________________
20
K. R. Norman
did not realise this, and consequently failed to understand the contrast between the two passages. He did not see that the point of v. 18 was that the fire was in the fire-stick, and so he emended the text to read araglu, i. e. a quasi-ablative, perhaps because of the existence of the word aragio in the Suy passage. Because the latter passage had asam te, he interpreted the word santo in v. 18 as standing for "samtoasamto, which he consequently explained as meaning asan;
This
(3) In answer to the purohita's brahmanical view of the soul, the sons give the Jaina view of the soul's permanence (v. 19). As in the case of v. 18, there is no parallel to this verse in the Pali version, possibly because an argument in favour of the permanence of the soul would be inappropriate in a Buddhist text. does not, however, prove that these two verses are an addition made by the Jaina redactor, since they may be an original feature which was retained by the Jainas as being in conformity with their own views, but omitted by the Buddhists because as with v. 18. The interpretation of the verse is helped by the occur. rence of similar views elsewhere in Jaina literature.
The sons say
no indiya-ggejjha amuttabhāvā amuttabhāva vi ja hoi nicco. ajjhatthaheum niyayassa bandho samsaraheum ca vayanti bandham.
Jacobi translates (p. 64): "(The soul) cannot be apprehended by the senses, because it possesses no corporeal form, and since it possesses no corporeal form it is eternal. The fetter of the soul has been ascertained to be caused by its bad qualities, and this fetter is called the cause of worldly existence."
The Jaina Visva Bharati Prakasana edition differsдin päda c where it reads:
ajjhatthaheum niyaya 'ssa bandho
instead of Charpentier's niyayassa. Devendra's cty explains: 'no' naiva indriyagrähyaḥ sattva iti prakramaḥ, amürttabhāvāt, tatha amarttabhävad api ca bhavati nityaḥ, tatha hi-yad dravyatve sati amürttam tad nityam akafavat, na caivam amürttatvad eva tasya sambandhasambhavaḥ, yataḥ "ajjhatthaheum niyaya 'ssa bandho" adhyatmal abdena atmastha mithyatvadaya ihocyante, tatas taddhetuḥ-taunimitto niyataḥ--nifcito bandhah-karmabhiḥ samflesaḥ, yatha mirttasyapi nabhaso mirttair api ghatädibhiḥ sambandha evam asyapi karmabhir mirttair api na virudhyate, tatha samsarahetum na vadanti bandham iti süträrthaḥ
It seems probable that in pada a indiyaggejjha is metri causa for-ggejjho which agrees with nicco. The subject of the sentence must be the same as in the previous verse, i. e. satta. This shows that satta must be masculine and singular, and probably stands for Skt svātmā. Devendra assumes that the subject is the same as in the previous verse, i. e. sattva, but because the verb is singular he decides that the subject too must be singular, i. e. sattvah. In pada c niyaya, as read by
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
