Mahaviras Word

SR No.: 001561
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Walther Shubring
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad
Publication Year: 2004
Total Pages: 318
Language: English
Classification: Book_English, Agam, Canon, & Philosophy
File Size: 22 MB

Page 253

234
Mahāvira's Words by Walther Schubring — Appendix 1
In the sloka, which like the triştubh and the jagati, does not lack in irregularity and surplus syllables, we examine the 7th syllable and its appearance as short in the (55) odd pādas and as long in the even ones. For this distinction it can be noted that in a series of cases a transposition of the pādas is to be assumed: 3, 12 links up better with 10 than with 11; 4, 22 can only follow after 23; 19, 30 20, 12 and 28, 16 seem to appear behind their preceding lines because of their being annexes; and 15,4$ 20,7 28, 4 and 31, 23 are for some other reason before their previous lines. Only in 40, 1 is a case where both the pādas really have their characteristic properties interchanged. Apart from this place the 7th syllable of the even pāda is long four times (twice each in the Sū. and Das. and thrice in Utt.). In the odd pāda, on the other hand, without counting the above cases, it is short 31 times (12 in the Sū., 120 in the Utt. and 35 times in the Das.). A part of the verse openings can also be scanned as āryās and that is exactly why they are indented to the right in print, just as āryās would be. Indubitable āryāpādas, because they are six or seven syllabic, appear in: 10,28; 12, 16 (of the type A, see p. 60); 22, 26; 27, 16. 20. 24. 31; 30, 19 (instead of an even sloka-pāda); 32, 20; 38, 1; 39, 13, and also in the omitted variants in: 4, 10* (sampayanti); 13, 20°; 21, 6*; 24, 16*; 29, 15* and 17"; 33, 20°.
The conclusions from these metrical qualities are to be reserved for later investigations. Indeed, nothing is achieved with a mere comparative statistic because the related texts will have to be considered not as a whole, but according to their parts. As far as I can see, the tristubh form indicated in 1. above, for example, is limited in the Utt. from chapters 12 to 14.
To the attempt at making an analysis I follow up with a synthesis. The task is to investigate how the mosaic has come about that is before us today, to proceed again along the way which the redaction took with the intention of creating a whole. The tradition by and large merely maintained the sequence of the extant crucial words and verses; however, in their circulation many fragments became detached from their old context and had to be brought in order. Even the tradition was not always sure. Thus, the sentence fragment in 11, 25, se ttam, can only be explained (by saying that in this place the memory that a samutthāe has to appear here in continuation of the thought left in 11, 14, brought about the sentence which otherwise does not at all fit in with the rest. In uddeśa 6 1 one sees the insertion 27, 15-28, 4, beginning with tehim (-tehim C] kulehim āyattāe jāyā and continuing the triştubh style beyond it with ... attatāe tehim-tehim kulehim ... abhisamjāyā. Line 32, 14 is completely out of context after 13, it is possible after 15 at the most; 16 has the same beginning tamhā. Also, kankhejja kālam in 32, 23 after kalovanie is to be mentioned. In the same way, there is an evident anacoluthon in 33, 28 with the beginning tam parinnāya mehāvi, and the same expression (56) in 34, 5 begins the
ian International