Upasaka Dasha Sutram

SR No.: 009989
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: A F Rudolf Hoernle
Publisher: Bibliotheca Indica
Publication Year: 1890
Total Pages: 363
Language: Hindi, Sanskrit
Classification: Book_Devnagari
File Size: 18 MB

Page 23

xx
INTRODUCTION.
he may at any time obtain other MSS. that may turn the scales. In these circumstances, and (as I have already said) provisionally, it appears to me more satisfactory to be guided by Hemachandra's standard, than to follow a haphazard metliod of spelling,
The case is different, when the question is not of the orthography, but the recension of the text. Here, undoubtedly, the consensus of the manuscripts must be res- · pected. With this question, Hemachandra's rules of orthography have no concern. But every rule has its limits, and an editor has both the right and the duty to use his discretion, provided the “consensus ” of the manuscripts is recorded in the critical notes, so that the reader is put in possession of all the facts. With this proviso I have exercised the editor's right in a few exceptional cases. I do not claim, nor do I expect that the reader should always agree with my choice; but in some cases, I have in my favour the authority of the commentary, which shows that Abhayadeva must have read the text as I propose to read it. Thus, in $ 240, there is an instance (the insertion of ya “and'), of an emendation, made on the authority of the commentary against the consensus of all MSS. at that time in my possession, which was afterwards confirmed by the MS.H. For other similar cases, see the Additional Critical Note. On the other band, in one instance, where I had ventured on an alteration of the erroneousness of which I subsequently convinced myself, I have restored the unanimous reading of the MSS.
1 It was in $ 69. The error was pointed out to me by Professor Leumann in a private letter as well as in a review, contributed by him to the Vienna Oriental Journal, vol. III, before the completion of my edition, thus affording me an opportunity of correcting it by a reprint. Two other errors (SS 81, 113), however, I had already notieed myself, before I saw Prof. Leumann's review; for dies diem docet, especially in unbroken fields of research, such as Jain Literature still is.