Mahaviras Word

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

Page 48

The Canon of the Svetāmbara Jainas
(tassa āu-yāyassa uvari-tale citthai, 1,6). Suffice it for these more or less naive examples from the graphic explanations in the Viyāhapannatti adapted to the mental capacity of the audience.74
When we turn to the similes we find ordinary snakes (jāi-āsivisā) with their amazing ability (23) to poison contrasted with creatures which are comparable in their effect in the animal, human and divine world (kamma-āsivisa, 8, 2), without the oratorical achievement becoming prominent in the customary form of the presentation. The relation of the compared object to the surrounding is omitted, whereas it appears in the comparisons in Țhāna 4, 4, to which Leumann 1889, p. 331 has already drawn attention, and which, as the core of old oratorical allegories, we cannot ignore here. A teacher here is, in accordance with his inner wealth --in this we may follow the commentary-like the treasure chest (karandaga) of the rude Cāņdāla, of the conceited prostitute, the wealthy owner, or of the rich prince; it contains what one presupposes of it, and is as big as the sāl tree or as bare as the ricin bush, or it disappoints the expectation. Just as fish move sometimes with the current, sometimes against it, seeking sometimes the bank and sometimes the middle of the water, so too a monk on the way for alms has a certain direction and preference. On the other hand, human beings are as (soft as) wax (madhusittha = madana) or lac, or (hard as] wood or clay; they are like iron, tin, copper or lead [just as heavy with the burden of sin or dignity); they are [valuable) like gold, silver or a diamond; (of different capacity or energy] like a saw (asi-patta = krakaca), a big or small knife (khura-patta; kalambaciriyā-patta = kadambacirikā, sastra-višeşa), [having worldly tendencies in different intensity) like a net of straw (sumbha= trna-višeșa, but rather, like sumbala), cane, leather or cloth (are of different strength] (new edition, Bombay 1918, folios 271 ff.). We should not forget, finally, also the description of the sexual instinct of women, men and napumsaga, how, because of the detailed descriptions, which the later texts preserved," it has been recorded in Jivābhigama II (old edition, Ahmedabad 1883, 1500, 1516, 177a). It is comparable,
74 The explanations about the magical ability to create a number of forms (3,5; 13,9) and about the dense abundance of creatures in the area of the human world and the lower regions (5, 6) leads, for the idea of a large number, to the words: se jahā nāmae juvaim juvāne hatthenam hatthe genheijā, cakkassa vā näbhi arag'āuttā siyā, evām eva ... (already in 3,1,1). The first comparison seems to want to present the density of the togetherness.
They can pervade with poison a body that is half or just as big as Bharaha[vāsa), Jambuddiva or Samayakhetta depending on whether it is a vicchuya (vrścika), mandukka, uraga or manussa snake.
? Probably just a deviating tradition is recorded when following this the comparison substituting pariyāya, "kind of being", with parivära, "studentship" is repeated.
77 Cf. Glasenapp 1915, pp. 25f.