Nandisutt and Anuogaddaraim

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

Page 234

OUR CRITICAL METHOD OF EDITING THE JAINA AGAMAS 89
number of the old palm-leaf mss. is very small, we have collected and utilized all those that are available. But the paper mss. of the concerned Agama being available in hundreds, we have selected some from among those belonging to the same group, which are considered to be helpful in correcting the text and which give important variants.
Thus we have utilised thoroughly all the mss. that we have collected. That is, we have consulted them not only when we have some doubt regarding the reading, but we have compared each and every ms. with either the printed text or the press-copy of the concerned Agama word by word from the beginning to the end. While doing so, we noted down all the readings-right or wrong-of the concerned ms. After having done so, we corrected them and classified them, giving thought to their meanings. Thus out of the different readings, that are proper and have the same sense, the one that is found in most of the mss. has been mostly accepted by us and the rest are noted down in the foot-notes. Yet at places we have not hesitated to accept the reading which occurs in only a very few mss. if it were found to be correct and more proper. All that we have said is about those sūtra-texts which the authors of the Cūrni and Tikā have not elucidated, considering them to be easy to understand. But when a sūtra-reading is invariably accepted by the author of the Cūrņi and others while commenting on the sutra, we have honoured it having included it in the body of the text without thinking as to whether it is found in one or in many mss. And other readings are noted down in the foot-notes. When the authors of the Cūrni and the Vsttis have accepted different readings while commenting on the sutra, we have favoured the reading accepted by the author of the BșhadyȚtti. The reason of our favour is that the authors of the Cūrņi and Laghuvṛtti do not comment on many sūtras considering them to be easy, while the author of the Brhadvștti elucidates the entire śāstra except some very simple and easy sūtra-texts. Hence it is the Bșhadvịtti that mostly helps us in finalizing a particular reading. That is why we have deemed it proper to prepare the text of our edition on the basis of the readings accepted by the author of the Bșhadvștti. At very few places where the reading accepted by the author of the Bịhadvịtti is not found in any other ms. we have to take exception to this general principle. Even at such places we have mostly followed the vyakhyā (commentary) or the pratika contained in the Brhadvrtti and accepted the readings on their basis, with the remark in foot-note that this reading is not found in any ms. This same method is adopted in connection with the readings accepted by the authors of the Cūrni, etc. That is, when the readings accepted by them are not found in any ms. we have invariably noted that in foot-note. And at