[^1]- The subcommentary Vacanamālā provides the first line of this verse- kaścic chiṣṭo ’tikāruṇyāt sarvadharmāgamārthavit |
[^2]- See AitB 5.32 (25.7). The reading here should be _ṛkto _in place of ukto.
[^3]- Here the printed edition is blurred and the reading is not quite certain.
[^4]- Editor’s note- apasīmantonnayanā sīmantonnayanavyatiriktāḥ.
[^5]- In the Munshiram Manoharlal reprint of 1982 this word has been changed to what appears to be- avagaktavāṃ.
[^6]- Ascribed to Bhṛgu in the _Vacanamālā- _snānāni pañca puṇyāni kīrtitāni manīṣibhiḥ | āgneyaṃ vāruṇaṃ brāhmaṃ vāyavyaṃ divyam eva ca ||
[^7]- The edition reads apūrvam, which I think is a typo.
[^8]- The two pādas in this sentence probably constitute the second half of verse ascribed to Vasiṣṭha give above.
[^9]- Ganapati Sastri’s edition places here (na?), assuming that there should be a negative here. But we already have the negative in -anapākaraṇa-; the son, because he does not know the details of the document cannot eliminate its defects.
[^10]- The Vulgate has this reading for pāda-d- dhanabhāg vā dhanī bhavet.
[^11]- The printed edition reads “tv eṣāṃ”, but, as I have noted in my edition of the YDh, this is probably a typo. The Malayalam manuscripts I used in the edition and on which the Viśva edition is based have “ceṣṭāṃ”.
[^12]- Even though the printed text of Viśva reads- vedavidyābhiḥ sāttviko, the commentary itself clearly shows the reading yāti- vedavic ca yaḥ sa sātviko devayoniṣu yāti. The reading of the edition is probably a typo.
[^13]- Edition reads “sāmarthād” but I think it is a typo.
[^14]- The edition reads- kṛtvāpratyakṣaśrutivacanād, that is, “apratyakṣaśruti”. I think this reading is doubtful, and the sandhi here is probably a typo.
[^15]- The edition is faulty here- kṛtvasujviṣayā ttisiddhyartham. Clearly an akṣara is missing between the two compounds. The statement kṛtvasuc refers to Pāṇini 5.4.17- saṅkhyāyāḥ kriyābhyāvr̥ttigaṇane kr̥tvasuc._ _It appears likely that here the reference is to _āvṛtti _of the Pāṇini’s rule. I think Madhav Deshpande for his help in resolving this problem.
[^16]- The editions of VaDh read- “ajito”.
[^17]- The edition here reads “tathāreyā”, which is probably a typo.
[^18]- The edition here reads “vyākhyāne”, which is probably a typo.
[^19]- Verses 261 and 262 are omitted in the critical edition. I note there that these two verses are probably part of the commentary rather than verses within the root text.
[^20]- The edition reads “pāṇamāsā”; probably a typo.