________________
INTRODUCTION
compose in such a mental state two Sanskrit dedication verses printed in the Jalore edition. There arises another question as to whether he would have liked to give such an epithet to the Titthogaliya as would suggest his endorsement and support to the statements of the Titthogaliya. The epithet occurring in the second verse is 'tirthapravahaviṣaye sphuṭam arthapurnam'. This second question arises because the tract contains such information about the extinction of the Acārānga etc. as is not acceptable to the Śvetāmbara tradition. The two concerned verses have been composed by Kalyanavijayaji on 1st May 1975, states the Jalore edition, whereas, as we pointed out earlier, his mental condition was very weak even in 1973. The purpose of this long discussion is to show that the mention of the name of Kalyanavijayaji as one of the editors of Jalore edition is quite puzzling. If Kalyanavijayaji had examined the printed formats of the Jalore edition, he would not have tolerated the mistakes, small or great (some even unpardonable), that are there in the edition; this is what I firmly believe. If all the corrupt readings accepted in the Jalore edition were recorded with critical comments, that would lead to the production of a small book. But I have no time to record all the corrupt readings accepted in it. Moreover, in a way it is out of place in this Introduction. So, I discuss here the corrupt readings accepted in the Jalore edition gāthās 1-209 in order to draw attention of scholars to the quality of editing work.
The fifth gāthā in Jalore edition contains the reading payasayasahassameyam; its Sanskrit chāyā given there is padaśatasahasrametam. In its place, the correct reading available in old manuscripts is payasayasahassamegam. The translation in the Jalore edition follows this correct reading. Yet the editor has failed to notice the corruption in the accepted reading and its Sanskrit chāyā.
Jain Education International
125
The 2nd line of the 8th gatha in the Jalore edition is egatto micchattam jiņāņa āņā aṇegamta. It escapes the editor's attention that the reading egatto is a result of lipivikära. That is, the correct reading is eganto. The Sanskrit chāyā and the translation follow the correct reading. The point specially to be noted is that in jināna aņā aṇegamta' the word anegamta has been imagined and accepted by Rathodji with the intention of giving a correct reading. As a matter of fact, in place of aṇegamta all the manuscripts yield the reading anegaṁto which is correct and original. The meaning of the concerned line is 'ekanta (onesided view) is a wrong faith, and anekanta (non-onesided view) is the command of Sri Jina.' Repeated acquaintance with the style of composition adopted in Jaina literature would not have allowed the editor to change the
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
