________________
APPENDIX IV
passage under consideration. In proof of this assertion no evidence has been brought forward either from Sanskrit Literature or from glossaries (kosas).355 It is true that matsyaphalā and māmsa-phalā are names of certain plants, but not the words matsya and māmsa by themselves, and even that meaning would not suit the requirement of our case. Mamsa and maccha occur only once more in the Pindesanā (1,9,3) and there they must be taken in their primary sense of 'meat' and 'fish.' That passage has reference to a meal which is being prepared for a guest or a sick person. After the usual opening words we read massam vā maccham vā majjijjamānam pehāe. The attribute majjijjamānam being fried or roasted shows that by mamsa and maccha 'conserve of fruits' cannot be meant. [238] The householder who makes those preparations for the reception of a guest, need not be a Jaina layman; it is, therefore, not to be wondered at that he has meat or fish roasted for the guest. It will thus be seen that the exegetical rules of philology oblige us to attribute to the words mamsa and maccha, in the doubtful passage, their primary meaning 'meat' and 'fish.' But how are we to reconcile this result with the prohibition of animal-food? Even if it be granted that this prohibition had not been as strictly observed of old as in historical times, still we cannot suppose that at any time a Jaina monk should explicitly admit that under certain conditions he was ready to accept as alms 'meat' and 'fish'; for, that would be the meaning of the passage if understood in its literal sense. I think I can suggest a way out of the dilemma, without either putting an inadmissible practice to the ancient Jaina monks. For, two Sanskrit passages, one in the Mahābhāṣya of Patañjali and the other in the Tātparya-tīkā of Vācaspatimisra seem to me to throw some light on the quotation in
355 In order that a learned reader may argue out this case, I may state the
following particulars: (i) In Susrutasamhitā (p. 642) we have: 'cūta-phale 'paripakve keśara
māmsāsthi-majja na prthag drśyante.' (ii) Carakasamhitā (p. 1028) remarks: 'kharjūra-māmsānyatha nārikelam.' (iii) Hemacandra Sūri observes in his Anekārthasamgraha: 'tiktāristā
katur-matsya cakrangi sakulādani.' (iv) Prajñāpanā declares that thereare several plants, etc. which bear the
names of animals.
169
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
