Chaupannamahapurischariyam

Author(s): Shilankacharya, Amrutlal Bhojak, Dalsukh Malvania, Vasudev S Agarwal
Publisher: Prakrit Text Society Ahmedabad

Page 17

2)
PRELIMINARY REMARKS
($ 2
enough to check the English text. But a special tribute is due to Muni Punyavijaya, the editor of the text, whose painstaking work has placed all Jain scholars under a heavy obligation.
$ 2. The manuscripts and the text. SC does not only furnish a comparatively independent version of the UH, it is also one of the largest Prakrit texts which has come down to us. One can therefore hardly underrate the usefulness of the present edition. Five manuscripts of the work are known to us :
1. A palm-leaf manuscript, Sam. 1326, from Ahmedabad ("A" in SC/M; "Sū" in SC/E). 2. A paper manuscript, copy of (1), Sam. 1673 ("Sū" in SC/E). 3. A palm-leaf manuscript, Sam. 1127 (1227), from Jaisalmer ("JI” in SC/M; "Je" in SCJE).
A paper manuscript, copy of (3), Sam. 1960, from Patan ("III" in SC/M). 5. A paper manuscript, copy of (3), Sam. 1958 (J III" in SC/M).
+
of a member of the terms and diacritical maris
Analysis and texts in SC/M were based on nos. 1 and 3, the text of SC/E is based on nos. 1, 2, and 3. Whereas in no. 1 the leaves 1-11 and 375 are missing, we get in no. 2 the complete text. The abbreviations occuring in no. 1 (see SCM pp. 3 f.) are of course also found in no. 2. Since a few textpieces were included in SC/M it may not be superfluous to mention the differences between the text of SC/M and the text in the present edition. (1) The spelling has been "normalized in SC/M. The rules are given on p. 2 (add on line 15 that anusvāra, not m, is also written in the interior of a word if it is the last letter of a member of a compound : e.g. paranmuha ).-Due to the peculiar process of printing (varityper) some of the letters and diacritical marks in SC/M have not come out well, Sometimes the dot below the letter is missing, and occasionally the ya looks like a va. (2) In doubtful cases SC/M always follows MS. no. 1. SC/E is more eclectic and has therefore included a large number of readings from no. 3. (3) The colophon of the prototype of no. 3 has not been edited in SC/E. It would have appeared after the word samarı hayati in the eighth line from the bottom on p. 335. The text is given on pp. 6 ff. of SC/M. (4) The colophon of no. 3 was published in SC/M and in SC/E. But the text of SC/M was based on C. D. Dalal's Catalogue of Manuscripts in the Jain Bhandars at Jesalmere, while the editor of SC/E had the original at his disposal. See SC/M p. 9 and SC/E p. 335 (11th to 8th line from the bottom ). (5) It was found that in a number of cases the readings prosposed by the editor of SC/E are more satisfactory than those of SC/M. The necessary corrections are given below, but doubtful cases, and cases where we would prefer the reading of SC/M to the reading of SC/E, are not included. The corrections which also include misprints, etc.) refer. only to the text, not to the notes. The page-numbers refer to SC/M if it is not stated otherwise. P.5, 1. 27: I read su di for va di in SCJE (p. 335, 1. 18). The akşara is blurred. p. 9, 1. 36: Cf. SC/E p. 335, 1. 15. samvat 1127 or 1227 ? Here and in the preceding case the reading could
be ascertained with the help of the Indian Ephemeris (which is not available to me). p. 139, 1. 17: I would now prefer the reading jāena ("For what purpose is he born who fills (i. e.
inhabits) the samsāra but who does not fill the world with his fame?”) 1.27 : Read with SC/E ( 58,1 ) vi bala in two words. p. 139, 1. 28 : mae does not fit into the construction.
1. 41: Read the pāțhāntara 29 of the MS JL with SC/E (58,10 ) as asandiyāe. p. 140, 1. 22: Read with SC/E (58, verse 34 ) juvaihim ävayā.
1. 33 f.: Read with SC/E kunasu ... ruyanti as a gātha. 1. 42: Read with SC/E (59,12) bhaniūna maha.