Agam 15 Upang 04 Pragnapana Sutra Part 02

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

Page 506

... [477]...
Niśithasūtra contained in Suttagame suggest the fact that he does not seek any support from the manuscripts, he simply follows his own sweet will. This will be clear from what follows.
The reading of the first half of gäthä 203 of sūtra 972 on page 237 of our edition of Prajñāpanāsūtra, as accepted in the Suttågame without any basis, is as follows : 'addāya astya mani duddha pāņiya tella phāniya taha ya.' And further in place of sūtra 999 [2] therein we find 'evam eenam abhilavenam asim manim duddham pāniyam tellam phaniyam.' But all the old manuscripts at these places yield the readings 'addāya asiya maņi udupāņe tella phāniya vasă ya’ and 'evam eenam abhilăvenam asim manim udupāņam tellam phāņiya vasam' respectively. We have already discussed the authenticity and originality of sūtra-padas that occur in Niśithasūtra in the parallel context. Even in Niśithasūtra contained in Suttagame the vasã-sūtra has not been accepted. Perhaps the editor of Suttagme might not have liked the term 'vasa' occurring in Prajñāpanā and Niśltha. And hence he has dropped this term. Of course, the term 'vasă' means flesh which is a disgusting thing. But this does not mean that we should accept or reject the readings according to our likes and dislikes. Terms occurring in old texts throw light on the spiritual, social, political, economic, and other conditions of the society of those days. Again, the historical facts suggested by those terms serve as a proof of the antiquity etc. of the works.
Out of the editions published so far the go and the 370 editions contain in sūtra 972 the reading 'putthapanel. This puţthapaņe' is a corrupt form of 'udupāņe', resulted from scriptographical error. All the editions contain in sūtra 999 [2] the reading "duddham pānam' instead of'udupāņaṁ'.
67. In sūtra 1817 we have accepted the reading je poggale pakkhevāhārattāe genhamti tesim asamkhejjaibhāgamāhāremti negāim ca nam bhāgasahassāim aphasäijjamāņāņam aņāsäijjamāņāņam viddharsamägacchamti' (p. 396). All the old manuscripts yield this reading. And all the editions published so far, except the o edition, contain this reading. The commentary also follows it. The commentarial explanation in point is as follows: "yan pudgalan praksepäkäratayā gļhnanti teşām asamkhyeyatamam bhagam ahārayanti' anekāni punar bhāgasahasrāņi' bahavo'samkhyeyabhāgā iti asprśyamānānām anāsvādyamananāṁ vidhvarsam agaccharti " (Commentary, folio 508 A). It becomes clear from this explanation that the two terms aphasäijjamāņāņam' and 'anāsäijjamāṇāņam' occurring in the reading accepted by us have relation with the term 'poggale'. Inspite of this the yo edition has corrupted them to . aphasäijjamānāim' and 'anäsäijjamānāin' respectively, and has