________________
... [468] ...
47. In sutra 195 [1] we have accepted the reading gaganatalamaṇulihamāṇa' (p. 68, line 16). In this reading we find the word anulihamana. In its stead o, o and 2 manuscripts yield the word' ahilamghamana'. The commentary contains the following explanatory remark: 'anulikhat-atilanghayat'. On this account we have accepted the word 'anulihamana. The reading contained in the edition is identical with the one accepted by us, whereas the remaining editions contain the reading' ahilamghamana'. The edition differs from these editions in that it contains the reading 'abhilamghamāṇa'.
48. In sutras 196 and 210 we have accepted the readings 'gahanakkhatta' (p. 69, line 2) and 'gaha-nakkhatta' (p. 77, line 8) respectively. Only the o manuscript yields the reading gahagaṇaṇakkhatta in place of gaha-nakkhatta occurring in sutra 196. The and g manuscripts yield the reading gahagana-nakkhatta in place of gaha-nakkhatta occurring in sutra 210. As the majority of the manuscripts yield 'gaha' only in place of 'gahagana' we too have accepted 'gaha' only in place of 'gaha-gana' at both these places. The 37 edition contains 'gahagana' instead of 'gaha' at both the places. All the remaining editions contain at these two places 'gaha' (su. 196) and 'gahagana' (sū. 210) respectively. Of course, it is to be noted that the concerned reading of su. 210 is altogether missing in the fo edition.
"
49. In sutra 657 we have accepted the reading 'jehimto asurakumārā ' (p. 177). All the manuscripts except the o yield it. This reading does not create any difficulty in understanding the answer to the question put in the sutra under consideration. Even from the standpoint of construction this reading seems to be more fitting. The and the fo editions contain in its place the reading 'jehimto asurakumārā tehimto vi bhāniyavva.' We have inadvertantly forgotten to note down in the footnote this reading yielded by manuscript; hence we have mentioned it in the errata appended to the first part of this volume. The and the 30 editions contain at this place the readings 'jehimto asurakumārā tehimto vi bhāṇiyavvā |' and 'jehimto asurakumārā tehimto vāṇamamtară vi bhāniyavva.' The o and go editions contain the reading 'jehimto asurakumārā tehimto vāṇamaṁtarā uvavajjāveyavvā' which is identical with the one yielded by the manuscript. The reading yielded by the go manuscript has been noted down in the foot-note.
50. In sutra 1765 [2] we have accepted the reading 'evam nava bhamga' (p. 387). It is a correct reading. It is yielded by
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
