________________
English translation by George Baumann
[52] I 496-499. About this passage that has been translated above, p. 40°15-30, Hemacandra remarks as follows:
Others add "aksaralābhah” (instead of "fraction of infinity') at the opening of 497 that seems to us to be untenable, because this point of view has various deficiencies and is lacking in Jinabhadra's commentary (Jinabhadraganikşamāśramanapūjyatīkāyām)....... Namely, in 4984 "it" is paraphrased by Jinabhadra (kşamāśramaņapūjyais) with the minimal fraction of infinity" (sa ca kila jaghanyo 'nantabhāgah). Assuming that one is speaking here not about the general aksara, but about the śrutâksara would be inappropriate, because in both ancient commentaries (ciramtanatīkā-dvaye) the (concerned) aksara is considered to be the general one (aksarasya sāmānyasyaiva vyākhyānāt), and, thus, if it is taken as śrutākṣara two contradictions arise in 496.
Here, also, under "others" Śīlānka has to be understood, as the excerpts (p. 703) clearly show. However, as it appears the polemic (shortened in the preceding) against him is not really justified, because the entire context is so clear that it excludes any possibility of an error. Apparently, for this reason, Śīlānka simply wrote akşaralābhah (,respectively later akkharalābho) that is not meant (as Hemacandra thinks) in a literal sense, but as a more simple, even though, inexact, synonym for akşarânantabhāgah if Śīlānka had been of the opinion that he should interpret the text differently than Jinabhadra, then, presumably, he would have somehow mentioned his point of view. By the way, before Hemacandra, Jinavallabha had also let himself be misled by that synonym, because he equips his entirely correct gloss anantabhāga eva with a question mark (which looks like a visarga, whose lower point has been substituted by a minimal comma).
As far as "both ancient commentaries" are concerned, naturally, Hemacandra understands the same two that he called in the preceding passage "original commentaries”; in other words, the commentaries by Jinabhadra and Silānka. In the latter, the passage, which Hemacandra has in mind, says:
496*, tasyệti sāmānyasya', tiviha-bhedo vitti jaghanya-madhyamôtkrsta iti gāthārthah. I 5386 (= Kalpabh. pedh. 1396). “According to the KalpaCūrņi desammi means virtually ekādaśânga-laksane; however, Kotyācārya's explanation reads dese sūtrârdhe sūtramātr'ādau vā, whereby with sūtra, naturally, the pūrvagata-sūtra (not the dvādasânga-sūtra) is meant."
From this statement one sees that Jinabhadra has not commented on the passage sufficiently, or perhaps not at all which is why Kotyācārya (i.e. Śīlānka) is the only interpreter of our Bhāsya whom Hemacandra has consulted here. The KalpaCūrņi-citation should not be taken literally; rather, the passage reads "deso" ekārasa angāni. On the other hand, Sīlānka's words, as the excerpts (p. 708) show, have been taken over exactly. When Hemacandra adds vā to them, then this is either an almost necessary addition, or, in case sūtrârdhe originates from Jinabhadra's commentary and has been paraphrased by Śīlānka with sūtramātr'ādau, then, it is an addition obscuring the facts. I 554. "In some copies of the text) an apostrophe ('juttā) can be found before (the concluding word) juttā which is why the translation (given above, p. 41°26-29) has to be altered as follows: . .... becomes (moreover, everywhere). ......; for this reason, visualization during śrutal jñāna, because it is supposed to be imparted, according to 552 through acakṣurdarśana) is incorrect. The stanza has actually been taken over by the earlier commentators (pūrvatīkākārair) but simply designated as self-evident (kanthyā); in other words, it has not been explained. On our part, we have explained it as well as we could; still a keen mind might comprehend it differently."
1 Marginal note: (sarvaparyāyapari]māṇasyâkşarasya. What is in brackets has been broken off and supplemented in accordance with Hemacandra.
143
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
