________________
232
Mahāvira's Words by Walther Schubring - Appendix 1
which (verses) the preacher inserted his own words, often disturbing the rhythm, or reworded, supplemented, yes, limited, the content (13, 4). Not seldom are verse quotations included in these elucidations: these are the places which unlike the spoken ("...") and reflected (...) words appear in the text in special quotes (, ...). Secondly, striking places have remained, mainly technical, schematic (23, 3) and logical (25, 12-16) series and enumerations which as such imprint themselves on one's memory. The longest such series can be found in 1C and 3C, in both cases, namely, near an accumulation of certain chiastic figures which have also been retained as orientation signs. Fifteen of them are to be counted in the text: from 3, 14 je logam abbhāikkhai, se attānam abbhāikkhai and vice versa onward. Through their appearance in both kinds of the verse style-albeit in uneven distribution, they are a proof of the approximate simultaneity of their origin and in their conspicuously large number together with several puns (16, 14. 25, 26) a characteristic of the rhetorical individuality of the preacher. That Mahāvira himself would be the preacher is out of the question in view of the direct reference to him (12, 19 33, 22 39, 15). On the other hand, in the group of prose fragments 1A, etc., the ipsissima verba are evidently also introduced as such (cf. Caillat 1994, pp. 76. (WB)).
Against the background of the so to say "sermonized" verses the analysis thus reveals the pure metre which admittedly does not quite splendidly do justice to the rules of regular verse construction. The metre is far more irregular than that of the Sū., Utt. and Das. to which the metrical parallels of the Ācār. include only correct lines. At a closer examination, by far not all lines indicated as metrical in print can be taken into consideration. Those which are more strongly disturbed are omitted even when, partly on the basis of parallels, I express my conjectures regarding how they are to be read metrically. Often one should not attempt to determine them entirely. The assumption of the verse character is based, e.g., for the conclusion of 22, 4 and for 29, 9, on the concluding viyāhie which is very popular as a verse end. A jagati metre is to be supposed in 9, 24; 13, 16 could have read: ... siôsiņa-ccāi pharusiyam na veyai; 29, 27ff.: cira-rāyam riyamāṇānam daviyānam pās'ahiyāsiyam; evam tesim kisā bāhā, payaņu(e) mamsa-soņie. But who can prove this?
By way of conjecture I also have for 6, 19: appam khu āum iha māņavānam. The expression iha-m-egesim transmitted here has a reprimanding tone, as also almost always ege alone. But according to the meaning 2) the line cannot entail an accusation. For line 9, 11(read): anohãtară ee (cp. p. 61) or aņohamtaragā ee. Line 13, 18: nare (54) jarā-maccu-vasóvanie, cp.
See Jacobi 1915, pp. 283f. for his reservation concerning Schubring's method of identifying verse fragments and explaining the genesis of the Āyar. which Schubring edited and is supplied in an appendix (WB).
2 Schubring uses the word "Sentenz" which means aphorism'. For Jacobi this line is not an aphorism (WB).
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
