________________
Walther Schubring's Analysis of his 1910 Ācārânga-Sūtra (Āyār'anga-suttam) edition
235
concluding sentence connecting to 33,26f. In all these cases the tradition of continuation was therefore active, but how this continuation was to run was questionable. Leumann 1899, p. 591 has shown that the redaction in such cases simply arranged the given variants one after the other, and so here too we have in front of us varying traditions. These are not the only variant readings of the text, but those which have been given directly one after the other. I have indicated above the more detailed variant of 7,3-6 which appears in fragments in 10, 7-11.9, 18f. and 21. Moreover, one has to regard as fragments: 14, 18f. from 14, 10f.; 30, 27f. from 30, 15--18; 38, 20f. from 37, 14-26.
In grouping the fragments together one has to ask what criteria were decisive for it. The gaps in the text, then, which the analysis regards as beginning something new, have to be investigated in their connection to one another. It is not surprising that the arrangement follows with regard given to the content, but indeed how easily the redactor--to give a name to the author/s of the present form of the text—was satisfied with the appearance of an external relationship of content. The temptation for the link is in fact often great as, e.g., in 20, 16f. or 22, 15f., where the sentence seems to continue; or 9, 2 where mattā seems to correspond to dupaya and cauppaya (8, 27); and in 12, 14 nandi to rai. One interpretation, which I regard as erroneous, makes the words munda in 28, 31 and vidhūya-kappa in 29, 18, to be taken as abstracts, to be connected to the sentences beginning with the concrete acela.
It is less easy to excuse the redactor when, in order to undertake a stringing together, a word or word sequence here and there, indeed just the same verbal root or mere similarity of the sound, suffices. Within and outside the gap are the words: loga in 2, 3f., 3, 12f. and 27; pudho in 2, 5f. and 6f.; te in 6, 23f.; dhammavam (variant: 'vi) and dhammaviū in 13, 13.f.; vayanti in 18, 13 and 15; appa in 19, 19 and atta in 19, 21; bāla 20, 31f.; ettha 21, 11 and 13 (?); from asana to pāya-puñchana in 32, 25f. and 33, 3; the word sequences logamsi jāna and logassa jāṇittă in 13, 9f.; the sentences tam no karissāmi in 4, 15 and tam je no karae in 4, 17, As in the preceding the roots which appear in the sentence put together are: pari-jñā in 1, 19; budh in 2,16; pramad in 4, 3; jñā in 5, 22; and gam in 15, 27. The mere sound connects: tāņāe, saraņāe with hassāe, kiddãe, etc., in 6, 25f.; immediately following this pamattā with hantā, chettä, etc., in 6, 30f. (!), whereby also je and se have been misleading. According to the model of samsamciyānam in 9, 1 tiviheņam is entered again after māņavāņam in 9, 21 !Perhaps sadda in 13, 11 has also been brought about by satthôvaraya.
It is not rare that the sentences which follow each other have neither a linguistically external nor internal relation. This can be explained for (57) a part of the cases in this way: that the train of thought in the insertion runs in a different direction and hence no bridge leads back
Jain Education International
tion International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
