________________
English translation by George Baumann
āesā jahā ajjaMangū tiviham samkham icchai egabhaviyam baddh’āuyam abhimuha
nāmagoyam, ajjaSamuddä duviham baddh'āuyam abhimuha nāmagoyam ca,
ajjaSuhatthi egam abhimuha-nāmagoyam icchai. mukka-vāgaranā jahā "varisa deva Kunālāe” “Marudevā anādi-vanassai-kāiyā’l. ee āesa-mukkavāgaraņā angabāhirā. As this passage infers, the author of the KalpaCūrņi seems to have assumed that
first of all, only the third individual case was introduced by Suhastin, then, besides, the second individual case by Samudra,
and finally, also the first individual case by Mangu, so that the complete schema, as it appears in the Uttarâdhyayana-niryukti (and is presupposed in the Sūtraksta-niryukti) has been in use since Mangu. This gradual manner of development of the third subdivision cannot be possible. In contrast, a contentwise related tradition, which has been preserved in the AvasyakaCūrni (at niry. IX 107'), confirms that it is Mangu from whom the said subdivision originates: davv'āyario tiviho: egabhavio baddh'āuo abhimuha-nāmagoo, egabhavio jo egenam
bhaveņam uvavajjihiti, baddh'āuo jeņa āuyam baddham, abhimuha-nāmagoo jeņa
padesā ucchūdhā. ahavā mūlagune nivvattio uttaraguņe nivvattio ya. sarīram mülaguņo, citta
kamm'ādi uttaraguno. ahavā jānao bhavio vairitto. Mangu-vāyagānam Samudda-vāyagāņam Nāgahatthi-vāyagāņam jahā-samkham ādeso. Mangu distinguishes egabho baddho abhim, Samudda
mülago uttarag Nāgahatthi
jāņaya bhaviya vairitta. It is being said here that Samudda and Nāgahatthi (instead of Suhatthi!) had made other subdivisions than Mangu, and this is, in any case, the only credible depiction. The KalpaCūrni has simply forgotten the subdivision by Samudda and Suhatthi and replaced them by those that just by counting had been acquired from Mangu's subdivision. In this respect, however, the KalpaCūrni seems to be right, when it speaks about Suhatthi and not about Nāgahatthi. Since the subdivision ascribed to him is identical with the second in the schema of Uttaradhyayana-niryukti, it must chronologically precede the third (which Mangu introduced). According to tradition, only Suhatthi lived before Mangu, Nāgahatthi later, and, in fact, so late that he cannot be plausible for other reasons also; for details cp. ZDMG XXXVII 501.
Due to the preceding remarks, it is justified to presume that Bhadrabāhu has adopted the Uttarâdhyayana-niryukti without shortening or changing it too much in a form that had been edited in the awkward manner of Mangu.
The historical Bhadrabāhu
"Bhadrabāhu", in the hitherto intended meaning, is only a literary name. It is the traditional designation for the anonym who produced the Niryukti collection. Therefore, it is an author's name of the type that can be abundantly found in India (in law texts and in many
These are two citations, which have been taken from Av.-C. X 35; they should draw attention to the fourth and first of the theses mentioned on p. 24'n.. Of course, it is a mistake to reclaim the meaning on the basis of aesa in Av.-niry. X 35 for mukkavāgarana. Also āesa has not been correctly understood; on the contrary, one should correct Hemacandra's translation of II as follows:
H. The former contains schematic, the latter independent depictions.
In fact, the old non-anga-texts (Daśavaik., Uttarâdhy., etc.) mainly differ from the Anga-s in that they have freed themselves from their stereotyped depiction.
65
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
