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 501

...[472]...
But the palm-leaf manuscripts at this place contain the reading 'anantarāhārāḥ'. So, the reading accepted by us at this place should be regarded as original.
bhāgamānam
63. In sūtras 2165 and 2166[1] there occurs the reading asamkhejjatibhagam (p. 442, lines 1 and 8). The o, o and go manuscripts yield, in its place, the reading samkhejjatibhagam (which we have recorded in the footnote). But in errata to the first part of this work we have requested the readers to interchange the places of these two readings, that is, to bring in the body of the text proper the reading noted down in the foot-note. All the editions published so far contain at this place the reading asamkhejjatibhāgam'. The following are the reasons for considering the reading 'samkhejjatibhagam' to be original and authentic. In the printed text of the commentary there occurs at this place the following explanation taijasasamudghatam ārabhamänṇānāṁ jaghanyato'pi kṣetramāyāmato'nguläsankhyeyabhāgapramānam bhavati na tu sankhyeya(folio 597 B). The reading 'asamkhejjatibhāgam' occurring in the text proper is consistent with this explanation. But the manuscripts belonging to Cambay and Jesalmer Bhaṇḍāras and other paper manuscripts of the commentary, that we have utilised, contain the reading 'na tv asamkhyeyabhāgamänam' instead of the reading na tu samkhyeyabhāgamānam'. We are confident that all the manuscripts of the commentary must be containing the reading na tv asamkhyeyabhāgamanam'. The manuscripts of the commentary, utilised by the editors of the o and o editions, must have contained the reading na tv asamkhyeyabhägamanam'. But they might not have found the reading 'samkhejjatibhāgam' in the manuscripts of the Sutra. That is, they might have found in its place the reading 'asamkhejjatibhāgam'. This might have led them to correct, rather to corrupt, the commentarial reading 'na tv asamkhyeyabhāgamanam' to 'na tu samkhyeyabhāgamanam'. seems to be the reason why we find the reading na tu samkhyeyabhägamanam' in the printed text of the commentary contained in these two editions. Of course, the commentarial reading 'na tv asamkhyeyabhāgamanam' yielded by all the manuscripts of the commentary acquires meaning if they yield the reading 'kṣetram āyāmato'ngulasamkhyeyabhāgapramāṇam' instead But no of 'ksetram āyāmato'nguläsamkhyeyabhāgapramāṇam'. manuscript of the commentary yields it. We are of the opinion that the reading given in this paragraph should be printed as follows: taijasasamudghatam ārabhamāṇānāṁ jaghanyato'pi kṣetram ayamato'ngula (la) samkhyeyabhāgapramäṇam bhavati, na tv asamkhyeyabhagamānam'.
This
64. All the manuscripts of Prajñāpanäsutra, old and new, without