Jain Journal 1985 01

SR No.: 520077
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Jain Bhawan Publication
Publisher: Jain Bhawan Publication
Publication Year: 1985
Total Pages: 43
Language: English
Classification: Magazine, India_Jain Journal, & India
File Size: 3 MB

Page 42

JANUARY, 1985
(2) The metaphorical interpretation as the sandalwood, inspite of being cut by the adze, perfumes it; in the same way, an ascetic benefits even his evil-doer. (Interpretation made in some popular maxims and accepted by Abhayadeva Suri)
103
(3) Another metaphorical interpretation: The phrase expresses a qualification of a person having equal attitude towards an evil-doer like the adze and benefactor like the sandalwood. (Alternative interpretation suggested by Abhayadeva Suri)
(4) The direct and literal interpretation: A person when being slit with the adze by one person and smeared with the sandalwood by the other one, holds same attitude (or indifference) towards both without showing hatred or love. (Interpretation based on the original texts such as Jambudvipa Prajñapti Sūtra and Mahabharata68 and accepted by the commentators such as Haribhadra Suri, Hemacandra and others)
After comparing the above four interpretations, we conclude that the last interpretation (No. 4) is the correct one, because the original texts like Jambūdvīpa Prajñapti and Mahābhārata have unequivocally used the phrase in this sense.
It seems that variance in the interpretations is created because of the succinct use of the phrase (in the form of vast-candaṇa-kappo or vasicandaṇa-samāna kappo) in the Uttarādhyavana Sūtra, Kalpa Sutra, Uvavāi Sutra, Haribhadriya Aşṭaka etc. The commentators who have made the 2nd and 3rd interpretations appear to be unaware of the expanded use of the phrase (in the form of-vāsī tacchaṇe adeitthe, candaṇānulevaṇa aratte or vastyaika takştbahuin candanenaikamulstah) in the authoritative and original works such as Jambudvipa-Prajñapti Sūtra and Mahabharata.
They have probably based their explanation on the popular apophthegms. Thus, though the interpretation No. 2 and No. 3 are not erroneous, they do not seem to represent the exact sense.
With due respect to Dr. Jacobi, we must conclude that in the absence of the knowledge of the usages of the phrase in the original sources, he failed to grasp the precise sense of the phrase.
68 Haribhadra Suri seems to be well acquainted with the original meaning and hence, in his commentary to the Avasyaka Niryukti of Bhadrabahu, he has made the same interpretation as No. 4. But Abhayadeva Suri seems to be unaware of this usage, and hence, in his commentary to the Uvavai Sutra and Haribhadriye Astake (in which he has made corrections) he makes interpretation different from Haribhadra himself.