________________
W. Schubring, Isibhāsiyāim,
Commentary
With its emphatic reference to something which is 'worth learning' (śrotavya), this chapter has probably been placed at the beginning with intention. The homenymy of soyavva and soya (sauca) too is not accidental. And yet one cannot help surmising, especially since soya does not play any further part, that here too soyavva is meant: tamhā soyavvāto param n'atthi soyavvam. But then is must be an old mistake, since the story referred to above p. 493, likewise speaks of soya.
The thing worth learning are, as the exposition explains, the main commandments, the fourth and fifth of which, however, as also 25, 1.11)', are contracted into one (bambha-pariggaha), so that only four are counted (cp.p. 499). L. 19 f., bambha again stands alone, while apariggaha is, for unknown reasons, as little remembered as ahimsā. L. 19, sacca seems to be missing wrongly These small sentences have Slokarhythm, just as néva kujjā na kārave and similar, 1.7 ff., and have not been marked as such only on account of their repetitions. (a)datta, more Sanskritical than (a) dinna, also in Āyāra. adayam=atan? uvahāņavam is transcribed by tapo-niştapta-deha in Sūy. 1.6, 28. sacca, datta, and bambha are to be combined with uvahāņa: satyam evôpadhānam yasya bhavati sa satyopadhānavān; ćeva disrupts the compound.
The concluding words no puñar-avi icc-attham havuam āgacchati recur 31, 1.24 with itthattam. Since the supposition implied by icc-atthamrityartham 'therefore' is not present, this is probably correct, and itthatta is equal to *atratva via *etthatta; the combination of -tya with an indeclinable does not make any difficulty at least to Abhayadeva, who, with reference to the parallel passage Viy. 110 b, renders itthatta with itthatva, which, however, ought to be itthamtva (in his case, the word
W. Schubring, Isibhāsiyāim, Commentary 463
