________________
...[482]...
contain the following reading in place of the above-given underlined one'ye gṛhitä ähārataya pudgalā na te tṛptihetavo'bhuvann iti punar abhilaṣaṇiyatvena pariņamante'. Here we do not find the second na' before 'punar'. Again the concerned commentarial explanation begins with the sutra-pada abhijjhiyattāe'. Moreover, all the manuscripts we utilised have yielded the reading 'abhijjhiyattäe'. Taking all this into consideration we should conclude that the reading 'abhijjhiyattae' is authentic. In this connection let us take note of one point. The term 'abhijjhiyattae' occurs in the treatment of the transformation of material particles undertaken by infernal beings as their feeding. The same term occurs in sutra 1806 [1] which deals with the transformation of material particles undertaken by Asurakumara gods as their feeding. Though all the printed editions except the fo10 one accept in sutra 1806 [1] the reading 'bhijjhiyattäe' in place of abhijjhiyattãe ', .all the manuscripts which we have utilised yield the reading 'abhijjhiyattäe'. Hence in both the sutras we have accepted the uniform reading, viz. ' abhijjhiyattäe'. It is to be noted that in the case of infernal beings the terms expressing miserable experiences are used whereas in the case of gods terms expressing pleasant experiences are used. Only the term 'abhijjhiyattãe' is common to both the treatments. The following interpretation will remove the possible doubt that may arise in our mind: "The food taken by infernal beings being very light they are not satisfied with it and hence their desire for food remains constant, whereas the food gods take being very delicious they could not forget it and hence even their desire for food remains constant'. On the authority of old manuscripts we have accepted the reading 'abhijjhiyattāe' in sutras 1805 and 1806 [1].
78. The reading 'pajjattayāņa vi evam ceva |' which we have accepted in sutra 1308 is yielded by all the manuscripts. This reading fits well in the sutra and helps us in understanding its total meaning. The and editions contain after this reading an additional phrase 'jaha ohiyaṇam' which no manuscript yields. We feel that for clarification some one might have inserted it in the body of the text proper. This is corroborated by the phrase 'evam ceva' occurring in the sutra. If the reading 'jahā ohiyāṇaṁ' were original then there should not occur evam ceva' before it. Thus the reading 'jaha ohiyanam' which occurs after the phrase 'evam ceva' is proved redundant. The reading accepted in
and editions is identical with the one accepted by us. The and editions contain the reading 'pajjatti (tta)yāṇaṁ jahā ohiyāṇam '
10. The edition contains at this place the reading 'bhi (pro abhi)jjhiyattāe'.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
