1
The Bengal reading is more consistent with what follows in verse 8.
2
The Bengal reading of the first I me of this verse is vicious.
3
The Bombay reading danda-vidhanam is a blunder for the Bengal reading danda nidhanam.
4
The Bombay text reads pranihitatmanah; the Bengal reading is pranihitatmanah.
5
By accepting the Bengal reading, the word mushka becomes clear.
6
The Bengal reading is vicious, for it reads Vishaye nayami.
7
This seems to be better than the Bengal reading tato-apratihata.
8
I have adhered to the Bengal reading, though the Bombay reading is clearer in sense.
9
The Bengal reading satwatah seems to be an error.
10
The Bengal reading Devesa, in the vocative, is incorrect.
11
The Bengal reading of this verse, which I adopt, is better than the Bombay reading.
12
The Bengal reading apadhyanat adharmavit seems to be vicious.
13
In the first line, the Bengal reading madhya na chacharet is better than madhya cha nacharet.
14
The Bengal reading Jammaphalam, however, is not unmeaning.
15
The Bombay reading is atmapujabhikama, while the Bengal reading is the same word in the plural form.
16
If the Bengal reading be adhered to, apratihatah should be taken in the sense of nasti pratihatoyasmat.
