________________
INTRODUCTIOX.
xvii
uceur in the commentary of Abhayadeva, in his remarks
$$ 205-20 and $ 218, where the commentator himelf draws attention to a different recension (pustakanta
n, see pp. 63, 65 of the commentary). In both cases, the recension which Abhayadeva annotated omitted long jassages (viz., SS 206, 207, and a portion of $ 218, p. 130), which are found in all the manuscripts that were available t me. Though Abhayadeva's recension is not borne out by the manuscripts on which the present edition is based, its existence is sufficiently proved by his testimony. It would be interesting to know, whether any manuscripts containing it exist and can be found at the present day. It is perhaps worth nothing, that Abhayadeva is very brief in his comments on the concluding paragraphs of the first chapter. Those between $$ 72 and 83 he ignores altogether. It is just with regard to these paragraphs, that MS. H omits a large pro tion; and it is thus possible, that, MS. Hrepresents an approach to the recension which Abhayadeva followed in his commentary. It can only be an approach to it, however, if even that much), seeing that MS. H contains those potions of SS 206, 207, 218, which Abhayadeva's recension, ac ording to his own statement, did not contain.
On the other hand, there is no material difference to be cl erved between the five manuscripts of the commentary. Only two appreciable variations occur, one in MS. c, in the comments on § 45 (p. 7, footnote 5), the other in MS. h, in the comments on 141. See Additional Critical Note, u 55, footnote 10.
In preparing the text for this edition I have followed the principle of conforming it to the rules for the Jain Prākrit
laid down in Hemachandra's grammar. Under the preent circumstances this is the only method that is scientifilly defensible. It is followed by the Jains themselves in paring their manuscript editions, if they understand their
