________________
INTRODUCTION
129
59-second
half
1 paccha mamdava sarisā bodhavva kapparukkha ya pasāya jälahammiya, anuvamagabbhajālavihiparaya/ manirayanabhitticittā rayanuddhasira ya || 6011 sacchamdavanaviy (h)
ār 4parihānimmiha kalaho 5hatthi Gmajjhilaan tibhagam "tappayanupejjadosä säillā chavvitthio Ptassāņurūvasi si 10tie udarammi tiso
pecchāmamdavasarisă bodhavva kapparukkha ya pāsāya-jala-hammiyaovanima-sagabbhajālavihigharaya | mani-rayanabhatticittà rayanujjalapāyadasirîya || 60 sacchamdavanaviyārī
68-1
74-3 74-4 84-3 85-3 87-1 94-1 95-1
parihāni gehi kalaho ha tti
majjhilatthatibhae te payanupejjadosā hatthi chavvitthio tassanurūvasilā tie udarammi to so
1. The 56th gathā of the Jalore edition mentions a wrong division of
Kalpavşkşas, viz. Paccha; this wrong division is mentioned here also. In fact, in this 59th gāthă also, there is mention of the tenth division
of Kalpavşkşas, viz. Kalpavykşa. 2. Sanskrit chāyā of this gātha given in the Jalore edition is :
prásådajalaharmita anupama grabha-jala vidhiparakāhmaṇiratnabhitticitrāh, ratnorddhvaširāś ca Here the reading, the chāyā and the translation all the three are wrong. The word 'bhatti' occurring in the Prajñāpanāsūtra, the Bhagavatisūtra, etc. is found here also; it is original and yielded by the old manuscripts. Unable to understand the meaning of the word 'bhatti', Rathodji has imagined the word 'bhitti in its place and made one more corruption. In the Sanskrit chāyā there occurs the word 'harmita'; from this it becomes evident that the editor has not cared even to consult the dictionary. If the editor were to know the meaning of the correct reading viyāri, viz. 'vicarinah-vicaranasilah', he would not have suggested unnecessary change of into 51. making the word vihāri
(Sk. vihāriņah). 4-8. At these five places, the original and correct readings accepted by
us are available to us in the old manuscripts. Again, all the four concerned gathās, viz. 74, 84, 85 and 87 are found in the Āvaśyakaniryukti as gāthās 154, 163, 164 and 166 verbatim. Rathodji could have known this, if he had consulted the Gathā-index published many years ago. Moreover, he has not understood the meaning of 'ha tti' in 74.4; hence he has taken undue freedom in
accepting the corrupt reading hatthi in its place. 9-10 & At these three places, Rathodji seems to have evaded the task of 12. examining old manuscripts; or he has examined them without due
attention.
3.
TE
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
