________________
...[478]...
accepted them without any support whatsoever. There occurs in the concerned sutra-portion the term 'bhāgasahassaim'. The editor of Suttagame, unable to understand the purport of the author of the Sutra, has regarded these two terms under consideration as the qualifying terms to the term 'bhagasahassaim'. Hence he seems to have changed their case-endings from the genetive to the nominative. Had he carefully scrutinised the reading 'etesi nam bhamte! poggalāṇaṁ aṇāsāijjamāṇāņa aphāsāijjamāṇāņa ya' (p. 396, su. 1818) which is accepted even in Suttagame and is separated from the reading under consideration by a single intervening word, he would have at least hesitated in corrupting these two terms.
68. In sutra 1217 we have accepted the reading 'goyamā! dosu vā tisu va causu va egammi hojjā, dosu homäne abhinibohiyaṇāna.. evam jaheva kaṇhalesāṇam (su. 1216 [1]) taheva bhāniyavvaṁ jāva cauhim, egammi homäne egammi kevalanane hojja | The o and the Ho editions drop the word 'egammi' which occurs after 'causu va' in the above-quoted reading. That is, the former part of the abovequoted portion is as follows in the two editions: 'goyama! dosu vā tisu vă causu va hojjā'. The o edition accepts in its place the reading 'goyamā! egaṁsi va dosu vā tisu vă causu và hojjā'. The editor of the edition seems to have changed the reading according to his sweet will. Had he tried to understand the meaning of the latter part of the above-quoted portion, he would have felt it necessary to consult different manuscripts and would have consequently obtained the correct and authentic reading.
69. Sūtra 1181 which occurs in this edition on page 283 has been inadvertently dropped in the edition. All the manuscripts and all other printed editions contain it.
70. The reading which we have accepted in the second paragraph of sutra 464 (p. 143) is as follows: evam ukkosogāhaṇae vi | evam ajahannamaṇukkosogāhaṇae vi navaram ukkosogāhaṇae vi asurakumare thitie cauṭṭhānavaḍie |'. This reading is yielded by all the manuscripts. In place of the portion underlined the o edition contains the misleading and corrupt reading 'navaram saṭṭhāne cauṭṭhāṇavaḍie'. We do not understand as to why the editor of the edition has accepted this wrong reading of the Hoedition, having rejected the correct and authentic reading already available in the o edition and even yielded by all the manuscripts. The , and I editions contain the reading identical with the one accepted by us. But the 3 edition contains the reading identical with the one found in the Ho edition. In the Ho edition after this reading (i.e. navaram saṭṭhāne cauṭṭhānavaḍie) there occurs the reading 'evam jāva thaniyakumārā' (sū. 465) which is
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
