________________
and Sn. Afthakavagga. The reading in Ga. 20b (*jālam ... saunto), as against Pa. 28b (jālam va bhetvā salil' umbucārī), has indeed probably been altered, possibly on the model of sakuntojalamutto va in Dhp 174c, as Salomon implies, p. 149. The occurrence in Sn 971f. of phrases corresponding to the two variant readings of one verse, Ga. 28ab okşitacakhu yaşacari gramo gutimdriyo ... and Pa, 29ab okkhittacakkhu na ca pādalolo guttindriyo ..., implies that the Gandhari has inaccurately adapted Sn's gutto yatacāri gūme, in preference to the expression pädalolo. When it is a question of the arrangement of verses, however, the contiguity of two similar phrases in Dhp 331bc and Ga, 34f. contrasts with their arbitary dispersal in Pa. 8 and 40. The fact that Sn774ab shares phrases with both Pa. 31 and 23, which are contiguous in Ga. 12-13, could similarly be an indication that the more original sequence is preserved in the Gandhari and in Athakavagga.
Of a couple of items of vocabulary that Ga. alone shares with Dhp, one is the Uddana keyword oharina for Ga. 19 (Salomon, pp. 37, 194). Judging by the catchwords in -aņa that have been reconstructed for Ga. 2 and 9, this ohariņa would stand for the *ohāraņa that is appropriate to the reading of Pa. 30, and not to that of Ga. 19. Salomon has shown that the copyist has in effect substituted ohāriņam, the initial word of the second pāda of Dhp 346. This procedure may have been encouraged by the Ga, readings: its first pāda begins with an apparently irrelevant ośadaila, but its second has ošina.
The significant feature here is the dispersed occurrence in Pa. 10ab and 30ab of two versions of the one hemistich of Ga. 19ab and the Sanskritized Mahāvastu: Pa. 10 oropayitvā gihivyañjanāni
samsinapatto yaihā kovidaro, chetvāna viro gihibandhanāni eko care khaggavisánakappo.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
