________________
86
2.1.90 ("aṇanta" of the original text to be replaced by "n' ev' atthi"). The second jāva refers to 2.10.121 ibid. (S.I, p.435).
THE CANONICAL NIKSEPA
No.38 $20 B is not quite regular, but sufficiently close to the davvao type to be included here. It consists merely of the execution, and there is no reason to assume that there was originally a programme. The catch-word LOE is quintupled in a way which is reminiscent of the davva-loga type and which produces by itself khetta-compounds, leaving little room for a determinant khetta. This fact possibly prompted the redactors to supply the nikṣepa without programme. The quintuplication is unusual: AHELOYA-KHETTA-LOE, TIRIYALOYA-KHETTA-LOE, UDDHALOYA-KHETTA-LOE, LOE, ALOE (all the five against davvao'; probably all the five against kalao2; definitely all the five against bhavao3). There are some other nikṣepas having also more than one catch-word: No.64 51 (JIVA and AJĪVA) and $56 (PARAMANU-POGGALA etc.). The comparison is, however, very general as the latter examples betray no davva-loga influence. Apart from the general treatment there are two details which demonstrate that No.38b$2 in spite of the quintuplication - nearer to the davvao than to the davva-loga type: the eternity cliché, supplied against kālac2, "na kayavi nasi ..." (e.g. compare Nos. 19-27: $1-9); and the bhavao3 predication "... vanna-pajjava ..." (compare Nos. 19-22: $1-4). These are features which belong to the davvao area. For further details refer to No.38a$2
20 B is
20 A.
NOTES: For garuya-lahuya see the Notes on No. 19$1.
(B)
SAMUKHA, DAVVA-LOGA TYPE
NO.38" $20A
BHAGAVATI 11.10.419. DELEU pp.176-77 (XI 101).
"kaivihe nam, bhante, LOE pannatte?"
-
REFERENCES: AgS pp.521b-522a; S.1, p.631;
"Goyama, cauvvihe LOE pannatte, tam jahā: davva-LOE khetta-LOE2 kala-LOE bhava-LOE."
