Agam 15 Upang 04 Pragnapana Sutra Part 02

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

Page 486

...[457]...
Rev. Agamoddhārakaji has put it in the brackets. Is it that the manuscript of the text proper utilised by him did not contain it ? Or, is there any other reason for his doing so? We cannot positively answer these questions. In the text proper contained in the edition this reading is missing. The Ho, o and go editions follow the o edition in this matter. This reading being not there in the edition, its editor Pt. Bhagavandas translates into Gujarati the concerned portion of the text proper as follows: 'jema jñānāvaraṇiyane vedatām jeṭali prakṛtino bamdha kahyo che tema mohaniya karma vedatām kahevo'. The purport of this translation is that the person who experiences [the fruits of] Mohaniya-karma binds seven or eight or six or even one type of karma. (Refer to sutra 1776). But the reading 'bandhe' clearly points out that the person who experiences the fruits of Mohaniyakarma can never bind karmas of one type only.
16. The concerned reading as we have accepted in sutra 1252 (p. 300 line 20) is as follows: "kanhalesa nam sã, no khalu sā nilalessä, tattha gata ussakkati'. All the manuscripts of the text proper yield this reading. Even the go and the To editions contain this reading. The commentator also follows this reading while explaining the concerned portion of the text proper. The commentarial passage in point is as follows: "paramarthataḥ punah kṛṣṇaleśyaiva, no khalu nilaleśyä să svasvarūpāparityāgāt, na khalv ädarśadayo japākusumādisannidhanatas tatpratibimbamatram5 ädadhānā nādarśadaya iti paribhavaniyam etat, kevalam sa kṛṣṇaleśyā 'tatra' svasvarupe' gata' avasthită sati utṣvaşkate tadakarabhavamātradharaṇatas tatpratibimbamätradhāranato votsarpatity arthaḥ" (Commentary, folio 372 A). Though the commentary clearly explains the concerned original reading of the text proper, the last sentence of the sutra under consideration is wrongly printed in o edition as follows: tattha gata osakkai ussakki vä'. Thus the edition contains additional unwanted wrong word 'osakkai'. No manuscript yields it. Moreover, there is no leśya (mental temperament) which is lower than kṛṣṇalesya (black coloured mental temperament). Hence the additional word 'osakkai' at this concerned place is useless and misleading. Sutra 1255 mentions the lesya lower than the śukla (the white coloured one). But it does not refer to the lesyä higher than the śukla. It is so because there is no leśya which is higher than the śukla. The śukla leśyā is the highest (i.e. the purest) leśya. We believe, without a shadow
5. The printed text of the commentary contains the reading 'mätrāmādadhana'. But we have given here the correct reading on the basis of the old manuscripts of the commentary.