________________
E. Leumann, An outline of the Āvaśyaka Literature
Hem.: ksiprêtar 'ādi-bhedam yat pūrvôdita-dosa-jālam tasya parihāro yujyate 'smin vyāvahārike 'rthâvagrahe sati, . . . . . . naiscayikâvagrahavādinā idānīm sakyam idam vaktum yad uta "kṣiprêtar'ādi višesaņāni vyāvahārikâvagrahavisayāny etāni", ... kşiprêtar'ādiviấesaņa-kalāpo . .. mukhyatayā vyavahārâvagraha eva ghatate, kārane kāryadharmôpacārät punar niscayâvagrahe 'pi yujyata iti, prāg apy uktam vakşyate ca: vićiştād eva hi kāraṇāt kāryasya vaiếistyam yujyate, 'nyathā tribhuvanasyâpy aiśvary'ādiprasangah kāşthakhand'āder api ratn'ādinicayâvāpteh.
In I 281-285 the naiscayikârthāvagrahavādin reconciles himself in his manner with the prevailing difficulty. Since the Bhāsya, itself, does not say anything further about this, it can be assumed that Jinabhadra accepted the opinion of the said person as his own. Contrary to this, the above Śīlānka-passage now notes that "the teacher” gets himself out of the difficulty in a more correct manner and that Jinabhadra expresses himself (apparently in the same manner) in a later passage.
Is "the teacher”, here, supposed to be the personality who is assumed to be the highest authority in the Bhāsya-dialogue? Apparently, this can hardly be possible, because for him only the titles ācārya and sūri are customary. Or does Sīlānka have his own teacher in mind? Then it seems guravaḥ might be expected. Rather, Jinabhata must be intended, because his full name, as well as Jinabhadra's, allows the short form pūjyāḥ for pūjyapādā). Then this passage is important, because it makes unlikely the identity of Jinabhadra and Jinabhata assumed in modern times.
It should be further asked whom Śīlānka has in mind in his remark at II 125. The stanzas II 123-133 oppose the Buddhist doctrine of instantaneousness (kșanikatā) in the realm of conception that results from the denial of a soul (jīva) as a perpetual subject of conception. At three passages (in 125, 127, 129') the term “missed (or destroyed) directly after emergence (jammânantara-)” is found, equal to kșanika "instantly”. Strangely, in the explanation the commentaries sometimes place janmântara instead of janmânantara that is simply wrong. Silānka justifies the mistake in his remark, which concerns us here that the teacher" wrote it thus! Doubtlessly, Jinabhadra has to be understood by this, because if his commentary had presented the correct paraphrase, Silānka and Hemacandra would not have favoured a false form of it, in any case, not without giving a reason. The context in which Jinabhadra might have made the mistake reads with Śīl. & Hem. (at II 123) as follows: S: yo'nyakāladeśânubhūtam artham Hem.: yo 'nyadeśakāl'ādy-anubhūtam anusmarati sa na vinasto yathā bāla- artham smarati so 'vinasto dộsto yathā kālânubhūtānām anyadeśânubhūtānām vā bālakālânubhūtānām arthānām anusmartā
hãnăm anusmarta Devadattah 2. yas ca vęddh'ādy-avasthāyām Devadattah. yas tu vinasto nâsāvanusmaratiyathā vinasto nâsau kimcid anusmarati yathā janmântarôparataḥ
janmântaram evôparatah. pradīpasyêva nirvānam samadhis ta ........|
' 'y'ādy-āpteh Bb. - "Because jewels and similar precious objects from pieces of wood and such things might be obtained." The entire kāranakāryôpacāra-argumentation appears (as Hem. hints with prāg apy uktam vaksyate ca and $11. with kila) very often with Jinabhadra, the first time in Viś. I 3, where, in the commentary the anyathā-sentence reads as follows: S: anyathā yatah -kutaścid yat-kimcid utpadyetêti viśvam adaridram syāt. Hem.: anyathā tšņād api hiranya-mani-mauktik'ādy-avāpteḥ sarvam viśvam adaridram syāt.
In total, this word appears with $11. & Hem., each, five times (Ś at 123. 124. 125. 127. 129°; Hem. at 123. 1256. 127. 128. 129'), to which, even at one passage, taken by both from Jinabhadra's commentary (below, p. 10°), a synonym utpattyanantara-, respectively oram appears two times. Stl. writes the first and third time janmânto that p (Jinavallabha) corrects the first time. To conclude, according to Bb, Hemacandra offers the first and third time janmâneo; b still has the mistake at the fifth passage, S does not show it anywhere.
3 On this actually, on the preceding word) the marginal note: janmaviseşôparatasya katham atyanta-vigamah! Apparently, Jinavallabha justifies his rectification by this. Also, he somehow finds fault with Stlänka's repetition of the mistake (below, p. 10°5).
134
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
