________________
फेब्रुआरी २०११
१८७
trišatam catuhpañcāśac cāhorātrāņām karma-samvatsaraḥ
(2.7.6). “Three hundred and fifty-four days and nights consti
tute the year of work” (Kangle's translation).
This duration is not that of the k.s. as understood in the Jaina sources (= 360 days), but that of a lunar year, close to the number of 354 12/62 given in JK:
tinni ahoratta-satā caupannā niyamaso have cando
bhāgā ya bāras' eva ya bāvațțhi-kateņa chedeņa (45).
Thus as understood in the Arthaśāstra the two terms karmasamvatsara- and māsa- do not belong to the same computing system: k.-māsa belongs to the “practical year” and k.samvatsara to the lunar year. (iii) The Jaina pair of terms could well have been completed by a third one formed in the same way (karma+X) referring to the “practical = civil day” in contradistinction with the lunar day, the well-known tithi, and other types of days corresponding to the different types of years and months. In the Svetāmbara canonical sources, this notion is conveyed by ahoratta and rāimdiya. The duration of the civil day is given as follows: be ņāliyā muhutto, satthim puņa ņāliyā ahoratto
(JK 36ab) “Two nālikās are one muhūrta; and 60 nālikās are one day and night”. Such a definition corresponds to the Vedāngas, the Arthaśāstra
zu bezweifeln, dass das Kautiliya der Abfassung des Jainakanons zeitlich nahegestanden hat; denn nur so erklären sich die mannigfachen Übereinstimmungen in Vorstellungen und Worten zwischen beiden", p. 254 = p. 895 of the article "Einteilung des Tages und Zeitmessung im alten Indien" (ZDMG 74, 1920) as reprinted in H. Jacobi, Kleine Schriften, Wiesbaden, 1970.
