________________
E. Leumann, An outline of the Avaśyaka Literature
3024 Those 4 buddhi-types (like the ones mentioned, claim for their own benefit) are not something particular, compared to A-D, since there is nothing except this fourfoldness; 302° therefore, they are contained in it since A-D denote general groups (thus, to be counted, when the summation is to be logically complete). 304" (Against the preceding is to be countered:) How ...
Apparently, whether the earlier or the present interpretation grasps Jinabhadra's train of thought correctly cannot be decided from the Bhāsya. Thus, Hemacandra's intimation that he (with the depiction of Sīlānka's second interpretation) follows the original commentary (Jinabhadra's) is very welcome here. In any case, Silānka cannot have fabricated his first interpretation by himself, because it is also found, independent of him, in the text-manuscript p that places the syllable ā (ācāryah), firstly, before 304 (not already before 302). The renewal of the interpretation, then, belongs in one line with the stanzas and readings, which, at the same time, have also been assumed by p and Śīl., without having been original. Just as unlikely as this, it cannot prove an erstwhile existence of a commentary written between Jinabhadra and Sīlānka, although, of course, as a rule, interpretations are transmitted through commentaries. Most likely, Silānka had explained our Bhāsya-passage, at first, in connection with copies, which like p had given the syllable ā, on the basis of a common authority, not in the sense of Jinabhadra, in order, then, to briefly record Jinabhadra's explanation. Below, p. 52°48-52, we will also meet with an explanation of a stanza by Hemacandra that is based on existent evidence in certain Bhāsya-copies. I 350. Here Hemacandra takes over an additional remark from the "author of the (or of one) old commentary” (vrddhatīkākāra). As can be seen below, p. 79, this is found fairly literally with Śīlānka whose version has been translated above, p. 39on. But as at I 7 it can be assumed that Hemacandra understands by the old commentary that of Jinabhadra. Then, Šīlānka who, in any case, owes thanks to a dogmatist for the addition must have taken it over from Jinabhadra. Therefore, it is not easily understood why Haribhadra, whose explanation of the stanza is almost identical with Sīlānka's and with that of Hemacandra in all the important parts, knows nothing about that noteworthy attachment. If he had found the same with Jinabhadra, then, he surely would have appropriated it. Thus, it is very possible that Hemacandra's citation (of which there is no trace whatsoever in the Cūrņi) goes back to Sīlānka and, perhaps, gives Jinabhata's opinion. I 398'. Hemacandra explains this line (translated above, p. 39on.) in a twofold manner: At the end he remarks:
“This (second) explanation seems to be the one supported by the Ancients (vrddhasammata), but even the first is logical."
Under the "Ancients” Jinabhadra, Haribhadra and Śīlānka are meant. Haribhadra notes after the explanation of 395: evam kimcid-bhedād bhedah pradarsitah, tattvatas tu mati-vācakāh sarva evaite paryāyaśabdāḥ. Silānka's explanation of 398 reads: athavā ihasmin prastāve avaggah'ādi-vayanenam ti přthak-pfthagavagrah'ādīnām anyatamenâpîti savvam ābhiņibohiyam samgahiyam ti samastam mati-jñānam ākroditam ity arthaḥ, kayā? cet, ucyate: guņa-samjñayā 'nvartha-samjñayā vacanavyutpattyeti yāvat; sācêyam: avagrahaņam avagrahas, tathā hisāmānyârthâvagrahavacanenehā'pāyadhāraṇāḥ samgrhītāḥ maticestā pāyâvicyutirūpatvāt pankajavacanenêva nīlôtpalôtpala-měnālanāla-nālika-kalhārakamal'ādayah sarvatrânvarthâvišesāt. I 469. "Here stanza 469 follows (in the Bhāsya) occasionally (i.e. in individual copies). We shall pass over this particular interpretation, because it has not been taken over in both original commentaries (mülaţikayor)."
As has been shown above, pp. 33461& 24 f, the interpolation appears in the textmanuscript p, but is lacking with Śīlānka. Hemacandra's preceding note, which with the expression "both original commentaries” (clearly) alluding to the commentaries of Jinabhadra and Śīlānka shows that Jinabhadra also did not explain it.
142
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
