~~or~q1qq~:m ~~fi:ls:rr>:l: 1 ffit qrfurliff~q;::qreot s:rctfla~ 1

,....., ,....., ' r-. .... ,..... lJ'Q"lq 'if t

er~ o:rrrifl 'iffff rr :;;r sr~~OJOJlclffciqlffl m'a~fl' :;;r ftq'Tqr~~OfOJl~ I Cf~l'll'"~~~l:fcn~OJT;:cr~qfijfcl Cfif~~Cf~ enRll'I'G;lf!i'f~ cnq cr&fr.frq-.Ji'lff sr~'ia:~lf!rrrqfu~q:

~;a:r~;qcr_ CfiT\oT fefi 6!T i!qa- +feflc=J:. I if~ "Cf o9,"tqffli CfiT\O'fol!T "' ~ .1: " " " "' (' t:::l W.-~r~~: ~i;r;:CT: O'F.J ml!(S[fcr_ I c=r~;rrcr_ if fti~~q~:nr~lff ~qrrf+l{~a;z 1

if~ EfiT~sfti ~"!~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ;:ra "Cf ogtqT=tr\lq Cfi!

:qr!Jq~~: ~?i

~~ 3M~mt flil'!itr~~cf ~ Q;li q~r~r

~l!ICJ:.. I Sfif~aiST ~RrO:. ~~trf+rrA;?r ~STRfq?Jr: I ~1:fl11~1:1T~cn iflli ~n+rTSTtJ~&:!j~~

I

" CP"

i ~

'~ ,_ tg

~ (!;!: I+

,!:

........ h:; I ~ ~~ ~ l:;t - IP ~

m- C!!: -.cy- 4NS' !;;!'" rt?

~ C!E hf iD

l!G:t~'"~

~fffi: if:

-Oo.

if

I

I~(.!Edl;:- I ~dl;:~d!:: IV~-. ~i lw !:>' V) (l;r t;r s= ~~ ~ IW ft;'""' f~iiei& -i ~I+~ n:; h:' 1ur !:t"'wrE ~:;rIP "'"IE lfi' 15" If 1!::-f n:r tr fE> !;T .... ft; "t;r !Iii" h:' ii= w IIi" . w; g i;r 10 w "~ g: '!!t I1T !::>; it tiE' ..,'~ 1:; ~"~~ ~ ~~~ ~ tjg' t; I1T !:!'.

IE [ ~ g ~ ~ !:; I& ~ ~ 'IF ~~ ~ I~ l~ It: ~:;r t;r ~ E ..., d!? r,- ii' If 'IY Ito! co ~:;r 'ii" ,.. l:;r '~ n:; 16= h:' ..... !!! ~ J1 (ft; 'lit"

.,._,. 16= ,- 10: IY If "-" jjBi - IV rr; .,._,. I+ ~!:fii g liY ~ fr; ~ n:; '~ !!! :t: ~ ~ ~ ~ tr i5 ~ li ~ d 1>1" ti;i= t!!2 tr t;r 'iii= ~ rt ~ (~ liJf .,.,. li8 ~ 1:;r lit" j:t; (.1; q~ ltE 'ft -'l!: 1!::: I+ hY -tr-lu'~!lr' ~ - !;T (.I+ - ,-~ fl!" It:: - ~ ,.,.

!;T '""' l;r If ~ ~~ n:; "'-tt~LC~ If ~i 1i ~

~ (.&' rtf '!! f ~t;rl;Thl' '1;Y (!!!: b"

,.,.-~

~wi=-~~ I+ ,.,. rr "lid fielD- !;I+ ~'!if~ ~ f w f fir ~ (6= tr ft:(!:lr to ;ufi=lii' i~i~iC1~ ~IW ~ n? ~ tt; ~ ~ lg ~ '[ d! ,_ IX ""' fir' fle'~-'~111' ~ j5 ~ IV 4~ Iii ~ ~ llr !;T f1;r ~~ ~~ 1, '!!!'

~ 16: tlfi' - '" beY i5= !i w!2 w&t ~IV --li; fir' h:' If til"~

w w ~~ g,. ~ ~ ~

~~!J'd

~Q' ~~ffi q-~~qq~fi'i;:t ~r:;ff SRJ: 1 ig'f.J'Ii!

I go QD

~~~"'e:.!... IP" ~{'!'IF~IuY iii"~ ~ ,g i= :~ fir ~ ~ --1;1; l2r" 1-\- ~~ ~ ~ bl' ~ :;..

11;" tr It' IV !!!: IV

15' .1 IP" I ~ !;; w 11;" 1\J: i w (~

~ if& "" - 'llol If 15"t:t~l+ IIi -1[; ~ te w go ""' -~ ~ .... go .~;r 1::1: ,_ ~ ~~

, 1+ d:!: ,~ ""' ,_ b' - ttr ~ ou li:l" ..... ~~ "" ltf ~g~~~ I+ IY tlr EE tEE ~ ,_ 16= 5" dE-,1!!:~.---

,,.. ~ l;r --l~4f'~r~!t tv. &rtt::5= IC ~- w IIT(!l:!'~ ([!Z~~ I:J')r ..... lnY" (.

c;.t;r ltf ttiF i '!!Z ~ IC g: Q= (!!!: II'

! 11;"

.::!!!! "W liT

-~ i

;~ 'li9 w

IE Ag ~ IP

~ !g:

r E;

II!::'

~ j:+ ! f ltr

16= ('JT ~~

1101 -;i IWW

~ "'ICY

"" ~ ,fiT '-I+

16=

~ g tr tr w '15= I;T'

tltY . '!IT W'

(lc It,- tt:: ,!: w I I; tr IP'

I&~~ ..... n:; '-e: If ([!Z~~ "'" .. ~ -- dE ~ g: w dE S' I~ 1,;1=

,15= ~ NS' e.g ~

~ ~ lW - ~ ~ ~ ~

dE - w re .::IV tl!!' tv 8= n:;

~~ ~~ ~~

'&"' I 1 -- ""' 16= ~ etc It' -- '~ .::! fir~ -- liY go I'D

AoT 16= V) lkY -~ ~ t (.r!r ~ . !;= 'li.'l" ~tic ov - b' tr9 I& liJ:j&~t:tdE s: l:r' ~ 121" ~~~t~~~ ~ r;r t!i;= 419 (:;"

~ l!iY .... l:t? 16 (!!!; It' ..., !IX' no- n:; fir; 1,7 t:r? !!;:(~

4W ft IV W w jg - - 11;" $ rg;. tiF ~ l;r 'e (- iW !iT IY EE IV l:r' "" !l'r lit' ~lUI:i',E!ftt:: t.!E-~~~t ~~F~~~~,!~ ~ ~m-.::1!!: ~f (:;"l+tt:: '~w IP' ~M'~ iec..l!r.t ~j;;=; tr&;tr

~ ~ ~ e; dE I!;G' - tt;: IF lr ~ ~ w ~ '~.

...,_- I -, l:t' I j+ ~ ~ 1,~~-,~~ti "ii ~ !;!;,dE

-- ( .... ~~ lc (11; ~ ojD' 1:1' .rv ~ ({'!' ::;; w, e..

tr "" - e: ttt:: ,t!: fiT IW ~ !;t liir(t';,:;;lirV).,._ l:r (1'11" ,.., ,_ "" l:r - - ~ l~;r ~~ (~flli'~(IU~I+

(!!;: llr ~ ...., ~ -~If~ ~ 'w i:.!i: l:t" ,..,. ~;r ltr 1c.- ( IV !g: 10 ,.. dE - -l-~ t9 ~ E: liW -~

- I+ liT tr tr',~ J::!:. w ~

'iil ,!: (l:i: li-'16= iC ~ ttl ~ I'! ~ ID iC ~ w ~ ~ If; ii: tt:: Itt' ~ t~'f i IV ~ rc:

h'l' I;T -tor 115> tiP ~ -li!JI"~I!(g . ~ tlr IV d!t ~ ~rtrfji (15; gow w ~'~dE~~ ~ ~~~/IV

."ID If

(f~t:II(;i{~~ ~~n cn~o;:lis~I:Tlif~ 1 t1 =srpt s:rr~: ~~R~tsriQ.. tl;;r;'l:l,lot~ tf;~l:f!Cfill1~cl'fitCfliif!"lle{mi: 1 if :er ~!Ot~sitt

'el'~iiflf?!CJ ~~o~~~ql1aTOJOfftiCfOfi1I((. i CfiifcFl ('!'Sf ~~iiit~kf '!m'htcr~~ 1 fofu'?t~ iioCfitcrll. 1 3~s:rli~wncqfu": 1

;:y;:er~!>(l'!f~

~ fi= 1

w !:)0

~ ~

I;" l>l'?W li':

'IE rr: t:r (! t:r I+

w (~ rltr iP (~ dE (I+ tv iF ~ g: tiC tl;?n:: i;i' !if

~ d dE df lti'

'"" n:: n:: n::

tiW s I+ "" !:r'-'" ~ '~ 1:.'" -~~ 1\r ,!:!: ~ ll' t:r ltr I:;" 'IE 1>1'?~

,n:: !!!?! II;" ~~ It; ~ + -~l:Y-!iw n:: n:: l!r S" ~ ..,.. rtf' fir IW ~ ID ~ 1:;

t}f.ll~ cnrfl~ +l;:li'Tl1~

; 41; 1:1

" .:'

--~~'i ~E- !G 1: ~d~tfi! ~It,~ (.~ -~ ~f6= IF oo - (t+ .m-

._ /!:r (!=> ~ I+ !;,T ...::!.. !:ir ~ ,...,, tr If IV ~'~;" ~ 1: -~ rrf ~ -~ (.~

(.!!!: ~ lnr ~ ~ !: .. ~ g: cr. 'tc (.liT ~ !:} te> t:r hT l;r' - );;:. w

"" ~ 19 (.~ V) 1-4 w-tr ,-lc~c~ IJT'f? ~ ~ l2r ~ m- ~ ~~ -(.12: hf j;f f5= s: It;;: 1:1"'

- IC W (f, ..., - 1!: (.In" t:r "'" iii=

'" -12\)n: -.-.h:-'~hfW'tvi+L~ !:ir {"" ~ lu9 .1;? - Is: ~ iiT ~ ,.r;- ~ ~ '1:

't9 lf~fgl+ rl'ir' - I.Q_ ~

n... I.- tc:: ~ "' l!!:m-f!d V)W (.'fir 41 ,~ t:r ti- .rl( !:ir fG II:' ii\= ~ '" lSI !i-

.rt> i;;= "i "" ~ (~ IC (.~h;"!:iro ~~~IC ~hd-

W ._ ~ ~.1 ~ - If Ill/ tiC d!! nr 1+ J:t' IN !Y &" Er IP ~ ~"~ ~~i !d~:

;~ .. ~ !:; t!? dE IC' ... , hCI - j:t" !lT ~ 1135 1!:::. -.~ iU" (.t:P I+ l1r'

fe ..., IC ii !F IX '~ ~ fb Jr; ~ lj~ tl+ ~ IP 1::1\ If ~ I+ 11;" IJT ~

C:!!!: lEE ~ !! (.(!Z ..... "" ..... l1r' flli' 111 !!. 'iii= IE ,l! ~ liV liY ;,:;; I+ &;: fp d~$ S:

!:6' lF (ill' ~ &;: (~ (r; d~ ~ 1:7: 'jg '"' ~ ~ IJT ~ (.~ ~ wf'_~;~ ~-

Ji:; IC ft; ~~e~ Jl; IP 16= a

c.- IJT tfV w (t;!; e; i -tr !if ltj dE

a:. W_ ,7 i ~ ~ (W

ol' :

~ I?" 'I&

.fil\1

~ ;; E ~ ~"Ill" i (~

!!!: l;r ~ It;

fp} ~ lfr Ill" It:

'IP tc li'il'] t; (IP" vf;r :::::: b-

~ (~ Ill" ~~ b" W' ~w~ ,.w.-,_dE~ lliY "" ':::::: ~s;r ~ ~ ~ ~ w

~ tr'J (It:;

': ~ d: ll !!! ~ ~ ~ ~

d!': w ~ .,_ t;r IX

~ 16= hil> If C!.

~ I2J9 I& ;;;; (~ IX It' i9 l:v ,. jg: f;r - 121"

Ill" C:!!!: tiC (~ ~If hr .. ~ 1P ~ ~ ~ ltf s: It i ~~It:; ,. (I!. tr'J 1'. ; b- hr ~ ,_ 1:0 ~ - ~ W' ~ !B !g" iE - ,_ If IJT If td' w IV ~~w :~

d!:: rz-j:j'; ~ I?" ~~ '1 ~

It:; I 1:1' (.tr I - (tr Ill" f;r .,_ ,...., I - fiT f;r 1:1' (It; w~~-~ -.~ .... tell!" w~~~ i~~i~~~~~=~~~~J~E~ tt? ~ ~ !:; df (Jj! In' 1[2 - ('HI I+ r.' 11liY g ~ g_ 1~ ~ h:f ~ ~ (~ IJT ~ if i&: I+ IX c.- fj!: ~ *~- ~;rt;:~ ~~r 17 ~1tffp}~L

tc; - ~ tt? "" (lob (to !;T\1 ~;r II1B' (W tv ff tt:; It;;- l;r r;w "" -5= ii:r tc; It:; i ~ r.-t ([E (~ W' 'Iii!: i=i' (! jl: i ~ (~ 1tr ~Si IX ~~ C:: = to IV tiC IX I+ (It:; tt:; (I!:: t:;' ( II+' 1+ (E: IV ~

-u:;; ,.,. -Iii!' - - !;T\1 w - ,.,. l;r I+' 1\Jf ~l~~~~~~~- gw~~;r~~~ ltr~~ ~ ~ ~~ ,.,. ~~ ii' $ ~~~w; i:f~Hr~~tv~~~~ ~ tiY thY l:t'J tr'J ltf Iii' ~ '"" ~~ I+' If ~

aE e: ii:=,_hY t~(!ll"W'-~"'l;6 ,. g ~ 15" ..... hY ~ If ~ IJT ~ dE "' ~ ~ ~ ~~"~ ~ ~ ~'~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ !;',. ~ lu' !fnt 1:1' 1:0 nr c.-t;; 0'9 c.. ,_ J:v hr s: -~ ~ !i!: w ,l} ~ 'Po' ~ ' -~ ~ 'i ~ ~ (li!: ~;r E= ~~toOC~e ,~ ~

rr:: ,_ 'to Er IV "" kr J;r d!!' lull t.::; ~&lJ~!itw~~~~ ~~r

-w

if f6!;~ p- "' t~ ~ til? jg?W df--i W'ki'

,f j ~ ~ I?" ~to r-?1+ jp: ~ Wfc.:J

& ~

I ~

0 5'

:I I;T

& liw

.i iCJ

(IIIli (ft:;

'iF I ,~ r It; I;T "'" 1.!:.. t:r' I;T @:~

~ ~ 11;"

~~ g: w ~-,_ ~ lt ,_ g: fS, 16= dE

m- t!V - - '!;' tm" ~ fr If g: "~ ~ f;;~j;J: ~ /Si" ~ ~ m b- ~;r 16= E 16= w &T R;; ,...._ " w (..., !:+ ~ If l(!r 11;" ::0 r:P f1:; d!! ~ t.r - 1!-- ~ 0 ~-w- "'"ts= w - ~ td ~ ,m: I=P t~ b (h:; 16= i5= (if - . ~ n:: ~ d!: tf'P IV IV ~ 'j{; (! ~ ~ ~(:P w ~ ~ ~c-~~ ~[~~;rb'"jt,:r&thcl~c2?

IP":~~t+~t~ - It I:T' ........ b- I;T tilt" ({t:; ~ ~- 4lj; Iii >f&= If ~ rc ~ ti f1 (!; ,_,... ~/W~V ,_ ..... ~ ~~ IV ~ "~ ~ ltr t\'-

r:i ~ "'lir -~ &? ~ f:t" ~ !EI5" ~ 'Nf I+ ftc/ @I;{~ ~ w ~~ f1:; liT 11;" 4!? '~

~~- ,!}';. !ir R;> -cic~1 ~ ~ w l::t Ci\;' ~R;> ~ce: II:!: i if~ b

For I+ ~ -~~wIt (!!:" ~ '~ ltr ~r ~ ~~~

..... !IY e; f1:; IP" !lZ ~ ~ ~ '~ w .-- IE

-E! !IY ~ ~lf!;!:!l w IX w

~ fl; IP' ~"g j-~

ft; l:r 1!: tojfq: .. ....... ,.. Wff

~"llflT~Ro 1 o~IU~ ~a-: q~+ra:~orf?rfct ~m~~cnTFoor~ ~TCfiT"lfijer .msr a=il""-l'stcfrfff trir ~TNolfCRqf I ;:r;;zre 1 t~;:q e~srrCfil:aijcfi ~;: ffitr ~!sr~: irst~:n ~er

cn~til: tr~~~if en~srrq_ ~~~~ifsr:Uif :ml\~:u ~ en~iffa' g~ttr I

rr~ a~~C::a"l11lrSf~or :Ucll

~ 'if ~~q&;r:fr if l-TffiiT'ff I Sffflff :q ~&:at :u

if~ 'er ~;;msftl ~~~ ~er liTif11fr Sfifglt.. I msr!:f![Ur qqJ~~OTTQ.. 1 if ~~R~Rirr~~q Rct~srqm ~?;a 1 R~l1r~c;f ~rfr'o ~fq~fct ar~rcr. ~::rn:omrc;Cfl[~~ 1 ar>rJ'a :q ~"R-TM~rif wrrc::ftt 1Jf'f11.1: 1 ffi11rY:l1cnROJI=ffl

~ asr Rr;'j{r ~~~rsrrrll:qfra' ~srllsrrltl ~ar ~:;re!irCJ ~~~~~ fq-l=Rfifil'~ ~ffi +r~rfwf~r~~:T~~rfirsr ... =cr liirF"cr~q~Na 1 ~~CfiTu~~~1 =cr W.~[ll:l" ~~~ C'l~TG:I:llllq ~R~G:J!lijiJ"flir.f;:l:l"if ~~ liill: I' SRr: ~a 6)f~Rrcti~~~ ~m+r~cnrRiotr~lliif~c'it {u~r~fi.I~~~fflil

"G =tf ~~~~trSN f{cr~~ ~q"ff I

arsl')'"l:l?i'

~fila:~~a1CfiRUll";:r~ flii!1T >rii!1~SJ!:?:!T+!~Cf@r CKT\UfPcR cn~q;:ffqfi:lc~m+r_ I Cfi~qff[: RRl'ilRT Ofl r--.. ,...., ....... " r-.. (' ~fl

~l+lr~r~((f 1 meoC'fr~ aJffro:r~:n ~ fiR:r

--(tt< I I WI I I --'li~"" I fir"$!- If;' I o t 11 ~ ~r ,~1f.te .. "'"dE ~w~ ;:;l ,16= :i~ ...rc !!~~ ~~i ~~61~i~~ ~f~~~ II' -~ ~ v ~ ~ 0 - = ~ - ~ ~ rw~ d1!2 '!'r1 m-'l . rdtZ ~~~51 ~'~i !;" ~ ~ rg: tx ~~ ~ rE ~d 11 v-~ iE~~~- ~~ ' ~-' .:~ -flj..le ~~,.. i i'f~o ~ lm: 0 m- ~ ~ lli'i' g (I'C dE

;; 'TfWiffi: wu~~ aQ;. ~1m~~ ~~ctt n ~~Rtt~

rtJrer1Ire{fffifa" 1 o

4fY

.i fa%

~ ~

I a!:

~ J IV !CJI:r" ~~ & lr tt: 16' -((!!: llr !:>tf!! ~ fP

Ef

i

It "jg'..-1+

~

wtt~-ft{-~~:ire:J w hn- !li to Er ~ IP" - 1:7'9 ~~ iil fir !!;: W" to 4!!: -

t;T "m: g -w '1;Y If ~ (~ ,_

HI" "" tt: hJ) 1 lfY - !;;;= ~ It" l:r" ~r i It ~ tv J:p ~ lfr !%" ;:;; IV~ --~

I:P ~:> !i:r It: ll(' J:p 16' t;T dE:

....,. It- - llr !.!:::: "" It; (~ l::r lu' IP: (!!: "" !'[ (!!:, (!!! "111' tllr ~ "'i;:r 1:; IE w re; - ~ ~ t;T tt!Y "" l:r -

- iii b' ,llr ~ I+? ~ fE tr nf 11p- '-'lir 1-~ llii' .

cntru'6Hl:!~~ qR srq;rWf!a;tq~rr~?l: '31~ :q rr cerq~r~fa;a:rs'!fJT~tfiffi if ~~m-r~a;;::rq~~rrr~ ~ 1 ~{~ ~~~~~

.Y 4!1"

i ~

~ rc t IE ~ "" ~ ti !P rfiY ~ .w ~ tin' (IV iP= ~ ~ (~ fiT' (.~ (~ ,~: ,f.T I::T" l;r

V) w ~ ~- ili 10 ,_ ~ h;' (~ ii '"-" It; fiT' i:r ~~ ~ :g., d~ L~ ~ tt; lfl"' L!;;,. fiT' lOll w ~ (!;';;- hT !Off t:r (IV , fu" 1\;- ~ '"'"-~1-.i;=!!..tT""

,_ (131' rr rto n:r- liY ~ I2J9 !!lg'IB'?Wr;:;;.~ 41P

i 1

~

.. "~ ~ ~ ~ llt 11' ~~ ~ ~ ~ IP" ':":' ~ 1/j=p ICJ 119; w;

~ ~ ~~ ~ (~ ~ W tr IO (..~ (~ iii - ~ ! [ ..... It - lfi 11' ~ IC 't ~ IP" i! jW ro -'IE g

fiy It' w lzy9 re: ~~ 1 4~ )>!;~" t:;r I;T w '" w (Cr 10 (!:t" ~ (I;T (~ (!if = w ~

'l;TI=r:;- u.:. IIB'~t;:;-r:: /tt; ,t:A dE ~ !E ~ . lr 1 ~~.;c~n; t;r ';" IV tlfj;; It' _ dt ~- :[~ ~'1 "~ &: ~ ~~ ....... It; ~~~~ n;g:

11r ~ IY; IV ~-~~tilf r Ji ~

tl (t ~ ~:;: !if (E!: a! ~"l>l~'i~~

M-

~i r;;; ,n; ~~ f'c(-t.T lir n;e ~l~ 19 ~ "J:P - d:t !e)

thf ~ t.T ~(!!!!+" ~ -

1 lk;: ,liB' il'" ,.,. !!: Iii= IE ( j If ~ -1 ,,_ I;T ~ M I+ "l!E

~ E; ttf !!! ~ if .$@:$

~(&I w (I+ w E ,g

'rc ~

w )g= ~ ~ ,tb l:h ~o= -~ '"sr-..... IP t::= I+ (!+ hl"

- til' (Jr; Ct fir ,r;;; l:p '" d~ .,_ ~s-~ tE

if :q fir~rrffi" orJ' N N ~ r-.,,...... ~ r-t r-.. oSfCir Sff

rerli:lCif ~~"l: ~ ., :rr

&ft: ;ft~h=rr+rr~tlft~~

Cm~'lt~stufrCf~ ~~ff wtr~mFt Cfi*'ijfufq~~ !

Wlllllftw.f~Pn ~orq'fr iJRI: II ~ II Sfllt~Uf [qll[T c~t~TQT~~ ~: I ift'fT~T~n~a~ llR~t fcr~~fr II ~ II

3l~Tffi ~~IHIT ~-~-~. a:r~(f'f~n~r~~urfci'NfuN;:'frsr~"RiJ~iJtfet9fPtrar~CJ~ ~~~~~~(f iJ ~~~(f(fITfflJ Cf~~efif Et~~~ijfijfCfcli~(f

~fit w:r rfcfflir~a~r 'ar~rn:' ~m IJ({[(f~~Cf' ~Rt IJIR~lfqcfils~(ft~ arrw:{ufA: ; ffirfir~f~~trr 9T~{If\.~ a~ort ~~Rf tf~~ eMiJT ;:~M~~~~r~-t~ ~fa * ~ _ ~

~'R ~~fqw1f.t cn~fu~crr~ir I u'j:lfl=f'l=ll'rtM"~ ... .rr01'i1r .,m-: 11

' ~ S:Pl'[Cfi\UJ U~O'JT Olil~li'!Rl'l~ ~~: I m;rfm-qr~lliiflo~ trRffil ~ ~&~a II

a:Mrffi ~furr~r. Sf'

i~&rcr~it ~~~ren'tiCfi~q ~rA- 'f~rffl' ~re~rf.t 'ijfft qeyrr ~~~ ~ifT q ~r~:, ('(~9 ~~WT('(; if !!'1: 'fTR~n~:, S'f~To:QU~>"(j'J~IJf 9r ~orr~ :{i_({q~;:q&r~ 1 ~c;:r g; ~'fr-.... ,..... ' ........ UTTTl5Rf ~

~ rrrrr~~triffil~ * :sn;r;a~if'i~-(fa;'Rf{ ~~~Jijj ~ -- ~ o ~fu. a{a:~, rrl'fci~-~~~~t cr:q;:rs~:ffif Meil~ ;

aro:~~i cr~rroerffit fetcr~cr~-~a:q~1~ ~~1-~rrro:a~ijc:r fctlft~a ~~~: 1 rr ~11~

qw~}~~~~na:~~Rr 1 '1!! ~rrasc-1~9~~~ fefifitfct fcrl:lr;rr-o:rm o:r llcrm ~ f;.Frr~rn?i;:ft='1ms'N4{(lf'1f! ~rn!fr{Cfi

er~ffir ~~r~~;r :(ff&TT\~ij!Ift~q-f qq~~;ft m~-&::>..-r."' " + "' ,, "\ !lr"' ""' ~ ,, ,.... -So ~~~9p;f(f ~T~Cf- m;rf(!5'\,11fTS~T 'l::fq: ~Rf I erT~1

~: ~~~ !;fqaa-, ~ l1iffcrr~ +rrq: 1 !;f+rrur~e:r ~e~R ~r-Ffi

-:ElJ:t.lh~ ~. .&~~b ~1~2 .... ... 'lb:~~ll;,& loll:tll:ilhll. H~ 1:2H . .

~li~~.l:lli~ ~ h 'lt.l::tlj-!2lbb!t.E~~! HJ=~ .e, {lall:l~f:t -h.al~ !Ht.b 1.1:62 "lt.hol.l:tl.l::i:li!lll~~a .t:J~.I:!E ~L.I:t~.IE~l= ~:th.l:t

-~1.11Lholf:tl.li .!= !~~.t?:ll!.Mr.bh~ll:t.I:S~lt mh:tft .1:!~.19~ ~ ~~~~~~JSl:!l.El.l:tlM~ ~l:tholhl.til.e. .I:! "2~1~ Jhl.l:!2~ .1:!: ~

! ~l.J?..I::i ~Le J.!:,olt~@:s:l~l::t l.!o~~W.I:!.Ie:.EH~.ta~ -~.t~lol.!:t.fi ~lMI:tlolt ~oll:tll:i .I:! lhJ.1:!2l~ .{#t.E:O ':IDb ~hh~

~bollill'it~l.l:!t~hl~ tcal.J:tl.b'H.I:!l~IDu .IE!~ bl~ J;:11Ee tl;EI:tiDloJJ:t.!:'il.Je: ~~~12h.e.lou 1a IJ:tJ:tia.LoJ.bl:i .e. th ~h.\..&Jtl hlJ..e IP-Hlttta.~:t ~J~

~wa ~~~Q .E.J:th:!lt)ihii:t.&1:1J..:?: ~:a~hl~ ~!t.t~JnH ::t.e ~li.I:!!~Jd.l:!~ij:tl:tffilJo1llh '':&ht~l:tlhJi.e lb:!?6~.H ~~ Hh:l:!tl; ~ P-~~ 1.1:! ~lhl:lli.l:!~lb.H .!?J'' . ~ll;J:t ~.l:ttJ~~ ~ftlbH12!S :h~~ ~~'It.lb!;l

"~ll:tll.l!

hlJJ ThB b~hlhh' ' ~bl.lhhllib~h~~l 1:t~EH28 h:it]l]"b.le .. .j ..... ..... '-.) v .....

'h~~.l5~ ~~ ~!;!~ ~t~L~ lhl~ ~h~R~~'!t.l~eed~ .h2~l;!)lfhn -l.ttltl:tb~~b2f::!L!:!l1S ~h '':r:thL!!E:lh ~J:!hr.~l!:t ~ltd~f:?~~~l:l~ hl..t-tt.EJ:d.l5 ..12:0 ~J~ll.Et]b:eJ~ hJJJ::d~ ~ll::c=t .1! hal!:tl.15 bll~!b lhl~ll;

.. "'-J-....1 v . -....J"-.

-J.el:b& Jl:ti:.t.I:::E:& .1:2Jl:tt~.21l.E::l:1:lh::: el.lli h~J.ea .E:: e 1l:.& .e:o ~s ,J -.....) '-J ...} '-.} "" , ..) R~l~ .l:!J~21J.E:l:t112::: Jf1:1h ~~~ Jl:Gl.l:::.l?l:'! bll.l= ..1:! 'l:tholl:tltl.Eb ~1b

..) v ....... '...J ..) '-)

-!;?)~:0 ~!.b lB ~hlkbl~U:I2l~b lo~l!:tf::!lhl~~ h=thF6~ ~lo}l.l:ll&loUt.l:l -Jlnilt.l:l .E: hUe l:t.trall:tll::i J~!b ~l!:tl.>-21:ltl.l::ll!:tl.!.El&ft ~b!.l:!lhF6..l:!l.Ell:t

""-' , .... -.....; ...... ~ '-.J ......... "-.) '-J

-Jn~Jh~~.e~ ~lCJHt1.15Je ':&hal.l:tlti t:O ~.E~ .e~ ~J.l.o~t!J:tl:.!;!:!l.l:!lJS ~t?6~ TI .I:! g,l@-l:!~h>hl& ~ ~~ ~lE:b .b!hlh.Q .. hl&ll:t.Elt~l~'.Et.lhh ~ll:tl::dk ~llS.@J ~ lh~ 'J;t.@t .l:l h~~jlh~Jt:O B!.b 1J troll:t!.l:ll:thnll:tl.l:l J..l:!l.l:!JJS~B:tJJ''" .e:O Bll:!.!?l.E:: loll::t.l:ll&JJ.Et ~lel!:tlln:tl~holl:tl.l5 .. l.ti : f11b ~~~ h& ..1:!1

-...}..... ...... '-...) -....I

J.s~;:f!l.l:ta.W:e.tb.b::J.J:tl&lJ::tlJ::t '-J\J '"'

h:tQ 112Q 'ltb~~h.lgJ J2J:c I :~h~l,!cl??.lsb~t~-'4 'J&.&J~~ 'hh3t~t~.& hle I ~~ ,,lt:ft~~.ls.EJ ~~-~ ~~ '~~--~1~~, 12~ ~.tt~!t~~ , , &~'klh~~~e , , l:t!~l:tJl:thn11:tllsl:th3'eihlh~~l~~ ~h

-'tlt1~~lh ~~.!tSJ!l:t~Jl~~ * Itl::Jt!~~~.ls~ hlh1.Et2.1s ~ll ~ -~ 'e I ~ll:llJ.E~l:lb:tl~ft .bH.!t:tl! ' ~lti .e J:.cnlhl.ls h1SW:th 1h!~Th1.e~l:l.&

'-I v '-..J ~ ...... ~.:ll

! l~Rlt;l:l.& ~11:11~1~1l11E:f:t1h5: H~ h:tJ=l.E& E: ~ I J~R .eb \) '-/'-J ,) ..._, ~ \.. u

n:~m ' 1t~ftl11l~lt1h:: Th21h :Q~!:e1 ! 1~Thlt;.e& blll: ~ 1 1t.l:wll:tJ.Is i) ""-# " ......, .:J ".....) ~ Jhll l!}h ~!.eh ~}h ffi : ~hlkhl~L~!l1H~ .b Ml.&~!!th k1 !titk ~

~-.... " .... "'"' .......... ........, .e~lo11tdfeJnll:t.lll1D11t.ls .1?.: .bll8 I hhnllt!.lsSlf!!h ~ll:t1!2l:t'hlltlthl1Ht " ...._, ...... v........., 'V

J.!ahlHhm klElldh~l.lithle ~ .11!1ll:tl.ll~ I It!wll:tl.ls .1?1 Q,e:t ~~ '-."-J -...._, v "

: lt!tl1nah.l:t1~!~ll1: hh~l J} ~ ~1.e~t.l2lkH ~1~ hlllh ~'ltll:& v '-- \,. '-' .........,..,_,.... ~ v u.

'~l.l:ilill:l.elt.M~1t1hh .ell:ttlk ~1~1-J.ll 1hl:~ I lthht.E~li l:t!l

"" ,..... ~T~OJ(i:fq'f({:qfci'Rf.. q'~Cf ~rq I

tzy(G:~qq~~, ~f:q

q(ttg$ur ~ ~rN~ srr~rtnTa~~~rif CI~ ~ tfft~

~ '"' ~ '"' ~cq~r J:~;:Iifr ~crm~T~ ' "' :::,. (' ,.... .... .... ",-fl ... ~f

$1 ~- ~ ~ ~9iTHij * ersr iffi9iT~aor iliift(! I(Rur m Frf'iffllRtrn-ftfcr fl. sf ~~qrcr~ llff~Xf~llf fq;n~:.~~llf 1 fct~;rrsmrf.lu~Offf.f AA:ij ~o~Cf 1 crsr ~Kll'~~~ MCfi~qlff5f~ , if~ ili'R'-ITT~~g; ~~~~ SIRflffij~~Pl.

~r~sr~ ~l!:l;ff; fcfii: ~~ ij[flfefi~flf: CfiRorqJq:m;:t qr, ~ ....A-r-, ~ ~ ,..... q~~cr ~-a"~~,... sr~~cr~~srcr

~~ srcfifa"~Cf~TifT~ ~~:-~~~~~ ~~CR'i~ I ~~ crfl \90--~ ~crnsr~~~~ fij~~r~rer ~~~srr&-ar-=~;:ct fr Jf

*~~u * ij" fu er~l::u!:ier:&: Sl~t:f~l{ * ~m +fllirfu+mrr m,

5JT~~':rr~trrccnq:_ , ar~c:r ~ ~~~w:rp:rroncr , ~a'P:rJr~rq-~ncrr:q-,....._ r-.. r-.. ,.... ...... ,... ,....... " ...... ~Ti'!lffiicCf~

''sr~Ji' ~~r~+rr;:f o:rr~ ~sr~lli:ffi 1 ~eri~"T ~J'll{ttrir O:CR'ft;:f ~~IT~ffi II" ~Rr I Q'~T- ''~~~ijill~rr ijT~Ef ~ CfiaR I

ifo/ijj' Q'Sf ijFl"fij~~ijfttrf~I{Cfi~aqJt~~

ofR;r~a~!(Wfm ~lfHra---tfrer~, mlifct~:, anoo ~ 1 om~ MI'~"'rif ? ij~ SJC!if~: 1 ffi ~r ern~ ? 5JRTR; if tt ~q. ~ijGJTm;cft, ammr"'"Tiffilif ~"'"Tijqq'fflSffifffl{ 1 ij~ m~~tffl ; ~aif~ ; ~{srm;:g; ~~r~ ~~~ 1 ~if~iJ:. I1T

p (' (' ~ "' &I'Cffl:~10' ~ ~; or~:p:rq(ftf~H"''f ~ SfifTOf&fTq'R: ; ~&:T~~-.._ ~ ...... .... .

~T[lif~~r~~l(f:q~cr

~ 1'\ r-.-... ,....., ,....., ,....,....... .,..... ~N~H:r: 1 ~~rtr{~(\'1 ~+r-~rcr r~ ST

~qf;:q~~~~ li~!Rffl c~W~ffi"T~: ~~CfiT~oTJI~qtq tr~+~l.l~~cr ~M~.

ara~r.=r--~a: @rr~ q~fit tm;rq ~lfiW=fr~n &q{lr-~~~ ~~ffi ~:?t~qff; ~o/l:l~TtJ~~~lf ~T if~~r;:a):o:r tf{ ~~Olfli_. ~~rffi: {~ ifTTJT~ @lfiliOil'ihnt~~

""" N'

t:r'

~ ~ l:r &' E It' -1+ 11)

m- m> (j: ~ F f;T 1::1" ~ ~ w ~;v ~ ce:: ~I""" lg: -g~(!; ~ _._ (~ l;r !;; ,.,, rtt:; in

fW t!;: jg ~ rji;

~

i -~

*

M i n::;;

g.

l:f g (Ft; !r jg

,.n::;;

~ ,g:

~ .. lil"

t:t:: fi'

~ j;f ~ (~

! !X ts'

~ ,.n;;

ru;, It!, ~ cjg i cg ~ .. IF' tiC m" s;r .. n:; ri;r ~

4E

cl!!' !;!"

~ [ If ~

b"~~~rg: ~ !;!" ~ (.~ v..r t'.W : ;:;; ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ fir lil" v

rlif 'iii= ~ fu: ~ tf ~ (!!!: (.11:" ~ IF -~ ~ (_ ,.,.. '~ II"' (!:!;:'

~ lil"

QE

q~ffi" l:llTr, i:ff~+rrFmt ~n~) l:"fll: ~fu .n~~, if+Tfffi"r~fu;a~ I ~nJfffif

ftrs:~ffi [~~;~~ l Cf~Tftt :U~Ci~f.tUen~Pt&:~'ffii{ I ijiRf~ " ~ "' ,........ f"t-~ "' ,.... ,..., ' ;rmr ~erm-~eru i{Cf~ ilrnl{!crtficr cwr=a~~mr: , arrri{~~

g; or ~m 1 ~crG::~sfil SI~iCJG::r~~ij~iJl;g:'l"r"eT#~nttey~~~r{q): ~rif~llrm 'l ~e~, ij

~~~~ .1! ~~~l.l!ll:!~l~~tt ~h:lll.l?itl1!:~ .!!;""''"~

~.B::.e~ .1:1!~\!

~ & .l!ll~.l1.li:lh~:t~ ...... J21J:EIJ?llH1illlh& hllMb]l~.E~ .... dl ~~~I v; .,)-...: ...._ '-1.... -.....J .J "S- ~ 'l:tJ:cg.eJ~E-.U~ !~fl~l.blhd.l! ~)? .@J.!e ):tl.all:t.l:i llliij ~21J:];t~.!e

)t~ '.I:?J:c 1 .a.~:m111 .~:~e ~J.hl!Jr.lhl:I~JJ:ci.bl .l:?l.l:t .e, JtJ.l:!~~Fe :.a~~E! l.!:!l:tHI:i!dl:tlf! ht~ ~li!l.l:i..!! ~b 'hf21-tK

- '-J .l ~ ~ ~I.aJ!:t.J:i.l:'dl

~)J:?~!tla~~~t lr.J~~l.!fl.Ll: .1:! ~ ~~bblt h~.id'::!l:t ~~~llt~d~g;~ ~~1.1:1::! ~~.@.l:l~l.l:ro:h~~b :bhl~ ~l:l:t ~~.lg_

~l:tl?~.I:!.E::J:HhJ~, ... ~l~ .!= ~l:t~..l3:.1= l:d.tlY:lh~l~.ld ~~ 'ltlof!a~ h~.!ftl~a,~ .1! ti:t.BL_i~ ~~~ !:! ~~~~~l~JJ~~ll: ~1~12 lh~

II :~~& 1lfol~ il~l!:t:t~:t~lnf!a~h~~ "ltlof!a~ll!c ~~ ~ h:ill1iln.l:tl~

-.!!ill'.; ~~lE. ,t;:t~t~h hholl:!ll:i 4.l:!l~b~.t.J.l:!ll:!b~l.Ll: E:~~ttl:!.Eb 1~ -~)lt:Ji.tHltt:tl!l~ ~Itt ~1!::!~ .t:d~~J~ ~t:lRr~~o1.e: ~ll:!.tabl.e ~JEbb~ .l::Bl:: t~~l~l!c bl~IF.~J:~IJ:1J21ll.I?..I=.H.12 .!:! ':M:&.l:ll.tdtJ::~l:tlb:l!:'ahJlJ2~1.1:!1Jt:}l~ ~;;. -....I t:J'V ~ .;)

~~.h!Rr ~ !clhJt11..13:l:tjh2Jtd.8~ll=ll21:tl::! ~hlRr ~~~&~ :J:? i:'. it.:~ : n~~~Jt:~l5'1B.!!@~lh.t-it12 .t:c:tt!n~l1Js~~l.l:!~:tlt~J:.lJiEL'cj~bh!!.l.l:t.lcp:tgt

II ~~ ~hln~~}e)R; lo~1:l_PJ1~JJ.l; ~-~ ~~Jhh~ ~bh2~d:t ~~~~l.l:tl:~d~J}l< ~~~~ ~'t1:i?~t~re .h~J:c?~h ~~ , , 1 :J:c~ls ~llilt ~~ ~~~ J~!tli ~hi? 'il' 1l1.l!l::]lh~!t~ '.!= -hlle ,-lt.l!E:.h hl:1~~1~~

: ~~ , , II ltJn.l:'d.e h:t.!:s:tl.fu:~ .1! .h:tit~~ !lg!Jgj~ I ltll::2WJ#H~ ~~1.1!1~~~~.1?;; !j1~h,

-- l.h~ , , II :.W~.& .EWl.l! ~~J.l:t:t~:tl~ln.Fa~h~~ lltlnlBS:!ls:t1R: ~~~h .hclt~Jilo!B~~ll:,

-'.tl~l

a-qmo:rqfil * r~ir ;;~, affl~sij, ijt~--~~ ;qJ

~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~r+w:r: ; ifrtR: ; rr Cfira-rq:_ ~~~~~l!f~IJf q(!;f~~wr:-~1 'l 31~fOffrCl{llllT~f~lf~R~, SJJJ~Ttl"J'Cmt_ I SJ~TIJffllf~or~qqr;f ~~ ~ tr~l=!T

ifi ~5Tqf;:a~ijufi"crat \f~qlfr, Cfi~ asr a~rsTrreiil!f~' ~~~~~(f asrr+ncrr if iifffi:? ~~-~Cf(f~Jfr~sfit ~ ' W ~ lllCTI:fiutrffi:_, Cfi~ m oSflllfCf: ? ' ~fft I

~Tllff:f~ ~ ~T({., o~ o~rsfr~~)cr (f({ CfiROf~~ I S1lJ ~~-~~5f~r~: ~Sllf~(f CfiROJ~, ~~sfil:; ~ ~at ll~ I qffl: wm?lffsf o~Wfilif \jfi=f~, iffqRR~a~ ; ar~r;:a{tr~ ij arqr;o~ijifcrij)'+J:. 1 ~ ~ SfTCii. (rij~~r:roor, ijSf ~~ ~~~ ~a- cmT5T~fit qr f.tffffl ~Q ~ (f;:;rrsr)q

a-~ROn~Rt 1 ~at ~rsr~~r~Piqldlctst a-o:~~C{tfiQ ijqf.l~I(11J[~IQ_ a-~ffi: ~I tr a ~Cfifct~~ 5Met4ttt:1111~:, ~'ijsfit ~fcftl~rot dfflr'l. ~asftt ftfitfct llfCT~ snrct~efi~ ~ffi ~~ ~q~: 1 ijif fctulfr-

~ A-,.. "' ~" "' "\"\.l::l ~to..li..f-~~~ ~FRr: Sfmtt~m~rr~ .. , ... ;:a, dSQ:fd'fCI' ~0'( ~~ ~((o~fr: I a{~: ~~ ~~~ (lt=iJrsr~fllf

;r~tt ~~ ~ ~~ 1 :um R: fiffi~(itt ij~~, JfT ~~~~R! I ~S([~~~: ; ~fcidf1(

:rr C!i4~ ~~ * ~ :rr ~Cf(i_ Clil61rffi: ~ ~~ ~ ~~-~~~' "~~fit-or C!if

arr~reso~ * sr~ror~ij~~~~'t_Cr~~ffl' Cfif~ ~ ~ ~- ~ ir((ifr sr~rut o:r llcrdtcfM q-~ ij~ ~W:rrn 1 ~({: ~ ~ ~- ~

;u~~rif;:r ~{ ~~:, ~~~~ ~~' ~~r ~)((if~A(f: ~,~~~: ~ * ttcl'l~oiTsflt'~~--~fq- ~ifrnrstt.trm efiTq-

Jf~, i;J~fN SfllTIJilroH.YotN~~~~~ ~Rt firftl"f~TllT~C!lfar~rtr~fu3lq ~ 1 Q~G:q;