Nandisutt and Anuogaddaraim

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

Page 235

90
EDITOR'S NOTE
all places the variants have been noted down by us in foot-notes with the remarks like this is accepted by the author of Cūrni', this is accepted by the author of Laghuvștti'. All this will be clear from the foot-notes.
(ii) Utilisation of Curņi, Tīkā, Avacūri, Tippanaka, etc.
The Cūrņi, Tikā, Avacūri, Tippanaka, Stabaka-sabă (i. e. translation in the language of the People)-almost all these have been thoroughly utilised by us in determining the correct readings and in finalising the text. Before utilising these different types of commentaries on the concerned Āgama we have corrected them on the basis of the very old available mss. We have done this with the desire that our finalisation of the sūtra readings should be authentic and well certified. Āgamoddhāraka Sāgarānandasūriji has prepared and published the critical edition of all these commentaries. But as this edition is prepared with an enthusiasm of publishing all the commentaries as early as possible, there have remained corrupt readings in it. Sāgaranandasúriji was conscious of this. Hence he apologetically writes at the end of the Acārängacūrņi: pratnānām apy ädarśānām aśuddhatamatvāt kļte’pi yathāmati śodhane na santoşaḥ, paraṁ pravacanabhaktirasikatā prasāraņe'syāḥ prayojiketi vidvadbhiḥ śodhaniyaisā cūrnih, kşāmyatu cāparādham śrutadevīti. This declaration is quite true. We too have examined many mss. of the Acārāngacūrni including even the palm-leaf mss. of Cambay and Jesalmer. After that we realised the toughness of the task of preparing critical edition of the text on the basis of thoroughly corrupt mss. belonging to the same group. But when fortunately we found the mutilated palm-leaf ms. of the Ācārängacūrni in the Shri Sangh Jñāna Bhandāra, Patan, we took courage of preparing the critical edition of the Ācārangacūrni. Similarly, the same Jñana Bhandara has preserved one incomplete palmleaf ms. of the Uttaradhyayanasūtracūrņi, belonging to the different group. Now it has almost become easy to critically edit the text on its basis.
Thus what we want to drive at is that those who are determined to critically edit the texts of the Jaina Āgamās or of other Sastras should first correct the commentaries on the concerned text if they want to utilize them in settling the final and faithful text of the concerned Agama or śāstra. In the editions prepared by Sāgarānandasūriji the old method of editing has been employed. Hence the readings that have been supplemented or dropped (thinking interpolations) or corrected or amended are not found in the mss. with us or in the mss. we have examined so far. If Sāgarānandsūriji had used the system of bracket at such places, the scholars would have been much benefitted. This we say on the basis of our experience