Paumchariu Part 1

SR No.: 002523
Original Sutra Author: Swayambhudev
Author: H C Bhayani
Publisher: ZZZ Unknown
Publication Year: 1953
Total Pages: 458
Language: Sanskrit, English
Classification: Book_Devnagari & Literature
File Size: 11 MB

Page 44

INTRODUCTION
Lolio 357. Jain Devanagari script.Colophon of A:115|| 9 848 av att19 y 24 1791973TITTEITTHÌ GREAT & o gram- 12-275. (marginally: J.O SPETT??0741)
Thus the copying date of A. is 1541 V.S. i.e. 1484-45 A.D.
Text-Constitution. At the time I started preparing a critical edition of the Vidyadhara-Kānda of PC., I could secure only two Mss., viz, P. and S. The information relating to the Jaipur Ms. was of an indefinite character. Of the two Mss. the Poona Ms. was earlier, more carefully copied and possessing the advantages of corrections and marginal gloss. Compared with it, the Ms. from Sāmgāner indicated some carelessness on the part of its scribe, as occasionally some letters or lines of the text which, on other grounds could be shown to be genuine, were missing in it. Considered from the point of view of orthography also, P. in many points appeared to preserve faithfully the original spelling, while S. exhibited a strong tendency to modernize it. In the light of this comparison, I accepted P. as the basis and edited the first twenty Sandhis by collating P. and S.
In the meanwhile, the information regarding the Jaipur Ms. became definite, and, with some effort, I succeeded in securing it. On examining that Ms. it was found that though its copying date was twenty years later than that of P., in many places it preserved the text of the original more faithfully than did any other Ms. and thus the conclusion became inevitable that A. was based on an original which was older than the original of either P. or S. The consequence of this finding also was quite apparent. I should constitute the text taking A., and not P., as the basis. Accordingly I reconstituted the text of the first twenty Sandhis. This fact would explain why the variant readings in the text portion in the present edition are recorded in the order P., S., A., though A. is accepted as the basis.
A study of the variants makes it clear that, whenever the difference of reading is real (and not merely orthographical), P. and S. mostly agree against A., that in a very few cases there is agreement between S. and A., and that the variants recorded by the marginal gloss in P. agree for the most part with the readings of A. As to the orthography, the agreement obtains between A. and P., they being earlier than S. The scribe of A. appears to have been careless in the latter portion of the text edited here, as in several places A. drops one or more letters or lines.
The superiority of A. over P. and S. can be established on the following grounds :
1. In many a case A. preservese (short), o (short),
Anunāsika and other such spelling features comparatively free from modernizing influence.
(1) Kaslival, 1950, 282 describes this Ms. as follows:
पउमचरिय----रचयिता महाकवि स्वयंभ, त्रिभवन-स्वयंभ । भाषा अपभ्रश पत्र-संख्या ३७५. साइज ११४४॥ इञ्च । प्रत्येक पृष्ठ पर १३ पंक्तियां तथा प्रति पंकिा ३८-४२ I fofo 19 2449 autre ját
at 241 Then follows the colophon 24Then follows the
reproduced above.