________________
COMMENTARY
age as IV, which is dated samvat 1495 maghe vadi 12 bhüma. They closely. agree with our H and D (like the latter, III likewise has the Samgahant). As one example for numberous ones, the first chapter right away will serve. There I, II and III read, in line 2, padavati, III and P edavati, which comes to the same (and has therefore already been corrected on P, 501), H padavati, while vadati in D is apparently a correction of the editor. In line 10, I, III, and IV have tati, II tatiya with deleted ya, in line 12, I and III ca/tattha, IV and H tattha instead of cauttham. In the colophon stands everywhere, also in P, a wrong 12 instead of the correct 1 (which is missing in H); before Narada (to be written this way); our padhamam is thus, so far, based on the print alone. The Rşi of 8 is in I-IV (and also of course in D) Tetaliputta, as in 10. Ketali, it is true, stands in H only, but, on the other hand, in the Samgahant (which D and III have), and may be correct merely on account of the differentiation.
126
II here and there goes its own way, in spite of regular agreement with H and D, I, III, and IV:
(1) In 3,1 is mentioned the guilt effected by Pranâtipata in 2 that effected by parigraha, i.e. violations of the 1st and 5th vows. The intervening 2nd till 4th vows are treated as follows in II:
2.
An entry from a later hand at the end of II (16b) reads: Nanduravara-nivās; Bhimaḥ samghadhipo 'bhavad bhavikaḥ sri-jina-dharm'adhāras, tat-tanayo Dumgaras sukyti (1) tad-vani'alka-viläst Prägvājas prakaça-jina-matabhyas Srigura-rajye guṇavan pada-pratiṣṣhadi-karayità (2) Sri-Satrunjaya-Ralvata-Jirapally-Arbud adi-yaträsu vitta-vyaya-saphalikyta-janma, tad-day ca Laşamās (3) tanayas tayoḥ suvinayo Kālā nāmākytanukyta-sukyti taj-jāyā Jasamai, Lalatādevi ca Virai (4) irt-fina-bhavana-jinarea-pustaka-sangh'dike sada kṣetre vitta-vyayasya karttā dānârthi-janânusamuddharttā (5) yugmam srimat-Kālū-namnā nija-kara-kamalarjitena vittena
citkose siddhantaḥ sasutrakā vṛtti-samyuktaḥ (6)
srimad-vācak-nayaka-Mahisamudrabhidhāna-mukha-kamalāt labdhva varôpadesam nandantu ca lekhitaḥ suciram(7) Mahopadhyaya-irt-Mahisamudra-gași-siṣya-pam Kahakajaya-gaṇi-likhāpita samvat 1551
var şe.
For the samghadhipa Bhima (s. 1327) see also Weber II 1009, line 5 from bottom, a Kālū, a Jasamadevi, and two Lalatādevi, but apparently other persons, are mentioned in my Berlin List (1944) No. 207, in a Digambara Mss. Śriguna-Sari, s. 1125, cp. Preface of Merutunga's Prabandhacintamani p. 10b, cannot be meant (st. 2). In st. 3, dam is obviously abstracted from dampati and is to mean "wife".
3. The later colophones are missing, and therewith the Rsis too. The Rși of 18 called Varisakanha in I-IV which brings him still closer to the Varṣaganya conjectured on P. 493.
