________________
E. Leumann, An outline of the Avaśyaka Literature
niry. XI 47", III up to niry. XX 81) can be attributed just to some scribe, not to Malayagiri himself. At the opening of Khanda II the type of text presentation changes: although with just a few exceptions, the Pratīka-s of the stanzas have been taken out at niry. III 116-270, we find at niry. III 271 ff. again as at niry. I I-111 115, the complete text. This change may be the reason for or the result of the khanda-division, but, in any case, is more the work of Malayagiri than the khanda-division. [54°]The three mentioned citations interpret 1702, 737 opening, 779 opening, in other words, three Niryukti-passages which is why, besides the words of Sīlānka and Hemacandra, each time we can also take those of Haribhadra into consideration. Doing this it shows that in both of the first cases the four commentaries only came into contact contentwise, although in the third case, At least Haribhadra has literally taken over Jinabhadra's explanation. However, where the third citation breaks off is not certain. Also what seems to us not to belong to it, agrees, 'in general, with Haribhadra's commentary. Āv.-t. 151 = Nandī Ed. p. 151,10 = Prajñ. XXXIII Ed.fol. 7700 sf.
utkysto manusyesyeva nânyeșu, manusya-tiryagyonișy evajaghanyo nânyeșu,
seșāņām madhyama eva. H: dravyataḥ kṣetratah kālato bhāvataś côtkşsto 'vadhir manusyeşv eva nâmar'ādişu;
tathā manusyāś ca tiryancaś ca manusya-tiryancah, teșu manusya-tiryakṣu ca jaghanyaḥ, ca-śabda evakārârthah, tasya caivam prayogah: manusya-tiryakşv eva
jaghanyo na nāraka-sureşu. Ś: utkysto 'vadhir dravy'ādi-visayo manusyesveva syān na traye, kevala-jñāna
lābha-prāpakatvāt tasya ca manusyesveva prāpteh. tathā jaghanyo manusya
tiryakşv eva syān na dvaye, tad-apāntarāla-dravya-darśanād. Hem.: iha dravyatah kşetratah kālato bhāvataś côtkysto 'vadhir manusyesy eva na
dev’ādişu, tathā manusyāś ca tiryancaś ca teşv eva jaghanyo na tu sura
nārakeşu. Av.-t. I 57 = Nandi Ed. p. 144,1 = Prajñ. XXXIII opening Ed. fol. 766"2 spardhakam
avadhi-viccheda -višeșaḥ. H: iha phaddakāny avadhijñāna-nirgama-dvārānyathavā gavâkşajāl’ādi-vyavahita
pradīpa-prabhā-phaddakānîva phaddakāni. S: phaddāny avadhijñāna-jyotsnā-nirgama-sthānāni jālântarasthapradīpôpamatvāt. Hem.: apavarak’ādi-jālakântarastha-pradīpa-prabhā-nirgama-sthānānîvâvadhijñān’āvarana
kşayôpaśama-janyāny avadhijñānanirgamasthānānîha phaddakāny ucyante. Prajñ. XXI Ed. fol. 621°4 atiśaya-caranāc cāranāḥ, atiśaya-gamanād ity arthaḥ. Exactly
so H. Ś: atiśayena carane gamane samarthāh pratyalāḥ. Hem.: atiśayavad-gaman'āgamana rūpāc caraṇāc cāraṇāḥ sâtiśaya-gaman'āgamanalabdhi
sampannāḥ
The examination of the data already known to us on Jinabhadra's commentary has been dealt with extensively above. Also the previous questions pertaining to him have been solved: Jinabhata should not be identified with Jinabhadra. Although he has been cited by Šīlānka as
Where, otherwise in large commentaries a khanda-division also can be found, it can be traced, partially proven and partially probable, back to a particular scribe (not to the authors). In Hemacandra's Viseșāvaśyakacommentary the manuscripts Bb remove the first 14,000 grantha-s as the first part (resulting in a part of the entirety, only by numerical division without any consideration for the context.) in such a way that B, as it should be, begins a new leaf, whereas b adds only the remark Višesävasyaka-prathamakhandam samāptam iti cha śrīKharatara-gaccha co arham. Abhayadeva's Sthānânga-commentary has been divided in the edition (and also in the manuscript, on which it is based) in such a manner into two khanda-s that the first khanda goes upto IV 2,4 (hatthi) (ed. fol. 236'). Besides there should be a reference, here to the following handling of Haribhadra's Avaśyaka-commentary.
2 su Av.-t 3 daka Av.t.
148
Jain Education Interational
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
