Page Text
________________
... [462]...
8° edition contains at this place the reading 'kanniyārakusume i vå'. And the Ho, FTO and editions, after the 8° edition, accept it. But no manuscript yields it. So it could not be regarded as authentic. The commentary printed in the Ho edition contains the following pratlka (the word or phrase quoted in the commentary from the original text in order to help the reader in easily finding out the concerned portion of the original text): "kanniyārakusume i vā'. It seems that the ho edition, on the basis of this pratika, has accepted the reading 'kanniyārakusume i vå'. It is also possible that a manuscript utilised by its editor might have contained this reading. Even then this reading could not be regarded as authentic. It is so because the palm-leaf manuscript belonging to the Cam bay Bhandāra yields the reading "kaniyārakusume i vå' which is identical with the one yielded by all the manuscripts utilised by us.
28. In sūtra 1231 we have accepted the reading 'siṁduväravaramalladame'. All the manuscripts yield this reading. Theo and 370 editions also contain this reading. But the ho edition contains in its place the reading 'simduväramalladame'. Thus this reading does not contain the word 'vara' which occurs in the reading accepted by us. The Ho, foto and yo editions follow the o edition in this matter. The commentary gives the brief explanation of the terms from sālipittharasz to seyabandhujitae. It is as follows: śālipiştarāśi-kutajapusparāśi-sinduvāramālyadāma-svetāśokasvetakanavira-svetabandhujtvah pratītāḥ | No manuscript of the commentary contains the reading "sinduväravaramälyadāma' which is in harmony with the reading occurring in the text proper. But this does not mean that we should drop the word 'vara' from the text proper. We can explain the non-ocurrence of the term 'vara' in the commentary in the following two ways: (1) 'T' letter occurring at the end of the terms 'foreart' and 'a' might have caused the oversight on the part of the copyist. That is, on that account he might have dropped the term 'vara'. If we accept this view, then the concerned reading of the commentary should be written as follows: 'sinduvāra[vara]mālyadāma. (2) The text proper contains the compound of six names. On this acccount the commentator might not have deemed it necessary to include the well known term 'vara' in this sentence. We strongly believe that the reading which is yielded by all the manuscripts of the text proper should not be dropped.
29. In sūtra 1362 we have accepted the reading 'sāgārovautte' (p. 314). All the manuscripts yield this reading. The 80 and 27 editions too contain this reading. But the Ho edition cointains, in
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
| SR No. | 001064 |
| Book Title | Agam 15 Upang 04 Pragnapana Sutra Part 02 |
| Original Sutra Author | Shyamacharya |
| Author | Punyavijay, Dalsukh Malvania, Amrutlal Bhojak |
| Publisher | Mahavir Jain Vidyalay |
| Publication Year | 1971 |
| Total Pages | 934 |
| Language | Prakrit |
| Classification | Book_Devnagari, Agam, Canon, Metaphysics, & agam_pragyapana |
| File Size | 16 MB |