Agam 15 Upang 04 Pragnapana Sutra Part 02

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

Page 489

...[ 460]...
The reading asks the readers who want to know about the audārika and the ähăraka bodies of vanavyamtara gods to reproduce what has been said elsewhere in the work about these bodies of infernal beings. The Ho edition contains in this very sütra (922) the reading 'ahāragasartrā jaha asurakumārānam' (='for details about the ähärakasarira of vanavya mtara gods readers should repeat here whatever has been said about this body of Asurakumära gods'). This reading in the Ho edition occurs before the reading 'teyakammayā.' It is an unwarrented addition. It is not proper to ask readers twice in one and the same sūtra to consult two different portions of the text for the same details. All the old manuscripts except the go do not contain this additional reading, nor do the go and the 310 editions contain it. But the Ho and the go editions following the go, include this additional reading in the body of the text proper. But the Rio edition does not contain this unwanted additional reading.
22. In the interrogative sentence of sūtra 985[7] there occurs the reading ogähaņapaesatthäe.' All the manuscripts yield this reading. Even in the portion containing the answer to the question these two words are mainly used. Inspite of this the ho edition in its place contains the wrong reading ogāhaņaţthayāe paesatthayae ogāhana-paesatthayae. The 90, fato and To editions follow the Ho edition in this matter. In the go and 370 editions at the concerned place the two words are separately written as follows: ogähanaţthayāe padesaţthayae'. That is, the third word found in the Ho edition is not there in these two editions.
23. In sūtra 1111 we have accepted the reading mamdūe upphidiya'. The commentator follows it and translates the term upphidiya' into Sanskrit as 'utplutya'. The manuscripts yield in its place maṁdue-uppaditā' or 'upphaditā' or 'Ophiditta'. The so and the 370 editions contain the reading mamdūe uppaạittă' at this place, whereas the Ho edition contains the unauthentic reading maṁdüo phidittà' The Ho, fo and editions follow the edition in this matter.
24. In sūtra 1131 and 1145 (pp. 275 and 278) we have accepted the reading 'sa cceva pucchå'. But the 80 edition contains at these two places the wrong readings 'evam savve vi puccha' and
savve vi pucchā' respectively. These wrong readings are the results of mistaking a fora. In sūtra 1145 we have not noted down in the foot-note the reading available in the go edition. At these two places the corrupt reading 'savve va' yielded by manuscripts utilised by the editor of Ho edition seems to have been turned into