274 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. [June, 1910. 



6), ot?Ni^ (page 14, line 18), w'«?ft (page 24, line 1 3), wfwft* 



(page 26, line 9), cr<g*?*^rfa?T (page 40, line l),*uifaw (page 67, 



line 16), which I have got in all my MSS., — not only that, but 

 which are found in other works such as the Avacuri on the 

 Yoga-Sastra, the Mahavlra-Carita (one of the MSS. of which 

 that I have got with me is very old and very correct) , — are the 

 only authoritative ones. The readings suggested by the critic, 

 I am sorry to say, are not to be found in any of my MSS. 



Now we shall take up our readings ^•t^tjt and ^K«T*n 

 (page 114, lines 16 and 21) and consider it in some detail. It 

 is again the ignorance of Jaina technology that leads the critic 

 to suggest ^jinw to be inserted in place of <q?ntTJr which he 

 says to be faulty on the authority of his MSS. A, B, C and 



D, and strengthens his views by quoting a random authority 

 from the Tattvarthasutra. Both the forms are correct though 

 ours is the one of frequent use and his is of less common use. 

 We shall quote here a number of instances equally authori- 

 tative with the one given by the critic proving the validity 

 of_ our reading. Vide the First Karmagrantha by Devendra 

 Suri. In his own commentary of the 2nd gatha he gives the 

 following : — 



*W5UWITir* ^TflQPIT *I *W*T#t ^ Vt T& *tS«nTNW»r: TOW 



T5W ^W^- ^T 1 *! TOT ^WT*fy *^rra?h VflMTtft TO: ^\n' — It occurs 



\» j 



also in the Fifth Karmagrantha (which we have got with the 

 Avacuri) and in many other places. The Bhavnagar edition of 

 Navatatva (page 97), the commentary on Sthananga-sutra by 

 Abhayadeva Suri, the Dlpika on this latter book by Megharaja 

 (leaf 6 of our MS. of the work) and the Vrhad-dravya Samgraha 

 of Nemi-candra with the commentary of Brahmadeva (this 

 work, belonging to the Digambara sect of the Jainas, is of great 



value and authority, vide page 80 of the Parama-S'ruta-Prabha- 

 vaka- Mandala's edition) may also be advantageously consulted. 

 Everywhere we find ^ffHR. 



In what follows it will be proved by proper argument that 

 I am not wrong in all those places where the critic says that 

 I am. Let me examine critically the validity of my reading 



ftff faf** (page 32, line 3) ; here it is better to give the two 



words separately , since here is no compound as will be evident 

 on a little consideration. It occurs in the same way as we 

 have put it in the Trisasti-S'alaka-PurusarCarita by Hem- 

 candracarya {vide 356th Sloka of the 7th Sarga in Parva 4th of 

 the book published by the Jaina-Dharma-Prasaraka Sabha of 

 Bhavnagar). 



Again our reading q^rer in the passage WjrT^:^w^^ri is 



