sulted with convenience in the present volume, no matter to which edition reference is made.
The translation. In the translation, which I have aimed to make as nearly literal as possible, it has been found necessary to introduce a considerable number of explanatory words [enclosed in brackets], in order to make clear the precise meaning of the condensed Sanskrit original. Important Sanskrit technical terms have usually been repeated (enclosed in parentheses) in the translation, in their uninflected form, especially where they are defined or explained. The translations adopted for these technical words are not, in many cases, literal renderings of the Sanskrit names (as: bindu, ‘drop;’ patākā, ‘banner’), but are selected with a view to indicating, as far as possible, the special significance of the original. To avoid their being taken in their ordinary English sense they are distinguished by capital initial letters. It was not considered necessary to indicate throughout the special force of the constantly recurring optative verbal forms; such verbs as bhavet or syāt, especially where they occur in mere definitions, are frequently rendered by the simple ‘is’ or a similar indicative form.
Extracts from the commentary of Dhanika. Under the heading ‘Com.’ is given the substance (and occasionally a literal translation) of such passages of the commentary as are of particular interest or importance. It was not deemed necessary to present in detail Dhanika’s longer theoretical arguments, and these have either been passed over without mention or merely briefly summarized.[1] I have made a special effort, however, to discover and record the source of the numerous illustrative quotations that Dhanika has introduced into his work.[2] For many references I am indebted to Böhtlingk’s valuable collection of material ‘Zur Kritik und Erklärung verschiedener indischer Werke’ (43. Daçarūpa, in Mélanges asiatiques, 7. 574–577) and to marginal
