________________
...[461]...
savve vi' due to haste in correcting it or due to slip of pen. But from the standpoint of construction and meaning the reading 'savve vi' is useless. No manuscript utilised by us yields it. The and editions contain at these two places the readings 'so ceva puccha' and 'savve va puccha' respectively. The fo edition contains at these places readings 'evam savvesim puccha' and savve va puccha'. Not finding the reading 'savve va' to be correct the editor has attempted to correct it as 'savvesim' which itself is not proper. The o and the o editions follow the edition in this matter.
"
25. In sūtra 1218 we have accepted the reading 'padesăvagaha' (p. 291, line 26). In its place the o edition contains the reading 'padesogāḍha.' All the manuscripts except g, y and g yield the reading 'padesä' for 'padesăvagaha'. That is, the 'vagaha' part of the reading 'padesävagaha' is missing in these manuscripts. The commentarial passage throwing light on the authentic reading is as follows: 8 ekādaśaḥ pradeśaprarupaṇādhikāraḥ, dvādaśo'vagāhadhikāraḥ' (commentary, folio 358 A). On the basis of this passage we definitely say that the reading 'padesăvagaha' yielded by the abovementioned three manuscripts is authentic and correct. There occurs the word 'ogaḍha' in the reading 'kanhalessă nam bhamte kaipaesogāḍha' found in sutra 1244 (p. 299). Keeping this in mind the editor of the o edition seems to have accepted the reading 'padesogaḍha'. It is also possible that he might have before him a manuscript which itself contained the reading 'padesogaḍha'. The o and the 37 editions contain at this place the readingspadesovagaha' and 'padesovagaḍha' respectively. The Ho, f and go editions follow the edition in this matter.
26. In sūtra 1228 we have accepted the reading 'tambacchivāḍiyā i va' (p. 294, line 2). The edition contains the reading 'tambacchivaḍiyae i vä'. The '' letter occurring in this reading is redundant and interpolated. The Ho, o and go editions follow the edition in this matter. The o and editions contain at this place the readings 'tambacchivā viḍāivā' and 'tambacchivā viḍāitivā' respectively.
27. In sutra 1230 we have accepted the reading 'kaṇiyārakusume i va' (p. 294). All the manuscripts which we have utilised yield this reading. Even the and the T editions contain it. But the
8. The first part of this reading occurring in the edition of the commentary published by Agamodaya Samiti is as follows: ekādaśo'pradeśaḥ pradesaprarupaṇādhikaraḥ'. The reading which we have given here is yielded by the palm-leaf manuscripts of the commentary belonging to Jesalmera Bhandara and Cambay Bhandara.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
