Nandisutt and Anuogaddaraim

Author(s): Devvachak, Aryarakshit, Punyavijay, Dalsukh Malvania, Amrutlal Bhojak
Publisher: Mahavir Jain Vidyalay

Page 225

80
EDITOR'S NOTE
in the Suddhipatra (Errata). Similarly, the two gāthās-vaṁdāmi ajjadhammamand vamdāmi ajjarakkhiyao-do not occur in the Jo ms. See p. 6 n. 11. The Cūrni and Tikās neither mention nor elucidate them. There are other mss. of the Nandisūtra that do not contain these four gāthās. Yet we should take note of the fact that the old palm-leaf mss.-and the paper mss. belonging to 15th and 16th Cent. V. S.--of the Nandisūtra contain them. Here there arises a question as to why the authors of the Cūrni and Tīkās have not even mentioned them.
Now let us note down the distinguishing characteristics of to and Hlo mss. These two mss. are characterised by the usage of 37 and 377 in place of which represents the lupta (dropped) consonant. The tradition that employs y very rarely is reflected in these two mss. Again, in these two mss. the usage of 77 in place of OT occurring as the first letter of a word is prominent; e.g. nāna, näha, namaṁsiya, niyama, namdighosa, niggaya, nala, nimmala, nissiya etc.
From the point of view of the usage of 7 in place of UT the first letter of a word the šo and Jo mss. resemble to and to mss. But they invariably employ U in place of the lupta (dropped) consonant.
The and mss. are mostly characterised by the usage of 07. Of course, #ms. employs 7 as parasavarna, e.g. phuranta, mahanta, samantă, etc. This is the difference between eo and #o mss. Simi. larly, omsdiffers from ao ms. in that it contains the usages like caduliyamvā, padīvamvā, etc. See p. 11 n. 1.
The 8 mss. we have described above are very old among the extant ones. Out of these 8 mss. has been used, in the preparation of this critical edition, as an original ms. Though we have obtained and utilized as many as 8 mss, a number of readings accepted by the authors of the Cūrni and Țikās are not found in them. This has been pointed out in foot-notes.
In the preparation of the critical edition of the Nandisūtra we have thoroughly utilised the Cūrni, Haribhadravștti, Malayagirivstti and Sricandrīyațippaņa to determine the original reading, the different readings and the omissions and additions that have crept in the original text. Not only that but we have consulted the Dvādasaranayacakra, the Samavāyāmgasūtra and Abhayadeva's vștti on the Bhagavatīsūtra, which abound in the quotations, elucidation etc. that have bearing on the text of the Nandisūtra. A glance at foot-notes will give an idea of all this.