________________
112
COMMENTARY
So far the range of thoughts in the expositionary prose. This "display" (if we correctly understand the atirya *nirveşti- or *nirvayaşți?.-) and the entering into salvation (siva) surely do not go together in any way, and we are led to the assumption that the letter has been wrongly anticipated from 1.14, where it stands likewise after an absolutive (vītivatitta-vyati patya) and has displaced a description of the manner of 9,1.16 f. Cp. the omission 3,1.3. Re atāreluka 1.9, cp. Pischel 395 end. The aniccata is further dealt with in st. 1-20, while the later ones discuss Karman. For tamañsi (1), one should expect tamammi in the verse, văţadhāna is up till now recorded as a proper name only (references in Charpentier, Paccekabuddhageschichten, p. 161), and Jacobi bas corrected himself accordingly in the glossary of his Ausgewaehlte Erzaeheungen. But in our passage, only a general conception is suitable at the side of kantara, vāri, aggi, and tamo. As such, vatadhana offers itself in the sense of "borough", literally "place of fences'. just as loc. cit. p.37,17 vadahāņaga hariesa cannot possibly mean the Candalas of the place Vatadhana, which would certainly not be mentioned, but only the inhabitants of the “borough” concerned. For the combination with kantāra cp, the frequent juxta-position of (a)ranna and gama, among others above 14,1.6f. For saya, one would expect savvattha with these designations of place. udumbaka (4) instead of bara. Correct vice jata (15) = yada would be sada. pakati (16) like nikkhati 26, 14, kata 28,12;36,15, mata 45,14, perhaps also 14,8; kita 45,45.
25.
Like the 20th chapter, the 25th too is not an original product, but a loan. Its character as a fragment stands out even more boldly, as the removal from a greater, unknown context becomes clear by the beginning tae nam (cp. OLZ 1932,145). Ambada (or Ammada) is canonically known from the Uvavaiya (389-116), but is not introduced there as a parivrajaka. His partner Jogamdharāyaṇa, after whom, properly speaking, the chapter ought to be named, is if identical with Udayana's Minister Yaugamdharayaņa, likewise a Brahmin, but he speaks as a Jaina here. According to Abhidbanarā jendra, he appears in a story of the Avassaya-Cunni. Ambada now questions him [1.] why he does not live as a brahmacärin, just as he himself has renou. nced sexual desire (gabhha-vāsāhi iostr. probably= garbha-varşebhyaḥ and 1.50 °şeşu), Yaugamdharāyaṇa replies that men are carried away (harita) by all sorts of “appropriations" (adana)' i. e, evil actions (pāpa karman), and out of this bondage then follows sexual activity. He thus means to make Ambada undarstand that renunciation alone, of which the latter bosts, is not enough. He who, however, [2] lives according to monastic ethics (1.16ff; ti-gutta 1.21 is out of place), for him [3] women with their allurements (1.34f.) do not even enter the spiritual horizon,
