________________
Amrita
expressly called Cūlikās and are clearly intended to be later additions. The second element of the name Veyāliya occurs in only one other text of the canon, viz., the Tandulaveyaliya a book included among the Painnas but also in the Ukkāliya section along with the Dasaveyaliya. But there the name means a calculation (veyāliya=vicāra) of the number of rice grains, and cannot have anything to do with the second element of the name of Dasaveyāliya.
A correct interpretation of the name is equally hard to find out. In this connection it is difficult to decide what meaning of the title was intended by the author of the Nijjutti, in spite of the three different attempts made by him to explain the name. In the introductory portion of the Nijjutti we find the analysis of the title as dasa and kāla both the words receiving further elucidation. To explain the import of the word Dasa the author was led to explain the word ekka. On this verse the Cūrņi has preserved an interesting passage which runs :
एत्थ कतरेण इक्कगेण अहिगारो । भद्दियायरिआवदेसेण जम्हा दस एए पज्जाय-अज्झयणा संगहेक्कएण सङ्गहिया तम्हा सङ्गहेक्कएण एत्थ अहिगारो । दत्तिलायरिओवएसेणम् जम्हा सुयनाणं खओवसमिए भावे वहइ (? वट्टइ) तम्हा भावेक्कएणम् । दोनि वि एए आदेसा अविरुद्धा । भावेक्क एणं 3 II (p. 4).
In spite of the assurance of the author and his own inclination towards the second view, it is undoubtedly the first which is historically correct and offers one more proof to say that the present work is a collection. After the explanation of the number one' the Nijjutti goes to explain the number 'ten', and after that it states :
दव्वे अद्ध अहाउय उवक्कमे देस-काल-काले य ।
तह य पमाणे वगण्णे भावे पगयं तु भावेणम् ॥ Here it clearly states nine different senses of the word kāla and points out that in the present context the bhāva sense is applicable. What is meant by the bhāvakāla we are left to guess. The explanation of Haribhadra that it refers to ksāyika and other bhāvas of the soul is of no great use and like the above one of the Cūrni on ekka is a convenient way for the commentators to pass over the difficulty. In fact Haribhadra has noticed the discrepancy between the words of the Nijjutti and his own explanation, and so he remarks
यदुक्तं । पगयं तु भावेणं ति । तत् कथं न विरुद्ध्यते इति । उच्यते, क्षायोपशमिकभावकाले शय्यम्भवेन नियूदं प्रमाणकाले च उक्तलक्षणे इति अविरोधः । अथवा प्रमाणकालोऽपि भावकाल एव ।
The remarks are sufficient to point out his inability to explain the