Prakritadhyaya

Author(s): Kramdishwar, Satyaranjan Banerjee, Dalsukh Malvania, H C Bhayani
Publisher: Prakrit Text Society Ahmedabad

Page 29

20
CRITICAL APPARATUS
form of lo [vārdre] bāşpe (han] which, in course of time, has undergone a radical change. Considering this, the portions enclosed in the bracket have been emended as such. In the same way the examples, such as, aśva, puşya, svašrū and miśra found in the ortti of the sūtradurlabhādar yuktasya (II. 111), have been corrected by me in place of adhvan, puspa, satru and mitra respectively, because it is found from a perusal of other texts that words belonging to this olass-- where the preceeding vowel is optionally lengthened when one member of the conjunct is dropped-are aśva, puşya, svašrū and miśra and not adhvan puşpa, satru and mitra which become in Prākrit as addha, puppha, satta and mitta respectively. Similarly, in ABCO, VS and P the readings of the two sūtras, such as (1) gāhulyādir gāthader. alpädar" (sū. V. 14 printed editions)--gāthuli vahvati !! and (2) khede" (V. 15 ibid)--hiadā phuttadai uttabbha !! --are not clear. It has been thought that "gahuli vahvati khede hiadā phutta dair tubbha" may be the reading of the text (only by joining the sūtra "khede" with the original example). Luckily Lassen's readings have come to our rescue. He has given it as follows :
gāhunyādir yathāder alpādau !! 14 !! gāhuņī vaddhati khede hiadā phutta dair tubbha !! 14 !!
(p. 450 of the Apabhramsa chapter). Lesson has also pointed out its correction as "vaddhadai" khede hiadāphuta etc., in the footnote. Here also we notice the identical readings of the text. In the same manner the reading of the sūtraşața-vargayuktā manāguccāryāḥ (V. 88) of all the printed texts is unintelligible and obscure. The manuscripts consulted by me contain the readings as
"yața-cavargayuktā manāguccāryāḥ" (01), "yața cavargayuktā manāguccāryāḥ" (C),
"yața-cavargayuktā manāguccāryān" (A). The reading of Lassen is
"yapacavargayuktā manāguccāryāl". Whatever may be the readings, it is pretty certain, that all these readings are not clear on this point. The insertions of p (in the reading of Lassen) and ţ (in the others) leave us in doubtful obscurity. Another reading beginning with ş is undoubtedly a scribal error for y as corroborated by the readings of the other manuscripts. Here