Agam 15 Upang 04 Pragnapana Sutra Part 02

SR No.: 001064
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

Page 492

...[463] ...
its place, the reading "sägarovaogovautte'. No manuscript yields this reading. We are of the opinion that the editor of the Ho edition has here followed the quotation of the text proper, occurring in the printed commentary (folio 392 A); of course, he has made some correction in the quotation. The quotation is as follows: 'sāgārovaogovautte nam bharte!'. But the version of this quotation, yielded by the palmleaf manuscript belonging to Jesalmera Bhandāra, is as follows: 'săgărovautte nam bhařte !! This version is in harmony with the reading yielded by the manuscripts of the text proper. This conclusively proves that the reading accepted in the go edition is not authentic. The 370, FTO and yo editions follow the go edition in this matter. In sūtra 1363 which follows the sūtra under consideration contains the phrase 'aņāgārovautte'. All the manuscripts yield it. And all the editions including even the ho contain it. This shows the authenticity and originality of the reading 'sägarovautte accepted by us in sutra 1362.
30. The portion from sūtra 1597 [2] to sūtra 1599 [1] (i.e. page 354 lines 3 to 9) is contained only in the three manuscripts out of eight utilised by us. This means that the copyists of the concerned manuscripts have dropped this portion through oversight. The 40 and the 8o editions too do not contain it. And the Ho, and go editions follow the Ho edition in this matter. But the 370 edition contains it. From this we learn that if we do not consult different manuscripts on account of the task being tiresome and tedious then there is always a possibility of our recension of the text edited missing phrases, sentences and even passages.
31. In sūtra 2052[6] we have accepted the reading 'pahāremānio' (p. 423, line 4). All the manuscripts yield it. Even the sto and the 370 editions have accepted it. But the Ho edition contains in its place the reading sampahāremāņlo'. And the Ho, fo and yo editions follow the o edition in this matter.
32. In the 1st and the 2nd paragraph of sūtra 2170 we have accepted the readings 'samohaņņati' (p. 443, line 25) and
samohannamti' (p. 443, line 26) respectively. All the manuscripts yield these readings. The commentary too contains the following as the pratika from the original text: 'samohannai' iti samavahanti (folio 602 A). Inspite of this, the go and the Ho editions contain at these two places the readings 'samohaņai' and 'samohanaṁti' respectively. The 270, Fro and To editions follow the Ho edition in this matter. But no manuscript of the text proper yields these readings. Hence they should not be regarded as authentic.