________________
Words for violence in the "Seniors" of the Jaina Canon
233
occasions").
But ? appears to take the above -hannejjā as an opt. active (= vihanyāt, cf. supra and n. 62): sa ca sādhus tair abhidrutaḥ 1./ na tair anukūla-pratikūlair vihanyāt, naiva samyamdnuşthānān manāg api vicalet (138), "due to these pleasant or unpleasant (circumstances) he should not ruin, he should not swerve from the practice of self-control". The Sūy sūtra and corresponding I have an exact parallel in Utt 2.17c (JAS 67), warning against the 8th parisaha (women!):
no tāhim vinihannejjā (v.1., Ee-mm-), glossed by śāntisūri as atipātayet, ātmānam iti gamyate (152 f.), "should not utterly destroy (viz. the Self)". Could this 'no vinihannejjā' = naiva vinihanyāt continue an old formula with the active verb used absolutely: "he should not crash, collapse, break down in front of them"; or "he should not strike at them"?
- Other remnants of this usage exist: they are dealt with in a forthcoming paper. 65. For a passive stem hanna-, see PSM, s.v. hana (passive: hammai / hannai); also
the Cūrni reading (-)hanna- for (-) hamma-māne, quoted by Schubring ad Ayār p.
32.22 = 1.6.5.6.- For HC 4.244, see n. 63. 66. 3.sg. opt. - Compare Sūy 1.1.1.3a-6 on which supra):
sayam tivāyae pāne aduvā annehi ghāyae
................ veram vaddhei appano and Dasav VI 10d:
na hane no vi ghāyae; further Ayār p. 15.19 (= 1.3.3.1) = 25.24 (= 1.5.5.4):
tamhā na hantā na vi ghāyae. Cf. Schubring Gl, s.v. ghālay, referring to Sn 705d,
na haneyya na ghātaye. The same pāda recurs in various versions of the Dhp: Pa Dhp 129; cf. "Patna Dhp" (ed.G. Roth) 203:
neva hamyye na ghālaye; Uv Subaši 5.18: • (han)ny(e) n(a) ghātayet, Uv (ed. Bernhard) 5.19:
naiva hanyān na ghātayet, compare Mvu 3.387.13*:
nafva hiņse na ghātaye. In the above passages the opposition between han- and ghātaya- is in evidence, and functions like the usual opposition between the simple and the causative stems. Cf. also Sūy 2.24 (JAS 657): se kinam kināvemāņe, hanam ghāyamāne,