________________
... [ 481) ...
'uvavajjai pucchă bhaniyãe' and 'uvavajjamti puccha bhaniyā respectively. In the FETO edition sūtras 1441 and 1442 are inadvertently dropped. Refer to Prajñā. plate 188-2, line 2.
75. The reading jīva-neraiyabhedesu bhāniyavvam' which we have accepted in sūtra 1580 is yielded by all the very old manuscripts. It is consistent with the context and it is authentic. The 80 and 370 editions too yield it. Some manuscripts contain in its place the corrupt reading jīvā neraiyabhedenam bhäņiyavva'. This corrupt reading is noted in the foot-note. The yo and to editions accept it in the body of the text proper. The 40 and editions contain in its place another corrupt reading, viz. jīvaneraiyabhedena bhānitavva'. No manuscript yields it.
76. The reading ahavanam chattho vaggo pañcamavaggapaduppaņo' which we have accepted in sūtra 921[1] is yielded by all the manuscripts which we have utilised. The 80, 870 and ÊTo editions also accept this reading. The o edition inadvertently drops the word 'pañcamavaggapaduppaņo' occurring in this reading. The Ho edition contains in place of the reading accepted by us the following reading : 'ahcvanam pamcamavaggapaduppanno chattho vaggo'. That is, in this reading the phrase 'chattho vaggo' which should actually precede parcamavaggapaduppanno' is printed after it. This reading is not found in any manuscript. The go edition follows the Ho one in this matter.
77. The reading abhijjhiyattae' (p. 394, line 9) which we have accepted in sūtra 1805 is yielded by all the manuscripts. The 80,370 and Ho editions also accept it. The printed text of the commentary contains at this concerned place the following explanation : . abhijjhiyattāe' abhidhyānam abhidhyā, abhilasa ity arthaḥ, abhidhyā sañjātā9 yeşv iti abhidhyātāstārakādidarśanāditapratyayaḥ, tadbhāvas tatta taya, kim uktam bhavati ? ye grhitā àharatayā rudgalā na te trptihetavo'bhuvann iti na punar abhilaşanīyatvena parinamante (Commentary, folio 504 B). On the basis of the portion underlined the Ho edition accepts in the body of the text proper the sutra-pada 'a(na) bhijjhiyattāe'; the TO edition contains in its place the sutra-pada'a (pra, ana) bhijjhiyattae. That is, the reading which Pt. Bhagavandas has put in round brackets has been given by the editor of the lo edition as a variant available in manuscripts. But as a matter of fact not a single manuscript out of those we have utilised yields this reading. The edition follows the 7 edition in this matter. The old palm-leaf manuscripts of the commentary, belonging to Jesalmera and Cambay Bhandaras,
9. The printed edition of the commentary contains the reading eşv iti'.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org