________________
Reference list of JRK/NCC entries showing manuscript siglia used in the critical edition given above
1
Manuscripts of the mula listed in the JRK (p. 213).
The JRK listing is in two parts: (1) manuscripts of the mula; (2) those of Śrīcandra's commentary.
Müla
Ref. no. here
B1
B2
F
M
2
3
JRK ref.
*Agra no.s 192-96
*A[nantanatha]. M[andira]. 77; 122; 164; 186; 207
*[Asiatic Soceity of] Bengal
4329
6785 (mula and cty)' 6977 (mula and cty)' 7613
*BO. p. 60 [Bhandarkar Institute] *BSC No. 460
*Buh III [Collection of 1872-73] no. 112 *Buh IV [Collection of 1873-74] no. 158 *D[ela Upāśraya Bhandar] A 13 (16-22) *D[ela Upāśraya Bhandar] B 6 (10; 11) *DC. p. 33 [catalogue Dalal 1923] *Flo. no. 518 (mula and cty) *Hamsa nos. 868; 1132
*JA [Santinath temple] 14 (2)
*JB [Jñānavimalasūti bhandar] 47; 48
*Jesal. nos. 423; 553 (mula and cty)
*JHA 29 (4c)
*JHB 15 (5c)
*[Bhandar of Bhantha kī] Kundi nos. 11; 14; 19
(all three with mula and cty)
*Limdi. nos. 126; 133; 162; 189; 247;
260; 329; 330; 358; 405; 448
*Mitra VIII. p. 112
*PAP [Sangha bhandar] 38 (11; 20; 21; 22; 23, 26 mūla only-18; 24; 25, 27, 28 mula and cty) *PAPL [Sangha bhandar, Limdi pada branch] 4 (24); 5 (18) mula and cty
*PAPS [Agal Sheri, Pofalia Wada]
19 (4, 6, 7, 8); mula only
19 (5); 21 (10); 24 (10); 76 (9) mula and cty *PAS [Lodhi Posala Sanghavi Pada] No. 63 *PAZA 3 [Sha Chunilal Mulji's Bhandar]
(16 (mūla only); 17 (mula and cty) *PAZB [Vadi Pārśvanatha Pustaka Bhandar] 14 (6) (mula and cty)
*Pet III. A. p. 109
*Punjab nos. 1466; 1467; 1468
*Samb[havanatha temple]. nos. 313 (müla only); 181 (mula and cty)
Place
Agra
Bombay
Calcutta
289
Vārāṇasī [Pune]
[Pune]
1
1
1
Ahmedabad 7 Ahmedabad 2 Jaisalmer
Florence
Baroda
Cambay
Cambay
Jaisalmer
Jaipur
Jaipur
Jaisalmer
Patan3
Patan
MSS
5
5
Patan
Patan
Patan
Ahmedabad 11 [Azimganj]
12
Patan
Patan Cambay? "Punjab"
Jaisalmer
1
2
1 palmleaf
2
2
1
1
3
11
2
4
4
2
3
2
From the JRK entries it is not possible to tell if these manuscripts give the commentary alongside the mula or afterwards
False entry, this manuscript contains the commentary only.
From this information it is not possible to positively identify the Patan manuscripts as listed in the catalogue of 1991.
