________________
332
Amrita
the usual seven Nayas would point to a similar conclusion. If another suggestion can be made of the original scheme of the Sūtras, we expect that chapter nine should have been divided into two at Sūtra 18, each part being devoted to each of the two principles, Samvara and Nirjarā.
We have again a suggestion or two in the book23 itself which would throw light on the difference of number of the two recensions of the Sūtras, the Svetāmbara one containing 344 and the Digambara recension having 367 Sūtras. At the end of chapter 8 we have in the Bhāsya on Sūtra VIII, 26 the concluding words "ato anyat pāpam" which the Bhāsyakāra deduces by implication from the Sūtra itself. But these very words form a Sūtra in the Digambara version as Sūtra VIII, 26. Similarly a portion of the Bhāsya from “syādetat lokāntāt” upto “mukto niskriya iti” on Sūtra X, 6 in the Svetāmbara recension is certainly not a Bhāsya on Sūtra 6 as is supposed by the commentators. The passage runs as follows. "syādetat lokāntādapyurdhvam muktasya gatih kimartham na bhavatiti/Atrocyate / Dharmāstikāyābhāvāt / Dharmāstikāyo hi jīvapudgalānām gatyupagrahena upakurute / Sa tatra nästi/ Tasmāt gatyupagrahakāranābhāvāt parato gatir na bhavati apsu alābuvat/ Nādho na tīryak ityuktam / Tatreva anuśrenigatir lokānte avatisthate muktas niskryas iti /". From this it is clear that the words atrocyate introduce a new Sūtra which is given as Dharmāstikāyābhāvāt which is further explained by the Bhāsya that follows it. And in fact this Sūtra is found in the Digambara recension as Sūtra X, 8. It is also not very difficult to explain the conclusion in which the commentators have fallen while explaining the previous Sūtra. The Bhāsyakāra again uses the simile apsu alābuvat but in a slightly different sense, which can be easily explained with the help of the context. It means that just as the alābu cannot go further on its course when it reaches the surface of the water so is the case with Jīva which also cannot proceed further on its course. But misled by the simile as being adduced from Sūtra 6 where it is already used they take the whole passage as the words of the Bhāsyakāra on the earlier Sūtra.
This point raises the important question about the origin of the two recensions. Even though we have already explained the major portion of it as due to later additions or misrepresentation, a few still remain which it is difficult to explain with the present available materiai. But one thing becomes clear and that is the Svetāmbara recension must have suffered greater changes in its course than the Digambara one. This is further corroborated by the fact that the Sūtras and the Bhāsya being regarded as the work of one and the same person it was not possible for them to keep these two works