________________
English translation by George Baumann
It can be seen from this that some admirers of Jinavallabha have had the ms. made for him. In this manner, the assumption given below, p. 25, middle, confirms that from the beginning, in a similar manner, P was intended for that scholar. Perhaps, in the almost completely lost concluding stanza of the colophon the scribe, Nemikumāra, has been named. However, his name can also have been lacking, because the colophon was not written by him, but, apparently, by the hand that added the Pratīka (which is again to be casually mentioned below, p. 52on.).
In appearance p is better preserved than P; only about a dozen folios are broken and none were pasted together in such a way that, when separated, any difficulty arose. Most of the folios are much smaller than they must have been originally; on the longer side they have often lost a few lines completely, or almost completely. Consequently, much more is missing from the contents than in the Silānka-manuscript. Still, what the text-body of the manuscript had been can be exactly determined (which for us is the most important). The stanzas [33] have been numbered, interlinear, in a series of ten, and, at the worst, the necessary circumstantial evidence can be deduced from Silānka, as well as from scraps of letters, or at least, from the length of the missing lines.
The pattern. Like the other Bhāsya-s and the Āvasyaka-niryukti our text treats the introduction as a special part; here, it is not called pedhiyā, but pedha-bandha. Consisting of 1012 stanzas and closing with the colophon pedhabandho samatto, it comments, to begin with, the pedhiyā of the Niryukti (Āv.-niry. I) in 1-836 and then reproduces in 836-1012 the Anuyogadvāra in the manner described above. As said before, the main part of the work consists of three parts:
1013–3332 handling of the uvagghāya-nijjuttī (Āv.-niry. II-VIII). 33320-4020 “ “ “namokkāra-nijjuttī (“ “ LX). 4021-4329 “
" “ “ samais
"sāmāiya-nijjuttī (“ “ X). The three parts are not numbered and are not systematically separated from each other. The conclusion of the first part is indicated in the versified text (33329 ii esa uvagghão 'bhihio Sāmāiyassa) and the conclusion of the second only by a particular internal colophon (namokkāranijjutti-bhāsyam, namo suya-devayāe namo jināya). The third part does not have any concluding statement at all since the words iya parisamāviyam idam Sāmāiyam atthao samāsena (4328°) pertain to the entire work.
The other Bhāsya-s have a simple and self-evident structure, which, of course, could not be applied to our work. They saw themselves confronted with a numbered sūtra-arrangement that had only to be continued with the added pedhiyā in the Niryukti; Kalpabh. pedh. & I-VI, Niś.-bh. pedh. & I-XX, Vyavah.-bh. pedh. & 1-X. In the Avaśyaka literature the sūtra at the opening had already been enlarged with the Pancanamaskāra and the Niryukti received a completely new arrangement through its numerous enlargements. Thus, it is understandable that except for the indispensable separation of the introduction not much of the arrangement system is noticeable in Jinabhadra's work.
The conclusions of the smaller sections and their sub-sections are marked in the other Bhāsya-s fairly regularly by dāfram). - Signs of particular internal colophons are very seldom. A case is understandable that has to be presented in the next section (depicting the versenumbering); but another one surprises by its isolation and incompleteness: namely, in dealing with the seven mentioned Anuyoga-types in 1387 the normal dā(ram) has been replaced three times by an internal colophon". A third case can be found at the conclusion of the passage to be mentioned below, p. 41044.
* After 1401 comes kşetrânuyogas samāptah, after 1403 kālânuyogas samāptaḥ, after 1404 vacanânuyogas samāptah.
89
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
