________________
LII
PRAVACANASĀRA.
26 *17 This gāthā tells us how a monk becomes negligent ; I think it
disturbs the context to a certain extent. 29 *18-20 Discussing about the nature of faultless food of a monk, the faults
of flesh are set forth. 39 #21 It elucidates further the same idea that is being discussed in that
context, -68 *22 A bit of additional explanation; the context is not disturbed even if
it is dropped; it occurs in Pañcāstikāya 137, where it is more fitting.
CLASSIFICATION AND SCRUTINY OF ADDITIONAL GĀTHĀS.-From the above analysis it would be clear that these gāthās can be grouped under three convenient heads : first, gāthās containing salutation and benediction, viz., 1, *2, *4, 46, 7, *8-9; II, *I, *5; secondly, those containing explanation and amplification, viz., I,"1, 3, *5; II, *2, 3 ; III, * 1-2, *18-20, *21, *22; and Jastly those containing additional information, viz., II, *4 ; III *3-5. *6-16, *17. In the first two groups there are some gāthâs of a neutral character, 1. C., even if they are dropped their absence would not be felt, and even if they are prese. nt they do not materially add to the contents of Pravacanasāra as a whole. So it is the last group which needs strict scrutiny. The main criterion to be applied to the third group is whether the additional information given by these gāthās is or is not consistent with the contents of other works of Kundakunda; if there is any inconsistency, the gāthās will have to be looked upon as of doubtful authenticity; and if the same contents are found in other works of Kundakunda, they can be treated as acceptable, because the repetition of an idea is not abnormal in works of traditional character. The position of II, 4, especially in that particular context, is doubtful. The remonstration against the use of clothes, in III, * 3-5, is only an amplification of one of the 28 primary virtues (III, 4, 8-9, etc.), and this subject is discussed in details in Cārittapāhuda (20 ff.), Suttapāhuda (17 ff.), Bodhapāhuda (51 ff.) and other works of his ; so this topic is quite in tune with Kundakunda's discussions. That women cannot 'attain liberation, as set forth in III, 6-16, is a topic which represents the Digambara view against that held by the S'vetāmbaras. "It is not only here, but also in Suttapāhuda ( 22 ff.), that Kundakunda states his views almost in the same tone. Further, even if it is taken that he is attacking S'vetāmbaras witho. ut mentioning their name, there is no anachronism at all, because Kundakunda flourished, as already seen, after this division in the Jaina church. The contents of III, *17 have nothing special, though the gāthā disturbs the context. So, in i conclusion, I do not find that there is any strong case against Kundakunda's authorship, as a composer or compiler, of these additional gāthas, excepting one or two gāthīs whose position I bave detected to be dubious in that context.
CRITICAL LIGHT ON THE RECENSION OF ANIRTACANDRA.-Now the immediate question that confronts us is as to why Amrtacandra does not inclu. de these gāthās in his commentary. Textual fidality and literal translation are not the aims of his commentary ; his commentary is like a bhäsya where he -Jyants simply to expound with additional touches and in a systematical manner the contents of Pravacanasāra. If this is his aim, naturally he would not care
