________________
64
REVIEWS
yena braviti pañceti/ In a footnote the maxim is thus explained :kanduyanartham stanbhädau sithilabandhakhadge chāgi grīvāń prasiirayati yadrcchaya ca grīvā chidyate's tathābhūto "jākrpānīyanyayah kākatālīyanyāyasamah/ Vardhamâna puts it differently in his comment on Ganaratnamahodadhi iii.196:-yathājayā bhümin khunantyätmavadhāya kopāņo darsitas tattulyar vịttam kenacid ātmavināśāya krtam ajākrpāṇīyam/"
It appears that both the explanations given above are based on different versions of the same story. The first explanation makes the death of the sheep altogether accidental as it is shown to result from the fall of a sword loosely tied to a post or some such thing. The second explanation, on the other hand, allows the room for accident only upto the point that a sword hidden in the ground was accidentally brought to the notice of some one who was probably looking for it and who having found it killed the sheep with it. The expression ātmavināśāya seems to suggest the stupidity of the sheep in being responsible for bringing the knife to light. Both these motifs are brought together in a version of the story which is preserved in the Takkāriyajātaka (481). The occasion at which the story was narrated shows that it was intended to illustrate the foolishness of the sheep. A Brāhmaṇa named Takkāriya had almost succeeded in bringing about the death of the paramour of his wife. But as he foolishly rushed to reveal the plan to his wife he himself fell a prey to his trick. To this foolish behaviour on the part of the Brāhmaṇa a reference is made in the opening line of the Jātaka which forms part of the Găthå (1) placed in the mouth of Takkäriya. It describes the Brāhmaņa a bāla 'a fool'. cf. aham eva dribbhāsitan bhasi bālo (DUTOIT, "Ich sagt, ich Tor, was ich nicht sagen sollte"). As Takkāriya stood there with the threat of death on his head, his pupil began to narrate to hirn how others also had suffered death on different occasions for having acted foolishly or for not having guarded their speech. Among the four stories told by the pupil, the first one describes a merchant's son bringing misfortune to himself by not controlling his tongue and rendering unnecessary advice. In the other three stories death came to those who did some foolish acts. Among these occurs the story of a sheep which was
15. The commentary Padamañjari on Kāśikā 5.3.106 gives also somewhat similar explanation, but it makes the death of the sheep more accidental as it makes no reference to the scratching of the neck by the sheep, cf. ajāyā gacchantyäh ky páncnadhahpatata yathā vadhas tatsadream ityarthaḥ/ The Pandit, Vol. XVII.367 (Benares, 1895). Some such explanation was also known to the authors of the Tattvabodhini and the Bālamanorama commentaries on the Siddhāntakaumudi. Accidental death of a goat is also referred to in the Jātaka 18, where the mishap is said to have occurred due to a piece of stone which sprang as a result of a lightning-stroke.
Madhu Vidyā/587
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
