________________
...[453] ...
occurring in the text proper. The additional unauthentic reading uvama i vā'is not there in the sto and the FTO editions whereas it is there in the 370, 7o and yo editions. By the mention of anupamā it is indirectly proved that the dish called uvamā is as old as the one called aņuvamă.
6. The word 'anamtaguna' occurs in sūtra 1247. It is available in all the manuscripts of the Sūtra, that we have consulted. The to and the 370 editions contain this very reading at this concerned place. The commentator also follows this reading. But the o edition yields the wrong reading 'asarkhejjaguņā' in place of the abovementioned authentic reading. The H, ETC, and to editions follow the #o edition in this matter.
7. The reading of the concerned fourth alternative in sūtra 1620 is as follows: atthegaie jive egaiyão jīvāo jań samayam kăiyae ähigaraniyāe pãosiyāe kiriyae apuţthe tam samayam pāriyāvaniyāe kiriyae apuţthe pāņāivāyakiriyae apuţthe 41 (p. 357 lines 6–8). All the editions published so far, except the 370 one, do not contain this reading which is yielded by all the manuscripts we have utilised. We may surmise that the manuscript which served as the model of those editions has dropped the concerned readings on account of its writer's cursory consultation of the commentary. The commenntary on the particular sūtra is as follows- jīve naṁ bharte ! jam samayam kāiyae ahigaraniyāe' ityādi atrāpi samayagrahanena sāmänyatah kalo gļhyate, praśnasūtraṁ sugamam, nirvacanasūtre bhangatraył-kañcij jīvam adhikrtya kaścij jivo yasmin samaye kāle kriyatrayena sprstas tasmin samaye pāritāpanikyāpi sprstah prāņātipätakriyayā cety eko bhangaḥ, pāritāpanikyā sprstaḥ prānātipātenāsprsta iti dvitlyah, päritāpanikyā prānātipātakriyayā cāsprsta iti tặtlyaḥ, eşa ca trtiyo bhango bānāder laksyāt paribhraíśena ghātyasya mpgādeh paritāpanādyasambhave veditavyah yas tu yasmin samaye yam jīvam adhikstyädyakriyātrayeņāsp?sťah sa tasmin samaye tam adhikstya niyamât pāritāpanikyā prāņātipātakriyayā cāsprstah, kāyikyädyabhāve paritāpanāder abhāvāt (Commentary, folio 446A)
ämányaut kaustas to
The underlined portion of the above-quoted commentarial passage contains the explanation of the fourth alternative suggested here. The answer to the sūtra-question is contained in 1 to 3 alternatives. This is the reason why the commentator says, nirvacanasūtre bhangatrayi.' To describe the fourth alternative with which the sūtra-question has no concern points to the characteristic feature of the style. On the basis of the term 'bhangatrayt' occurring in the above-quoted passage some manuscripts might have dropped the concerned fourth alternative.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
