Agam 15 Upang 04 Pragnapana Sutra Part 02

Author(s): Shyamacharya, Punyavijay, Dalsukh Malvania, Amrutlal Bhojak
Publisher: Mahavir Jain Vidyalay

Page 473

... [444]...
that the editor dogs of Prajñāpanāsots and our 'Examina
same. come
bee
correct readings'. (2) While editing the Agamas we have utilised correct manuscripts'. (3) Novel method has been employed by us in noting down the different readings'.
The first claim of the editor of Suttagame is not justified. Our notes on the readings accepted in Suttāgame and our 'Examination of some of the readings of Prajñāpanāsūtra', on the contrary, prove that the editor of Suttagame has no critical acumen required for the selection of correct readings. Thus the first statement is far from the truth.
On the basis of the second statement readers may come to believe that the editor of Suttāgame might have utilised correct handwritten manuscripts while preparing the edition of Agamas. But we confidently say that the editor has not compared the printed text of Prajñāpanāsūtra with any old handwritten manuscript of the same. And if we suppose that he has compared the printed text with some solitary old manuscript then we will have to say that he has not been able to assess the value of the important and authentic readings yielded by the manuscript. We have thrown light on this point in 107 paragraphs written under the heading Examination of some of the readings of Prajñāpanāsūtra'. The statement under consideration is ambiguous. Muni śri Pupphabhikkhuji has not explicitly stated that by 'correct manuscripts' he means 'correct handwritten manuscripts'. Nor has he given the description of the correct manuscripts he has utilised. Hence there naturally arises in our mind the doubt as to what might have been the manuscripts that he has used.5
The third statement is also ambiguous. We are simply told that the editor has employed the novel method of noting down the different readings. But he has not explained as to what novelty is there in the method. Moreover, he has not clarified as to whether the readings he has noted are yielded by the printed editions or by the old handwritten manuscripts.
Erom all this it becomes crystal clear that this edition is very defective from the standpoint of correct readings.
In the Introduction to the first part of Suttagame (p. 23) there occurs a statement about the previous editions. Therein we are told that the Āgamas have been published by Ray Bahadur Dhanapatasimha (of Maksudabad), by Agamodaya Samiti and by others also but those editions are not free from corruptions. By saying
5. Even after reading this introduction if the editor of Suttāgame gives
authentic description of the manuscripts he has utilised in editing Suttāgame, his attempt will be most welcome.