________________
Introduction
JI
( To the first edition ) The present edition of Hemacandra's Desināmamalā is based on the following Mss. —
A. – A Ms. from Bikaner, No. 271. foll. 17. Samvat 1549. Text only. A very valuable Ms.
B. - A very clearly written Ms. from Vadlıvān. No. 724. foll. 90 or properly 91, fol.53 being numbered twice. Text and commentary. The Ms. is not dated; it probably belongs to the last century. It is on the whole very correct, but it constantly exchanges 7 and q, y and a, 54 and 747, ag and , , , , ,3, and in this respect it cannot in any way be relied upon,
C. – A modern copy of a Ms. from Ahmedabad, prepared for Dr Bühler, No. 184. foll. 315 in folio. Text and commentary. The original Ms. was dated Samvat 1587. The copy has been made rather carefully ; but the copyist apparently not being versed in reading Jaina Mss.. the characters peculiar to these Mss. are constantly misread. Thus the blunders of the original have been largely increased. A second hand has tried to correct some of the mistakes, but not always successfully.
D. – A Ms. from Pāli near Jodhpur in Mārwär. No. 270. foll. 32. Text and commentary; incomplete. This Ms. is written very badly and is very incorrect, I have not mentioned in the critical notes all its blunders, and from I. 117, I have quoted it only occasionally.
E.- A Ms. from Ahmedabad, belonging to Dr Bühler, foll, 20. Text only. In the colophon it bears the date 1575, which is probably intended for the Samvat era. This is by far the best of all the Mss. Unfortunately it is incomplete, foll. 1 and 19 being wanting. It has been made the basis of my text.
F. - The various readings of a Ms. from Limadi, collated by Dr Bühler's Pandits with C. With the exception of a few trifling differences the Limadi Ms. agrees closely with the Vadhvān Ms. (B),
G. - A Ms. from Bikaner. No. 271. foll. 46. Text and commentary. An old, good Ms. It has got the same number as A, because it was believed to contain the commentary to A. This, however, is not the case. The Mss. are quite independent of each other. Ggives the best text of the commentary but it is unfortunately greatly damaged, most of the leaves having been gnawed by & rat, and afterwards broken off. The damages begin with fol. 15 ; from fol. 24, not much more than one half of the leaves. gometimes less, is extant; from fol. 42, only scattered fragments are left. I have tried to combine these fragments, and after much trouble and with
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
