Mahaviras Word

Author(s): Walther Shubring
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 23

Mahavira's Words by Walther Schubring
other Nayas, insofar as they come in question because of their style," in the survey of the Anga which makes up an appendix to the Samavaya," in the Paṇhävägaraṇaim and (4) Say. II 2, 66.12 Even here the äryä shines forth. In Samosarana § I the vanṇaya (description), "city", begins: riddha-tthimiya-samiddha, pamuiya-jana-jāṇavayā, āiņṇa-jaṇa-manasa, to which the first vedha introduced by hala-sayasahassa joins. Immediately thereafter follows ucchu-jayasāli-kaliya (equal to the veḍha: ucchu-jaya-sāli-māliņiyā), and a bit later visattha-suh 'āvāsā between numbers 6 and 7 in Jacobi's list." The compounds quoted here are each in the triple rhythm of an äryä. Similar ones appear everywhere in accompaniment to the vedha" and this accordingly is not a product of chance, nor even a subsequent interpolation; as Jacobi has rightly noticed, only complete half gāhās appear as interpolations," namely, those which can
be removed from the text.
4
The absence of a structure according to stanzas based on different lengths of the vedha gives a vedha text the character of rhythmic prose (just as the commentaries deal with them),"
10 But not in Nayas 6, 7, 10, 11, 14 and 15. The veḍhas of the other Nayas which do not appear in Uvav., Jin. and Naya 1, §§ 1-146 (Steinthal), appear in the new edition on folios (errors excepted): 78a!, 79a!b, 92a!, 96b, 98b, 99b, 126b, 130b, 133b!, 134b, 135b?, 140b, 157a!, 160b!, 173b!, 179a, 205b!, 209a, 211b!, 213a! and 2186. For the use of "!" see footnote 14 below.
11 Most convenient is Weber 1883, pp. 266f. But a comparison with the new edition (folios 109b ff. (Mehesana 1918, repr. Delhi 1965)) is indispensable.
12 Suy. II, 1, 13ff. (see for this Bollée 1977, pp. 131ff.) is merely a quotation. (In the margin of his personal copy Schubring wrote here: "Jivabhigama" WB.)
13 The numbers in Jacobi 1885, p. 410 are to be increased by 1 after 4, because ceiya-äyäraitta-juvaivisamnivittha is also obtained through a contextual transposition. Elsewhere too some things (more appropriate) have to be added to the list.
14 For the Samos. the following §§ are to be noted: 2 (la'u, uvaciya-); 4 (abbhintara-, bahira-, occhanna); 11 (purisa-, sayan 'a; 12 (sukumala-); 32 (samsara-, asā-, samaņa); 33 (vām 'e, culamani- and hāra-); [38] (vavagaya-); 38 (aviddha-). Cp. for others in Jin. the §§ 10, 14, 32, 36; the same in Naya 1 §§ 32, 112, 122, 138. Samos. § 16 says siddhigai-namadhejjam and § 17 nhãe kaya-balikamme, without a vedha between more expanded prose, not that this might be a proof against their metrical nature. Even the only occurrence in Suy. has in nicc 'andhayara-tamasa a triple rhythm next to it. For the triple rhythm in Naya see fn. 10 above where "!" has been inserted; cf. also folio 81b. On folio 213a in gaganam abhilanghayanto, the only nominative in o might be a mistake.
15 For § 16 anuloma-vau-vege kanka-ggahaṇī kavoya-pariṇāme, the addition is proved because between "joints" and "well-formedness" the reference to "internal winds" (better so than "life-breath"), "stomach mesentery" and "digestion" do not fit. At the beginning of the last paragraph of § 16 there is, further, as a päthabheda: naga-nagara-magara-sagara-cakk'anka-vas 'anka-mangal'anka-pae (read so instead of mangal' ankiya-calane). Apart from the note on the half gäha of Jin. § 42, reference is also to be made to Naya 1, folio 73a: chatth 'atṭhama-dasama-duvalasehi(m) mas 'addhamasa-khamanehim.
16 What they in fact also do in the Ayāra, a mixture of prose and sloka or tristubh.