________________
... [451]...
these words 'navaram' and 'nava' have found place in a reading where there should have been 'nava' only. The Ho, fo and editions follow & edition in this matter.
3. Sú. 1119 mentions four types of catuhpuruşapravibhaktagati. The reading that we have accepted is as follows: 'samagam patthita samagaṁ pajjavatthita 1 samagam pațțhiyà visamam pajjavaţthiyā 2 visamaṁ patthiya samagam pajjavaţthiya 3 visamam patthiya visamam pajjavatthiya 4 (pp. 272–73). All the handwritten manuscripts that we have utilised yield this reading. The po edition contains both Prajñāpanāsūtra and a commentary thereon. There was something missing in the concerned portion of the commentary available to Rev. Āgamoddhārakaji. This seems to be the reason why he has interchanged the places of words and phrases of the original reading. The commentary on this concerned reading is as follows: “taccaturddhātvam samagam pajjavatthiya' ityādina granthena svayam eva vakşyati” (Commentary, folio 329). On the basis of this wording of the commentary the 8o edition yields the following reading : 'samagam pajjavatthiya samagam patthiya 1 samagań pajjavaţthiyā visamaṁ patthiya 2 visamaṁ pajjavaţthiyā visamaṁ patthiya 3 visamam pajjavatthiya samagam patthiya 4. The old palm-leaf manuscripts of the commentary yield the following reading: "taccaturdhātvam 'samagam patthiya samagam pajjavtthiya' ityādinā grathena svayam eva vakşyati". From this reading it becomes clear that the reading which all the manustripts yield and which we have accepted is the authentic one. From the instances like this we should learn that no changes should be introduced in the readings of the text proper merely depending on the printed edition of the commentary thereon. For correcting the text proper one should consult the old manuscripts of the commentary. Suppose no manuscript of the commentary is available, even then one should not change the readings of the text proper simply on the basis of the printed edition of the commentary. Some portion of the reading under consideration has been strangely dropped in the edition on account of the repetition of the same words in the concerned portion of the text proper. Though the 37 edition contains the reading similar to the one found in the 80 edition, it describes the third and the fourth alternatives as follows : visaman pajjavatthiya samagam patthiya 3 visamam pajjavatthiyā visamam patthiya 4. At this place the Ho and the yo editions simply follow the go edition. The fto edition accepts the corrupt reading 'pajjuvatthiya' in place of 'pajjavatthiya'. Except this it closely follows the Ho edition.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
