________________
BHATTACHARYA: HARIBHADRA'S SADDARSANA SAMUCCAYA
It is of interest to note that Bhāvaviveka cites another verse in his glosses on MS, 16.1 and 18.6. Restored to Sanskrit it would run as follows:
sundari cărulocanabhūtvā khāda varagātri te atitam yat tat na/ viru gatam na nivartate kalevaram idam samudayamātram (iti) //11 Evidently this is the translation of the following verse as it occurs in Haribhadra's SDSam (as also in Rajasekharasūri's) :
139
piva khāda ca carulocane yadatītam varagätri tan na te / na hi viru gatam nivartate samudayamātram idam kalevaram//12 'Oh! The one who possesses beautiful eyes! Drink and eat. Oh ! The one with a charming body! That which is past does not belong to you. Oh! The timid one! The past never comes back. This body is only a collectivity.'
The verse is also found in Śilānka's commentaries on the Acarangasūtra (AS) and the Sutrakṛtāngasūtra (SKS).13 In SKSVṛ the verse occurs immediately after the etävän eva verse (with one variant in the first line: ṣadhu sobhane in place of carulocane as found in ASVṛ). Silanka quotes the verse again with the same reading, but accompanied only by the pratika (first part) of the etāvān eva verse.14
I hope most readers would agree that this second verse, too, forms a part of the parable of the wolf's footprint. The parable, it may be remembered, was originally concerned with the existence of imperceptible things which are deduced solely on the basis of inference from a major premise which is itself faulty. The premise is something like this: 'If there is a mark on the dust that looks like a wolf's footprint, it must have been made by a wolf.' People who said so (whom the nastika husband considered to be lacking in sufficient knowledge) did not care to think that a man, too, might have made such a mark with his fingers. Through the demonstration of the folly of such learned people, blindly relying on inference unpreceded by perception, the husband convinced his wife that the sastric injunctions relating to the edible and inedible, etc. are all bogus. G. concludes his elaborate exposition of the parable with the following remark:
11. PrPr, ff. 203b8-204al and 232b7-8 (on MS. 16.1 and 18.6); vol. 2, pp. 3, 64.
12. SDSam(H), v. 82; SDSam(R), v. 161, p. 81.
13. ASVṛ (on AS, 1.4.2, p. 123); SKSVṛ (on SKS, 1.1.6, p. 10. 6-7 and 2.3.10. p. 49. 17-18).
14. SKSVṛ, on 2.1.47, p. 186. 29-30.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
