________________
Variant - 1 - Sloka - 5
Accepted reading : Prityatmaviryam avicarya mrgo mrgendram Variant :
Prityatmaviryam avicarya mrgi mrgendram All the earlier and well-known commentators like Acarya Gunakara Suri, Sri Meghavijaya Gani, Sri Siddhicandra Gani and Sri Kanakakusala Gani have not even discussed the difference in reading. The variant is available in the editions of Digambara sect.
The intention of the author of the variant must be this: The she-deer must be loving the young ones more and hence to save them she tries to stop the lion. A she-deer attacking a lion to protect her young ones is a matter of wonder. Hence they say that the case of she-deer must have been given as example by acarya.
Will the she-deer be available alone ? When she is preventing the lion from taking away the young ones, will the he-deer be looking at it idly ? The word mrga is in masculine gender and it can stand for both male and female of the deer and can stand for any animal. Every animal will try to attack the predators to protect their young ones. Hence there is no need to change the reading to mrgi on this ground.
Conclusion : The reading adopted by the ancient commentators is good and need not be changed. Variant - 2 – Sloka - 6
Accepted reading : taccaru cuta kalika nikaraika hetuh Variant :
taccaru camra kalika nikaraika hetuh The reading must have been introduced by some one in a wrong mood. Unfortunately he has given reasons too for having adopted this reading. I don't want to enter into that controversy. The meaning of both amra and cuta are mango tree only. But the conjunctive particle ca in camra is meaningless, and compared to cuta it is a little difficult too to pronounce. It does not add to the meaning or beauty of the verse, except an alliteration. The phrase caru cuta is more familiar than caru camra and alliteration introduced for its own sake need not be given importance. Variant - 3-Sloka - 8
Accepted reading : arabhyate tanudhiyapi tava prabhava. Variant :
arabhyate tanudhiyapi tava prasadat None of the aforesaid four commentaries refer to this variant. But Sri Ratanlalji, Editor of Sri Bhaktamara Rahasya (illustrated) has given this (prasadat) as a different reading.
Prof. S. Ramadoss, who translated The Bhaktamara Stotra, for A.M. Jain Institute of Management, has given the reading prasadat in the sloka but has given "prabhavat" in the word-meaning section. It appears like a minor matter not worthy of notice initially, but there lies the fundamental difference between Vedic and Sramanic principles. Prabhava means "real knowledge, greatness" etc. Prasada means "grace". There is no role for grace in the Sramanic tradition in the upliftment of a man.
Conclusion : Prabhavat is the suitable reading and prasadat goes against Jain tradition. Variant - 4-Sloka - 20
Accepted reading: tejah sphuran manisu yati yatha mahattvam Variant:
tejo maha manisu yati yatha mahattvam In this verse also, reading seems to have been introduced with alliteration alone in mind. It seems that 'sphu' of 'sphuran' stands for Cintamani mantra. Hence there is no need to adopt the reading 'maha'.
354 Rahasya Darshan >
wwwwwwwwwwww
Jain Education International 2010_04
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
