________________
... [ 452]... 4. In the foot-note 13th on p. 294 we have noted the reading 'indagove i vārl. For the first time the edition has accepted it in the body of the text proper. But no manuscript which we have consulted yields this reading. And the go and 37° editions too do not contain this additional reading. Some scholar seems to have added this reading in the body of the text proper on account of not understanding the import of the concerned commentarial passage. This will be clear as soon as we read the passage. The text proper contains the reading bâlimdagove i vå'. And the commentary explains it as follows: bālendragopakah sadyo jatah indragopakah, sa hi pravȚddhaḥ san işatpandurakto bhavati tato balagrahaņam, indragopakah-prāvrtprathamasamayabhävi kītaviseşah'. All the manuscripts yield the reading bālerdagove'. And the commentary also follows this reading. Hence what is intended here is the balendragopa and not the indragopa. The commentator has explained the main term 'indragopa' from among the whole compound bālendragopa'. So, somebody added the reading 'imdagove i vå' in the body of the text proper wrongly considering that the authors of Prajñāpanāsūtra and the commentary intended it also. All the three editions viz. 70, Faro and To that have been published after the publication of the & edition follow the edition.
5. In sūtra 1238 there occurs the reading "anovama i vä' (p. 297). But the manuscript contains the additional reading "Uvama i vā' before the above-mentioned one. And somebody has corrected the go manuscript, having added this additional reading. But all other manuscripts utilised by us do not contain this additional reading. The o edition has accepted the additional reading in the body of the text proper. The commentator explains the gule khande' and 'macchamdiyā' from among those terms denoting sweet dishes. But for the meanings of the terms from
pappadamoyae' to 'aņovamā' he asks us to consult the person expert in the concerned science. His actual words: parpaţamodakādayah sampradāyād avaseyah'. This much is certain that the terms enumerated in the text proper at this place refer to sweet dishes. Hence the reading 'uvama i vå' rarely found in manuscripts seems to be an unwanted addition. 'Uvamä' means upamā, a Madrasi dish. It is a saulty dish. So, the term 'uvama' does not fit in the context. But in olden days there might have been some anupamā dish so called on account of its taste being quite opposite to that of uvamā. This dish is meant by the term 'anuvama'
1. The edition contains the reading 'imdagope i vā.' That is, here we
have à for a.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
