Mahaviras Word

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

Page 24

The Canon of the Svetāmbara Jainas
and this rhythm is strengthened by a further application of āryā parts." It cannot be a coincidence that in the aforementioned Samavāya section the following) places in Weber 1883, are gāhā lines, in which the last four or two morae are needed to be complete: p. 294, no. 6: nāņāviha-ppagārā jīvājīvā ya vanniyā, p. 314, no. 2: samjama-painna (so the edition) pālaņa-dhii-mai-vavasāya-dubbalāņam; p. 318, no. 15: jaha jiņa-mayammil' bohim laddhūņa ya samjam' uttamam; p. 325, no. 17: anagara-maharisīņam anagāra-guņāna(m) vannao. On p. 305 (folio 114b of the edition) there are (5) three quarters of a stanza: suravai-sampūiyāņam bhaviya-jana-paya (= prajā or pada) -hiyayabhinand(iy)āņam tama-raya-vidhamsaņānam. The triple rhythm, on the other hand, appears to have disappeared from the Samavāya, as if now the desire for an āryā rhythm had been satisfied in another way. The vedhas display a less regular structure: the sentences are freer, formed partly without care; the general impression is one of deterioration. If one wants to attempt a chronology of the vedha texts, then the Samavāya appendage belongs at the end. To this relative dating it is also true that whereas for all the other Angas, through the uddesana-kāla, etc., a study plan is given, such an instruction is completely absent in the Ditthivāya and, moreover, the sub-classification is kept indefinite. Therefore, the twelfth Anga was no longer in front of the author (on this text see Alsdorf 1973).
Looking at it statistically the vedha can seriously compete with the gähā in the canon. A reference to vannaya, which above all contain vedhas, is found in quite a few places: in Anga 5-9. 11, Uvanga 2. 5. 6. 8-12, Dasā 5. 9. 10, and it certainly wins when one imagines the hundreds of repetitions hinted at by keywords and mere names as fully expressed. However, those hints are not of much significance. In these texts we do not have to do with authentic vedha texts, but with imitations. The texts are limited to keywords as a means to record the place and persons, probably without realizing that this wording displayed a metrical form, and in this way these false vedha texts are the first prose works we come across along our way through the canon. Their editor, however, not only does not have the obligation to supply these vannaya in detail, but he also generally does justice to the intention of the author by retaining their abridgement. Thus, we notice a period in which good taste demanded beginning with the
17 Weber 1883, p. 276= 112a of the edition, allows one full stanza, called gāthāviseșa by Abhayadeva (this is a giti) to be restored: selā salila ya samudda-sūriya (instead of süra-bhavana)-vimäna-āgara-nadio nihao purisa-ijāyā sara ya gottā ya joi-samcālā.
* This locative in ammi belonging to the gähā has intruded the vedhas of the Samaväya, cf. säsanammi on p. 314, no. 19; p. 315, nos. 5 and 117a of the edition. The nominative in e, on the other hand, has been retained, whereas the gāhās show only the o (also Āyār. II 15, IX, read maudo).