________________
APPENDIX : Schubring's ĀCĀRĀNGA ANALYSIS
251
times, in the Uttarādhyayana 120 times, in the Daśavaikālika 35 times). In some of these cases the verse-beginning can also be scanned as Arya and is, therefore, legitimately indented as such in the print. What are undoubtedly Arya-pādas – iħasmuch as they consist of 6 or 7 syllables - appear in 10,28 12,16 (Type A, see p. 60) 22,26 27,16.20.24.31 30,19 (in the place of an even slokas-pāda) 32,20 38,1 39,13 as also in the not accepted variants 4,10* (sampayanti) 13,20* 21, 6* 24,16* 29,15*. 17* 33,20*
The conclusions to be drawn from these metrical features are reserved for future investigations. Certainly it will not do to proceed on the basis of a mere comparative statistics, for the related texts have to be considered not in their totality but in accordance with their respective constituent parts. This much I see — that, e.g., the Tristubh-form above characterized as the type 1st is in the Uttarādhyayana confined to the chapters 12th to 14th.
Let the attempt at an analysis be followed by that at a synthesis. It is worthwhile to investigate how that mosaic has come into existence which today lies before us - (that is) to traverse once more the path which the editor entered upon with a view to building up a composite whole. The tradition had mostly preserved only a series of the inherited nucleus-like words and verses; in any case, many fragments, in the course of time, got loosened from their old context and had to be brought to order. Even the tradition was not always certain. Thus the sentence-fragment 11, 25 se ttam etc. can be explained only on the supposition that the memory that a samutthāe must here suit the thoughts that were forsaken in the sequel of 11, 14 has, in this place, called forth a sentence otherwise not appropriate. In the uddeśa 6, one sees that the interpolation 27, 15, 28, 4 begins with tehim [-tehim C] kulehim āyattāe jāyā and, beyond it, the Tristubh-style continues with ---- attattāe tehim - tehim kulehim --- abhisamjāyā. The line 32, 14 is absolutely out of context after 13 and is at the most possible after 15; the same beginning tamhā is shown by 16. Also to be mentioned is kankhejjā kālam after kālovanie in 32, 23. Lastly, in 33, 28 there similarly appears an obvious anacoluthia with the beginning tam parinnāya mehāvī, and with the same turn of speech begins 34, 5, the concluding sentence following 33, 26f. In all these cases, therefore, there was alive a tradition of further continuation but how this continuation was to run was in dispute. In Gott. gll. Auz. 1899, 591
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
