Agam 39 Chhed 06 Mahanishith Sutra

SR No.: 001149
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Punyavijay, Rupendrakumar Pagariya, Dalsukh Malvania, H C Bhayani
Publisher: Prakrit Granth Parishad
Publication Year: 1994
Total Pages: 284
Language: Prakrit
Classification: Book_Devnagari, Agam, Canon, Ethics, & agam_mahanishith
File Size: 19 MB

Page 23

16
MAHÄNISIHA STUDIES AND EDITION IN GERMANY
MNSt.B,pp.3-4; and H.R.Kapadia, Cat.BhORI.17.2,pp.29-31, No.457 with copious citations 20
2. Siglum: p. Paper Ms., 74 Folia. dated" (samvat 1566). For description etc. see Schubring, MNSt.A.p.3; Hamm, MNSt.C,p.8; Deleu, MNSt.B,pp.3-4; and Kapadia, Cat. BhORI.17.2,p.35, No.460.
3. Siglum: . Paper Ms., 129 Folia, dated" (samvat 1594). For description etc. see Schubring, MNSt.A,p.3; Hamm, MNSt.C.p.8; Deleu, MNSt.B.pp.3-4; and Kapadia, Cat. BhORI.17.2,pp.34-35, No.459.
4. The Ms. registered by Peterson in his 4th Report,p.49, No. 1308 [of 1886-92], is now located in the BhORI (see our fn.18), see Kapadia, Cat.17.2, No.461. It was not available to scholars in Germany",
12.4 Patan, Sanghavinä pādāno bhandar
(1) Siglum: Pu. Palm-leaf Ms. 111 Folia, dated24. For description see Descr.Cat.Mss. Pattan, compiled from the notes of ... C. D. Dalal... by L.Bh.Gandhi. Baroda, Orient. Inst. 1937 (Gaek.Or.Ser.76), p.209, No.344.1 (i.c. Foll. 1-111; on Foll.112ff. other texts follow). Muni Punyavijayaji (hence Siglum Pu) got a microfilm of this Ms. prepared and then forwarded it to Hamburg; photographs of this film were used by Deleu and Schubring for MNSt.B (see MNSt.B.p.4). The film and its prints are now available in Hamburg. Institut für Kultur und Geschichte Indiens und Tibets (Grindelallee 53, Hamburg 13) according to a communication of Prof. Dr. A. Wezler (dated 25th August 1992).
(2) Siglum: M. A modern transcript on paper, 233 Foll. written on one side only. For its descripti etc. see Hamm,p.8 and Deleu,p.3. It was got prepared by śri Keshavlāl P.
20 For the post-colophon remark in this Ms. see also Chandrabhal Tripathi, Cat. Jaina Mss. Strasbourg (Leiden: Brill. Ind.Ber.5.1975), pp.191-192,#133.
21 The scribal remark runs: samvat 1566 varse caitra sudi 2 dine śri-Anahillapura-pattane [illegible letters] di-parivara-yutena śri-Mahāniŝitha-sūtram lekhayāmcakre CHA CHA / [different hand:] pam. Bhupativijaya ni parata chaill
22 The remark about the date is: samvat 1594 varse mārgasirșa-māse prathama-pakse 10, śrimatKharatara-ga(c)che śri ["letters are gone, since a strip of paper is pasted here": Kapadia] ///
23 It was, however, noticed by Professor Ernst Leumann (in his private copy of Peterson's 4th Report, which is now with me: CBT), and by Hamm,MNSt.C,p.8.
24 The correct date is given by Deleu: samvat 1454 varṣe āṣāḍha vadi 10 sanau Mahāniŝitha-pustakam likhitam II. The date given by Hamm (samvat 1954!) is a misreading. It was Deleu who identified the original Ms. (Pu) with the modern transcript (M), which adds to the above-mentioned colophon of the original: patrika 111 tatapatriyall, thus indicating that folia 1-111 of the palm-leaf Ms.(Pu) contain the MNA.