Agam 15 Upang 04 Pragnapana Sutra Part 02

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

Page 509

...[480] ...
In brief, the wrong order of the concerned five sutras which we find in and o editions is there in the o edition also. This wrong order breaks the natural connection of sūtras. This order is not yielded by the manuscripts which we have utilised. Again, the beginning of sūtra 1293, which is missing in the H edition (but present in the edition) is not found in the Suttagame edition also. It is noteworthy that the beginning of suūtra 1293 is available in all the manuscripts. Moreover, in place of the beginning of sūtra 1289, which is missing in and editions, the Suttagame edition contains a wrong and unscientific reading constructed by its editor according to his sweet will. The readings accepted in , 30 and fo editions are identical with the ones accepted by us.
'
72. The Ho and editions contain an additional reading na asamkhejjā uvavajjaṁti' after the word 'uvavajjaṁti' occurring at the end of sutra 635 (p. 169, line 6). No manuscript yields this additional reading, nor do the editions printed so far contain it. There might have existed some manuscript in which somebody might have inserted this additional reading on the basis of one word 'nāsaṁkhyeyah' written by the commentator in his commentary for clarification or on the basis of complete commentarial explanation of the concerned textual portion. And the editor of edition seems to have utilised such a manuscript.
73. The edition yields the additional reading 'paesaṭṭhayae' in between 'visesähiyāim' and 'carimamtapaesa' (p. 193, line 21) (su. 777). The o edition follows the edition in this matter. But no manuscript yields this additional reading. And all other printed editions also do not contain it. The concerned pratika of the original text, given in the commentary (folio 231 B), tallies with the reading accepted by us.
74. The reading 'uvava [? jje]jja tti pucchae bhaniyae' (p. 324) occurring in su. 1441 is yielded by o manuscript only. It is to be noted that even this manuscript does not contain the letter 'jje' which we have put in square brackets. At this place we have noted down in a foot-note different readings available in different manuscripts. The reading found in the 3 edition is here inadvertently printed as the one found in the ms. Ho that is, in the edition. The concerned reading contained in the o edition is '[uvavajjai] puccha bhaniya". We have corrected the mistake in the errata to the first part of the work. The reading ' uvavajjā puccha bhaṇiya' accepted in the Ho edition is not found in any manuscript. Even go edition follows the edition in this matter. The and 3 editions contain at this place the readings