________________
English translation by George Baumann
namokkāra
89 f.
" " " 42-66
3588-3628 " 67-70
3629-3685 225-281 Aupap. $ 153 conclusion
3686 f. 282 f. 3688-3709 [II 265...288]
3710-3713 284-287 Āv.-niry. IX 910-93
3714-3757 288-331 “ “ 71-73
3758-3783 332-357 3784-3801 [II 302...311) 3802
358 74-88
3803-3817 3818-3830 359-371 3831-3837
372-378 “ “ 91-93
3838-3840
3841-3849 [II 445-453) -100
3850-3856 3857-3862 379-384
3863-3891 [II 431 ... 466) 101-106
3892-3897 107-109
3898-3904 385-391 110-113
3905-3908 114-116
3909-3913 392-396 118-121
3914-3917 122-131' 3918-3927 “ 132-138
3928-3991 397-460
3992-4020 462-490 x2 84
4021-4329 491-799 Sum of the stanzas omitted by Hemac.
sāmāiya
710
[34] Instead of an historical division, a half-way objective and a half-way arbitrary one takes its place. Particularly Hemacandra does not take any commented basic work (the Āvaśyaka or the Avaśyaka-niryukti) as a guide, but rather only the text of the Bhāsya; however, with details he often proceeds unsystematically.
If one considers the contents of the original version from an objective point of view, the following arrangement is discernible. A first (three-part) main piece (A) extends up to 1548. At this point, a large section of legends in the Niryukti follows (Av.-niry. II 67-VI 82), to which Jinabhadra turns his attention in a very unusual manner to the part forming fairly much the conclusion (VI 1-64) that offers philosophical-dogmatic expositions. Here, then, two contrary intermediate pieces (B & C) result, of which the first (1549–1987) contains the neglected, and the second (1988-2483) the preferred Niryukti-part. A second (again three-part) main piece (D) consists of the stanzas 2502-4329. It deals in regular sequence with the remainder of the first half of the Niryukti leaving out the Sāmācārī-insertion. - A division originating from the Bhāsya must somehow coincide with the suggested schemas (A 1-3, B, C, D 1-3). Hemacandra now inserts five parts (I-V), which relate to that schema as follows: I & II coincide with A & C, since B has been omitted, but, at the beginning, II has been wrongly delimitated; D 1 has been divided into two parts (III & IV) for no reason and falsely separated at both ends; from D 2 & 3, V emerges.
To begin with, the abridgement of the text consists of omitting the Niryukti-parts that have not been or have hardly been dealt with. In this manner, a very fragmentary work emerges that presupposes the joint use of a Niryukti-copy. In this way Jinabhadra's piece by piece treatment of the material lies fully exposed and his work led a step further away from the
* At V 120 Hemacandra refers to the pīthikā and, at the same time, has I 438-441 in mind. Apparently, he understands here by pīthikā simply .v.-niry. I, respectively the corresponding Bhāsya-part; it would be a mistake to conclude from this passage that Hemacandra might have perhaps labeled Vis. I with the name pithikā or might have understood by this the pedhabandha of the original recension.
93
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
