________________
128
INTRODUCTION
in skin as also from white hairs'. There is no need to say that this again evinces Rathodji's indifference to the old manuscripts.
Now I give in brief a list of corrupt readings accepted in the Jalore edition and against them mention correct readings accepted in our edition in their place.
ga.-foot 137-4
38-4
Jalore Ed. Reading aparimiyaparakkamapaloya pesalacchasavvam. gasanghayanā 2paccharukkha ya urusahayamoya urū suhabhoga taha ya vannagavihiu
Reading in our Ed. aparimiyaparakkamabalogha pasatthasavvangasamghayana kapparukkha ya murusa (u) ha amoya 4ürüsuha bhoga-vannagavihio
56-4 56-3 58-2
1. Rathodnaváyuvegoas of t
1. Rathodji has not understood the meaning of the word
'anulomavāyuvega' occurring in the 3rd foot of this gāthā. 2. Of ten kalpavskşas of the second araka the name of the 10h one
is 'Kalpavşkşa'. On account of his ignorance of this fact, Rathodji has accepted the reading paccharukkha in place of kapparukkhô, but there is no textual support to his reading. He gives the Sanskrit chāyā of paccharukkhā; it is Pakşavşkşa. Having accepted this corrupt reading, he is led to make further corruption; see the Jalore edition p. 150, gā. 1164. All the manuscripts contain 'cittarasa kapparukkha ya' in the 4th foot of this gāthā. This mentions names of the 9th and the 10th kalpavskşas, viz. Citrarasa and Kalpavşkşa. But as he has not understood the meaning of the 56th gāthā, following the corrupt reading accepted by him in the 56th gāthā, he has wrongly changed the fourth foot of gāthā 1164 as 'cittarasā(pattha) kapparukkha ya' which is wrong and metrically defective. There is absolutely no need of pattha given in the round brackets (). But Rathodji in a note on 'pattha' writes : 'lipikena pratau 'prastha' iti pramadan na likhitam'. This note provides an instance of a ludicrous research piece. I request readers to read uríd husa(u)ha and ür(d)usuha in place of urusa(u)ha and ürüsuha respectively at these two places. Gathās 1164 and 1165 of the Titthogaliyaprakirnaka positively contain the correct reading udusuhe. In the Jalore edition these two gāthās are numbered as 1164 and 1166 respectively and there too we find the reading udusuhe. In the gāthās 56 and 58 noted above, this correct reading seems to have been corrupted on account of the mistake committed by the scribe by writing one syllable for another due to their similarity in shape. This fact came to our notice after the suddhipatraka had been printed. Hence this correction is suggested in the 'suddhipatrakavisesa' placed after the Gujarati 'Prastavaná'. Gāthās 1163 and 1165 in the Višeşāvaśyakamahābhāşya contain the reading udusuha; thus these two gāthas furnish a corroborative evidence in support of the originality of the reading udusuha.
in
a
note na given in the cally
astha' it
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
