Uvangsuttani Part 04 - Ovayiam Raipaseniyam Jivajivabhigame

SR No.: 003554
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Tulsi Acharya, Mahapragna Acharya
Publisher: Jain Vishva Bharati
Publication Year: 1987
Total Pages: 854
Language: Prakrit
Classification: Book_Devnagari, Agam, & Canon
File Size: 17 MB

Page 65

qv
as an authoritative form (arsa), all rules about the correct or wrong usage of words in Prakrit would have been set to naught."
Pt. Bechardas's contention may be valid, but it is not irrefutable. In our view
(1) The original form of 'paseniya' is 'pasiniya' (Skt. prašnita). In pronunciation, assumption of the form 'i' by 'e' is quite consistent. We find such departure elsewhere too. For example :
pihuṇīņam
ṇivvāṇam
nivvutl
tigicchiyam bință
bi
tikālam
pehuneṇam Devväņam
nevvuti
tegicchiyam
bență
be
tekālam
(2) In the Agama-sutras and old scriptures we find the text as rayapaseniya". The usage 'rayapasepaiya' is not available anywhere. In the Nandisutra we come across 'rayapasepiya' as mentioned earlier. In 'Pakşika sūtra' too, 'rayappaseniya' occurs. The composer of the avacuri of Päkşika sütra gives its Sanskrit form as 'rajapraśniyam"."
(Dell)
(Skt. nirvanam)
(Skt. nirvrttih)
(Skt. cikitsitam) (Skt. vrttam)
(Skt. dvi) (Skt. trikålam)
(3) Prasenajit takes the form 'pasenaiya' in Prakrit In the Sthänänga sutra the fifth kulakara is named as 'pasepaiya'. This form is available at various
other places too.
If the subject-matter of the present sütra had been related to King Prasenajit, the name could have been "Rayapasenaiyam". But in fact the subject-matter relates to King Paesl; hence the form "rayapaseṇaiya" is not compatible. In the Dighanikaya King Päyäsi is mentioned as a feudal lord to Prasenajit. But here we find no mention of King Prasenajit. Therefore the usage 'Rayapaseṇalyam' has no basis.
From the point of view of the subject-matter we may conjecture about the name 'Rayapaesiyam', but there is no basis for such a conjecture.
King Pradesl's quesies form the basis of the composition of the sutra in question. Therefore its name must be 'Rayapaseniya' and none else. Commentaries
Its two commentaries are named as (i) vetti, and (ii) stabaka tabbā or
1. Rayapasenaiyam, praveśaka, page 6.
2. Pākṣikasūtram, page 76.
3. Pākṣikasūtram Avacuri, page 77:
Rajñaḥ pradesi nämnaḥ praśnāni, tänyadhikṛtya kitam adhyayanam-rajapraśniyam. 4. Thanam, 7/62