________________
10
Section 20, which has already been referred to repeatedly, must have been especially dear to him, for in view of the superabundance of Rșis which we find among others in the Isimandala, the introduction of an anonymous utkațavadin would not have been necessary, while there is no indication whatever that these expositions have been added later. Before all the last of the five "grand speakers", for whom, -as well as for these refereaces in general, the commentary following below should be compared, obtains, in the final portion, the explanation correct in itself in the materialistic sense. But while in the Süyagada, to which the passage is closely related the refutation does follow after all (in II 1, 17) it is missing here, and the reader of No. 20 is left with the impression that the author shares the point of view of materialism. For he himself introduces it, though certainly only in the course of his elucidation, with the words : therefore I rightly assert the following” (20, line 27), where the first person places itself at the side of those in section 21, 23, 24. We proceed. An allegory carried through, in Indian manner, up to the last point in 26 and 32, is based on the simile of the realization of dharma as of “divine farming” (divvā kisz). Are we too sensitive if we remember that the breaking of the earth" is forbidden to the Jaina layman by Uvāsagadasão § 51, and if we therefore feel the pretty comparison as somewhat out of place ? He who uses that simile in 32 is, it is true, a brahmanical wandering monk. Just such a one, Sirigiri, announces in 37, like a second Thales, that the world originated from water. Two more cosmogonic theories follow this dictum, till the fourth, presented rather unpretentiously, brings the dogmatically correct idea. Strinking like the just mentioned uajinistic saying, is also that one of the buddha Saiputta in 38; it is only in the third stanza of the section that the idea enjoined upon the Jaina appears. In the iwo last cases the motto as well as the originator, othewise the support of the whole, are made unworthy of belief,
p. 500
Thus we have before us a number of passages bewildering with regard to the contents. Earlier generations do not seem to have taken offence at this, otherwise the Pseudo-Bhadrabahu would scarcely have intended to annotate the work, as mentioned in the beginaing. That the Isibbasiyāim have a history, follows from the recording of bio padho in 31. Later on, opposition may possibly have appeared, which led to the neglect of the text.16 Besides everything mentioned, orthodoxy could take it least of all that the founders Vardhamana Mahavira, Pārsva, and the former's adversary Gošāla Maskariputra are represented as Pratyekabuddhas in the
16. Thus, the translation of Dasaveyāliya referred to above p. 498 note 15 likewise fall
into oblivion, since the Indian publishers do not distribute it for want of agreement with the rendering of Dasav. 5, I, 73.
