Agam 15 Upang 04 Pragnapana Sutra Part 02

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

Page 508

...[479]...
yielded by all the manuscripts and which is accepted in all other printed editions. But the edition in its place accepts the reading 'evam jahā neraiyā taha asurakumara evam jāva thaniyakumārā '. This reading contains useless additions. This is the reason why we have considered the concerned reading available in the edition to be similar to the one found in the Ho edition instead of the one found in the 37 edition.
71. In the edition after sutra 1285 (p. 306) there occur sūtras 1289 to 1293 (p. 307, lines 6-14) which are followed by sutras 1286, 1287, 1288 and then there is given sutra 1294. That is, sūtras 1285-1294 of our version are given in the following order in the edition 1285, 1289, 1290, 1291, 1292, 1293, 1286, 1287, 1288, 1294. This order of the sutras, as we find in the o edition, is unscientific and unauthentic. No manuscript of the Prajñāpanāsūtra yields this order. Even the commentary explains these sutras according to the original order accepted by us. Moreover, the reading 'tasakāie ņam tasakāie tti puccha | goyamā!' (p. 307, line 6) occurring at the beginning of sutra 1289 is missing in the o edition. The o edition accepts the order of those sutras which is given in the edition. Moreover, it drops the above-mentioned reading. In addition, it does not contain the reading 'sakaiya-pajjattaenam.' occurring at the beginning of sutra 1293. Hence it wrongly presents two sūtras (1292-1293) as one. It is as follows: evam tasakaiyaapajjattae puccha goyama!' The reading that we have accepted is as follows '1292. evam tasakaiyaapajjattae | 1293. sakaiyapajjattae namo puccha goyama!' This reading is accepted in all the editions published so far. Again, it is yielded by all the manuscripts without exception. The intelligent readers will at once understand that the clarification which the learned author of the Sutra has offered in connection with sakāya paryāpta has been construed with the aparyāpta trasakaya by the editor of the Ho edition. That is, the o edition contains the statement to the effect that the maximum life-span of aparyāpta trasakāya is sāgaropama prthaktva. The editor of Suttagame repeats the mistake committed by the editor of Ho edition in connection with the concerned sūtras 1292-93. He has even accepted the wrong order of the sūtras, which is given in the and editions. Again, he has interpolated a wrong reading at one place. The and o editions do not contain the reading tasakate nam bhamte! tasakäie ttio puccha goyama!? occurring at the beginning of sutra 1289. The editor of Suttagame found that something is missing here in these editions. Hence he added without any authority the wrong reading tattha nam je se a. sao se.' at this place.