Agam 15 Upang 04 Pragnapana Sutra Part 02

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

Page 512

...[483]...
79. The reading 'bala väsudeva’ which we have accepted in gāthā 213 of sūtra 1406 is yielded by the very old manuscripts. But the three manuscripts contain in its place the reading baladeva vāsudeva' which is accepted in the 80, 370, H and FT editions. The Ho and to editions accept the reading which we have accepted.
80. In sūtra 1816 there occurs an interrogative sentence, viz. beimdiyā ņam bhamte je poggale āhārattāe genharti te nam tesim poggalanam seyalamsi katibhagam āhāremti katibhāgaṁ assāemti?' (p. 395). This interrogative sentence is original and fits in the context. All the manuscripts except ge yield the above-quoted reading. But manuscript and the 370, and to editions, in its place, contain the the wrong reading 'beimidyāņam bhaňte! puccha goyamā ! je poggale. .'. Here the interrogative sentence is completed by adding 'pucchà l'after 'bhaṁte!', and a sentence containing an answer to the question starts with 'goyamā !' which is added before je poggale'. But this will not yield proper sense. The 4o edition, in its place contains, the reading beimdiyānañ bhaṁte! pucchål je poggale...'. In this reading also pucchà l' occurs, but it is a meaningless addition. The edition follows the edition in this matter. But editor of the Ho edition has put
pucchà l'in square brackets and has noted that 'pucchā' is useless and redundant. The go edition has not accepted it. Hence the reading accepted in the yo edition is identical with the one accepted by us.
1181. The two phrases, viz, 'tayā vi' and 'pavālā vi' which occur in sūtra 41 (p. 18, line 1) are missing in the go and the editions. But they are there in the Ho and yo editions.
82. The phrase “tihim annāņehim' which occurs at the end of sūtra 452 (p. 140, 1.3) is missing in the Ho and foto editions. But it is there in the Ho and editions.
83. The word 'ghānimdiyaatthoggahe' which occurs in sūtra 1019 (p. 251, 1. 25-26) is missing in the Ho and Foto editions. But it is there in the Ho and go editions.
84. The reading 'kevatiya baddhellaga ? goyamā! natthi' which occurs in sūtra 1046[8] is missing in the to and fro editions. But it is there in the Ho and editions.
85. The reading 'anaṁtam kālam' which occurs in sūtras 1310 (p. 308, 1. 21) is missing in the go and Foto editions. But it is there in the hand editions.
11 The readings mentioned in paragraphs 81-105 are missing in the yo and
370 editions. The readings that we have accepted at these concerned places are yielded by all the manuscripts which we have utilised.