History of Canonical Literature of Jainas

Author(s): Hiralal R Kapadia, Nagin J Shah
Publisher: Prakrit Text Society Ahmedabad

Page 276

APPENDIX : Schubring's ĀCĀRĀNGA ANALYSIS
259 of the type A, as also Ay, the other while not lacking A, mostly made up of those of the type A, B and C (which latter also appearing as interpolations) and with hetero-metrical lines for a beginning..
A hard and fast separation which, in view of the allotment of A, now on this side now on that could allow itself to be conducted from a mere subjective angle, I do not attempt; rather I now proceed to collect together what is obvious. The reading of the Nāgārjunīyas to 1 7 shows how the subject is thought of : "addressed (or not) [by a woman] the Lord did not permit the sinful deed”; by pāvaga, which would not be comprehensible after 7a, is meant the sexual act. 7b is directly a continuation of 69, whereof a doublet (of the type B) is present in 6b; 7a is further carried by 8b. In 15a begins, after the knowledge as to the living character of everything was attained, a consideration of the uvahi of the fool. It is not continued by 15b and hardly by 16ab but by 17b and 19ab, on the other hand if one arrays together 179 and 1gab one gets a much better sense for aivattiyā anāutti - which would now refer to food (ahākada) instead of the woman - 200 is no conclusion to 200 - to which is added the circumstance that it is a C-line : This leads me to surmise that in this case the optatives standing there are not used in an indicative sense but are exact and the lines have originated from a different context. The same certainly seems, to me, to be the case with 2 12b. To judge from the similarity of its first half with 39, this line does not refer to Mahāvīra but presents a general rule for the monk. With this we are already in the 2nd Uddeśa whose initial lines, with the exception of 1o, in their totality display metrical shortcomings. 16 in itself builds a sentential unity while one expects here a demonstrative concluding-sentence. The next lines read as if simply pieced together from prose-series in the manner of Ācāranga II 2 2.8, Jin. 89, Aup. 38-end. Hence 4a, even if not constructed according to A,, is to be combined with 19, in which combination we get the correspondence to jāo sejjāo in eehim sayaņehim – while one does not see the continuation of 12a in 12b one does so in 15ab. For the verse 14, owing to its C-type, is characterized as an interpolation which in the spondee-form of its 4th foot in 2 displays a shortcoming (Jacobi ZDMG, 40 336). The 3rd Uddeśa is, so far as it concerns its content, most unitary, its verses display that mixture of forms which I have above set apart as the type A, only occasionally mixed with A,. Interruptions of the context do not take place here. On the other hand, 1b of the 4th Uddeśa stands in direct contradiction to 1a; on this