________________
... [ 486...
101. In sútra 197 there occurs the reading: 'såņam sānam vimānāvāsasatasahassanam' (p. 70, 1. 14). The 8 and BIO editions contain after it an additional reading "sānar sānam aggamahisinam'. No manuscript yields this additional reading. This unwanted additional reading is not there in the H and To editions.
102. On p. 27, 1. 6 there occurs the reading se ttam sähāranasarirabüdaravanassaikäiyā'. The go edition contains after it an additional reading' se ttam sähāranavanassaikäiya'. No manuscript yields this additional reading. Moreover, the commentary at this place remarks that the four nigamanas (conclusions) contained in the textual passage beginning with 'se ttam' requires no explanation (se ttam ityādinigamanacatustayam sugamam-Commentary, folio 41 A). If we accept the additional reading then the nigamanas will be five instead of four. This proves that the additional reading is unauthentic and unnecessary. The H and To editions do not contain it.
103. In sūtra 635 we have accepted the reading 'ekko' (p. 169, 1.5). The 8o edition accepts in its place the reading 'ekkam' which is yielded by no manuscript and hence unauthentic. The Ho, eto and go editions too accept the reading' ekko'.
104. In sūtra 1236 we have accepted pariyāvannānam'. The Ho edition in its place inadvertently gives the reading pariyavannenaṁ'. But the 70, RTO and editions accept the correct reading pariyāvannānam'.
105. In the Ho edition sūtras 1277 and 1278 occur after sūtra 1284. This irregularity in order is not supported by any manuscript. The order of the sūtras, accepted in Ho, Foto and to editions, is the same as we have accepted in the present edition.
106. In sūtra 1864 we have accepted the reading manabhakkhane kate (p. 400, 1. 18). The 8, Ho and go editions contain in its place the reading manabhakkhikate' which no manuscript yields. The 89, 370 and RIO editions accept the original reading which we have accepted.
107. In sūtra 2173 [2] there occurs the reading kayajogannam' (p. 444) which could also be written as 'kāyajogań ņam.' All the manuscripts except y yield it. The TR manuscript contains in its place kāyajoge nam. All the editions published so far except theo edition accept this reading. But the commentarial explanation viz. 'kayayogam punar yuñjānaḥ' supports our reading. The
o edition contains the correct reading which is not found in the previous editions. To the best of our knowledge, this is the only
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
