________________
258
Mahavira's Words by Walther Schubring
Addition to fn. 136, p. 137:
Read ra'-ovara(y)e, as required by the metre and confirmed in Utt. 15, 2; or: rā'-u°, for which cf., for example, Dighanikaya 15, 5: eka-bhattiko samano Gotamo ratt'-uparato (commented upon in Buddhaghosa's Sumangalavilāsini 77, 16 as: ratti-bhojanam ratti; tato uparato ti ratt'-uparato). For the ban on eating after sunset see Balbir 1987-88 and Dundas 2002, p. 159, with further literature. Another possible interpretation of the compound, because the first member is read differently, is given by Devendra 215a 3 for Uttar. 15, 2 rāôvarayam carejja, viz., rāgovarayam ti uparata-rāgo yatha bhavati. However, there are no parallels in Pali or Skt dictionaries. But if rāôvaraya is taken as an adjective the meaning 'unimpassioned' would fit in well with a-paḍinne (WB).)
Appendix 4
Addition to fn. 10, p. 140:
The last d-pāda need not be a quotation because of the change of subject. Such changes are characteristic of Prakrit, see Jacobi 1886, p. 29. Jacobi 1895, p. 236 translates the stanza in question so: "Some men, Śramaņas and Brahmanas, who ignore and deny these true words, adhere (to their own tenets), and are given to pleasures." The latter are discussed in Jayatilleke 1963, p. 67 who quotes Jacobi and refers to Dighanikaya III 130, 23f. According to this text heterodox wanderers might say that the disciples of the Sakya (Buddha) live in luxury.
Addition to fn. 30, p. 142:
It is not necessary to see the heretics here as the Nigganthas because the first line is an awkward combination of two cliché-like and somehow pleonastic pādas. Therefore one should not attach too much importance to it. Śil. had problems with the word pdsattha for which he gives two explanations: parivastha or pašastha. In Amg. however, it means 'heterodox'. See Bollée 1977, pp. 86f. (read "weiterhin" for "sehr" in Bollée's translation here).
Addition to fn. 36, p. 143:
In his translation Jacobi (1895, p. 241) leaves out ege and makes the heterodox who are speaking here attack all brahmins. Since ege and savve cannot both be subjects of vae, savve is perhaps a neuter accusative as in 1, 1, 1, 12 ('some... assert to be omniscient') or else an anacoluthon due to affect. A scribal error, savve for savvam, is also possible. Norman 1996, p. 179 thinks savvam was the original reading which was intentionally corrupted later by someone who thought that the verse ought to mean that all ascetics say they have knowledge.
Addition to fn. 45, p. 144:
Schubring's arrangement of the pādas here is possible, but not necessary. See Bollée 1977, p. 96. The verses 21f. are quoted in Vidyabhusana 1921, p. 162. Instead of Schubring's 'truly a righteous one', ayam añjū hi in 21b (as read by Jacobi as well), apparently following Śil., Bollée 1977, p. 98 reads aimañjūhi and translates it as 'by their over-beautiful speculations'.
Jain Education International
Footnote 52, p. 145:
Though the connection of the verses in the canonical works is often loose, here Schubring inserts 1, 1, 3, 1 as an example of stanza 29, without any explanation. The contents may justify such an insertion, which nevertheless seems unnecessary.
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
