66 ([return])
[ The Bombay text reads Kimanyat Kathayami te. The Bengal reading is Kimanyat srotumicchasi.]
67 ([return])
[ The Bombay text reads Tatas parena; the Bengal reading is Tatas purvena. I adopt the former.]
68 ([return])
[ Probably this mythical account of Sakadwipa embodies some vague tradition current in ancient India of some republic in Eastern Asia or Oceanic Asia (further east in the Pacific). Accustomed as the Hindus were to kingly form of government, a government without a king, would strike them exactly in the way described in the last two slokas.]
69 ([return])
[ The second line of the 3rd sloka is read variously. The Bombay edition incorrectly reads ‘Parvataccha’ etc. etc.; the Bengal reading is evameva etc. etc. The Bengal reading is better, although the true reading, I apprehend, is Evametais &c., &c.]
70 ([return])
[ Vamanaka and Vamana are the same words the final ka being a suffix causing no difference of meaning. So Andhakaraka and Andhakara are the same.]