________________
xin
ny scriptural texts fitta has confessed how the difficulties of the textual interpretation were bewildering due to the obscurity of the text and the promiscuity of readings: e. g. अंत० वृत्ति [P. 106] अनंतरसपर्यये जिनवरोदिते शासने, यकेह समयानुगा गमनिका किल प्रोच्यते । गमांतरमुपैति सा तदपि सद्भि रस्यां कृतावरूढगमशोधनं ननु विधीयतां सर्वतः ॥ ( colophon); अणु० वृत्ति० [P. 113.] colophon: शब्दाः केचन नार्थतोऽत्र विदिताः केचित्तु पर्यायतः, सूत्रार्थानुगतेः समुह्य भणतो यजातमाग पदम् । वृत्तावत्र तकत् जिनेश्वरवचोभाषाविधौ कोविदः, संशोध्यं विहितादरैर्जिनमतोपेक्षा यतो न क्षमा ॥ So also in the colophon of नाया किमपि स्फुटीकृतमिह स्फुटेऽप्यर्थतः, सकष्टमतिदेशतो विविधवाचनातोऽपि यत् ॥ etc.; प्रश्नव्या० colophon; अशा वयं शास्त्रमिदं गभीरं, प्रायोऽस्य कूटानि च पुस्तकानि । etc. Thus though suga leads us inuch into the understanding of the text proper, he is still i seeker for the right text and the right interpretation both of which were not easy tven in his days.
_Lven in the days of अभयदेव, certain misreadings had already taken an established place as right readings e. g. अरहा, अरिहा, अरुहा ( See, Notes अंतo P. 100) which अभयदेव has tried to explain in the Com. of भगवती. सेणं कालेणं and तेणं समएणं (See Notes. P. 97) both have been explained to be correct by अभयदेव in भगवती. One who studies the commentaries on the scriptures comes
