________________
INTRODUCTION
49
nāvarajjhai. Even the authors of the Pāiyațīkā and the Nemicandrīyatīkā consider this complete verse to be a part of the original text and hence comment on the whole of it.
3. Following the sutra-pada of 72nd and 73rd dvāras mentioned at the end of the sūtra 1102 (sūtra No. 2 of chapter xxix), the Cūrni contains sūtrss 1174 and 1175 (74th and 75th sūtras of chapter xxix). The version of these two sūtras, available to the author of the Päiyatīkā, is different from that available to the author of the Cūrni. Hence the explanation of these two sūtras, found in the Paiyaţikā, follows the version that its author had before him. The version available to the author of the Paiyatīkā is yielded by all the old mss. of the Sūtra. It is noteworthy that the author of the Paiyaţikā has taken note of the version accepted by the author of the Cúrni. Refer to foot-note 17 on p. 257. The explanation in the Nemicandrīyatīkā does not differ from the one in the Paiyațīkā.
4. The sūtra-verse 1365 (33rd verse of chapter xx) informs that the shortest duration of the vedanīyakarma is one antarmuhūrta. At this place the author of the Paiyatīkā records another view according to which the shortest duration of the vedaniyakarma is twelve muhurtas. Regarding this view he further says that he does not understand its purport. This view recorded by the author of the Päiyaţikā constitutes the original Agamic tradition pertaining to the subject matter of the Karma-granthas, this tradition being perior to the author of the Päiyaţikā. To explain this point clearly an extensive foot-note is written on this concerned reading. In the Cürni the duration of the vedanīyakarma is said to be from the minimum to the twelve muhūrtas. I personally feel that the reading which follows the entire Jaina literature and yields the meaning 'the duration of the vedaniyakarma is from the minimum to the twelve muhūrtas' might have been before the author of the Cūrni, but that reading might have been lost and the reading available in all the mss. might have taken its place. For the extensive t of this point one may refer to the foot-note 13 on p. 283. The point as to why the author of the Paiyatīkā did not scrutinise this reading deserves our consideration. The Nemicandrīyatīkā skips over this portion, saying that it is easy to understand.
Some Noteworthy Points Regarding the Present Critical
Edition of the Text of the Uttaradhyayanasutra 1. Late Muniraja Shri Punyavijayaji advised me to accept as far as possible the version of the text followed by Āc. Nemicandraji in his commentary. This version is prevalent among the experts for the last 1000 years. So, one should not consider it to be secondary. This is the main argument he put before me to follow this version.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
