________________
110
COMMENTARY
In the choice of this word lies the only criticism of the contents of what they proclaim. The first of them is “he who, under the example of a staff, by showing its beginning, middle and end speaks of "mere concretum" (samudaya), moreover asserts that the soul does not live longer than its - body, and thus represents the negation (vyavaccheda) of the migration through the forms of existence” (vadati, to be sure, has to be mentally added to abhidhanāni, just so 1,9). The second is "he who, under the example of a rope, by demonstrating that this is only a concretum, speaks of a "mere aggregate of the five elements", and thus represents the negation of the course through the profusion of existences". samsāra and samsīti are synonymous; perhaps samtati is to be read instead of samsati, cp. 21,3. The third utkata is a "borrower" (stena). Thus it called "he who, with the help of examples which he picks out (grahaih) from other texts of instruction, is fond of extolling his own point of view, and, insisting on it, represents the negation (cheda) of tolerance". Fourthly, an utkața is named from the fact that "after the existence of a soul (independent of the body) (asti ny eșa) has been proved to bim he denies it (at least] partially (desa), by far-fetched (arguments) (grāhaih), according to which e.g. it does not act (akarty). In the fifth place finally stands the absolute disavower, who denies every possibility (sambhava) that a soul exists. The "third” (tacca), which does not come in question, seems to be the partial affirmation, lying between positive and negative, which is contained in 4,
As elsewhere the molto, thus here the assertion is provided with an expostion (1.21 ff.). If already the nom. jivo 1.5, and the five elements 1.8 recalled the Syyagada (anno jivo annam sariram Suy. II 1.15, pance-mahabbhuiya ibid. 20), literal reminsences of phe former passage follow here. From the preceding (1.17) comes sambhavabhāvā (1.32), but the application is a different one. The meaningless eya (1.29 can perhaps be interpreted as a misunderstanding of the abbreviation-syllables pa and ka. In case of the former, this has no difficulty.
21.
pura and puvvam are combined with the pres. tense in conformity with the syntax of Sanskrit, and this present-tense finite verb is represented by the pres. part. in st. 4 according to a conjecture lying near at hand. annāna-mülakam (once olakam like vannāgam 38,4) is an adverb (“on the basis of ignorance"), cp. 40,3. diftho (6) = drsfavān: for the lion in the well cp. Pancatantra 1,8, Hitopadeśa -2, 11. Bhaddā (8) recalls the mother or Sukosala, cp. v. Kamptz, Sterbefasten p. 37.
22.
The prese exposition 1.4 ff. stresses by means of a number of comparisons that the dhammā=gamadhammā, Āyara 135, 18, obtain for man exclu
