________________
E. Leumann, An outline of the Āvaśyaka Literature
four zone-pairs periods are valid whose qualities, in sequence, correspond to the above first four. [The Cūrni adds: **** According to others, the time of a simple type
is different from the twelve-part and has the quality of the above fourth period.]
The second form in which the followers of Jainism know the doctrine of the world aeons is the common Indian one. Along with the previously described form it appears sometimes as in language where an undisplaced word appears as a duplicate beside a regularly displaced word through the mixing of dialects. Anyhow, the original form has experienced two slight changes, although it is not fitting at all to the conceptual system of Jainism: firstly, the word yugma (a synonym of yuga that does not at all exist in Skt. with the meaning "aeon") has been introduced for the old term yuga, and, secondly, the entire concept has been raised to the power of two, since by means of a combination of individual aeons (1 1,1 2,1 3,1 4; 2 1,2 2,2 3,2 4; 3 1,3 2,3 3,3 4; 4 1,4 2,4 3,4 4) sixteen large aeons have been created or also four square-aeons (rāsi-jumma) have been placed. – Only the doctrine of the four simple aeons is known in the original books of the Bhagavatī (XVIII 4). The raising to the power of two appears only in the additional parts: the simple (ones) as the “small ones” are differentiated (in XXXI 1) from the "big (ones)" (XXXI 1). Ultimately, the “square-aeons" emerge in the final book (XLI).
In closing we choose a passage in order to give yet another sample from Vis. V, which ties up with the Jaina recast of the fairly common all-Indian doctrine of bodies. This passage, actually highly indifferent with regard to the text, although characteristic of the unrealism of Indian thinking, is very important to us from a dogmatic historical point of view.
The Bhagavati (VIII 9) distinguishes two stages in the association of the jīva with the five bodies (orāliya-sarīra veuvviya-so āhāraga-so teyaga-so kammaga-so ). One stage is complete attachment (savva-bandha), the other, partial attachment (desa-bandha). The first arises only in the first, respectively with the orāliya-sarīra, when two viggaha-instants precede) only in the third instant, the latter from there until the dissolution of the coherence (at death, etc.). Dogmatics now attempt by all possible dimensions, be they corporeal or fictive, to establish a minimum and a maximum. Corresponding to this practice, the following self-evident calculations are presented in the Bhagavatī passages that are reproduced in the Āvaśyaka-niryukti and in Jinabhadra's Bhāsya, e.g. in regard to the material body (orāliyasarīra) that, according to the theory, can alternate in a sequence of re-births with a veuvviyasarīra. Bhag. Ed. fol. 666. Av.-niry. X 17 & 184. Viś. V 513 5158. The desabandha lasts, at least, a minimal orāliya-lifetime minus (viggaha + savvabandha =) three instants, at the most, an absolute maximal orāliya-lifetime minus the savvabandha-instant.
*** With the third pair all three commentaries write Erannavaya resp. Airanyavata instead of Hero, respectively Hairo - an influence of Erāvaya (Airāvata)! Hemacandra who reproduces the addition within the explanation of Viś. IV 100 f., also writes Airanyavata, and he repeats this deformity at Vis. V 121'. In addition, the reading Ero in Jinabhadra's Ksetrasamāsa 23 is given by all available mss and recensions except by Malayagiri's text and by Kș?; however, since here Ero forms a hiatus, Jinabhadra, then, has put Hero, and Malayagiri is also correct when he writes thus, and in the paraphrase gives Hairo along with Haribhadra. In Ksetrasamāsa 144 & 145 only Her has been handed down. However, in Kşetrasamāsa 171& 252 one finds exactly the same as above with Silänka:
Hemava'Erannavae ... The apostrophizing of the preceding word proves that the author himself had written like that. Therefore, it is of no consequence when here, both times, also Haribhadra's as well as Malayagiri's paraphrase substitute the correct form Hairo (the Haribhadra manuscripts are incorrect the first time: Vaitādhyo Airanyo I 1', Vaitādhyo Hiranyo P XII 397'). Already during the time of Haribhadra Erannavaya was permissible as a reliable variant for Herannavaya. Umāsvāti writes Hairo in Tattvartha III 10.
****anne puņa bhaṇanti: no-osappiņi-ussappiņi-kālo egaviho ceva cauttha-samā-palibhāgo hojjā. no sesāsu, tammi kāle cauvviham pi sāmāiyam pi puvva-padivannao padivajjamāṇao vi bhanejjā.
120
.
.
.
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
