Sambodhi 2012 Vol 35

Author(s): J B Shah
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 50

40
M. A. Dhaky
SAMBODHI
Also cf. the “Mahāvīra-stava” (c. 3rd cent. B.C.) in the Sūtrakrtānga 1:
से सव्वदंसी अभिभूत नाणी निरामगंधे धितियं ठितप्पा ।
अनुत्तरे सव्वजगंसि पिज्जं गंथातीते अभए अनाउ ॥
- Equait 8.8.4 A very early patriarch as Śayyambhava was, could not have transgressed this fundamental tenet. Even Ārya Bhadrabāhu (c. B.C. 325-29 Ārya Sthūlabhadra (c. B.C. 300-275) could not have approved of a monastic begging rule which exceptionally, but also flagrantly, goes against a principle which is the very backbone of the Nirgrantha creed. As is shown, the verses in question are a part of the third constituent of uddeśa 1. Structurally, the uddeśa 1 of the chapter for certain has a topical, but not stylistic, consistency.
Uddeśa 2 of this chapter contains 50 verses; and within them not only is the stylistic uniformity perceived, but also they possess an over-all cadence which betrays a character slightly earlier than that of uddesa 1. And yet this uddeśa, too, cannot be by Sayyambhava nor belong to his time: Its rules are addressed to friars (and nuns) fairly advanced in the monastic set up and hence in age. These, then, could not have been meant for Manaka. 6. Dharmārthakāma
The entire versified chapter, despite small divergencies in style and metre at places, seems consistent in its matter as well as its general style. In its corpus it alludes to Mahāvīra as Nātaputta and, in verses 19-20, a defense is built for allowing some minimal possessions to a recluse, The basic doctrines of the Nirgrantha religion, including emphasis on nonviolence, are repeatedly stressed in this chapter. The general style of the verses, as I perceive and comprehend, reflects 2nd-1st century B.C. and hence the verses cannot be of Sayyambhava's authorship. And they do not look like being composed for Manaka 7. Vākyasuddhi
This chapter, consisting as it does of some 57 verses, though early, say of c. 2nd century B.C., has a style of phrasing and articulation which differs from the varied styles of the preceding chapters. In itself it is fairly uniform, dealing as it does with the necessity of reticence and discretion in speech, its motivations and, innate emotions. Stylistically, however, it does not sound or seem the handiwork of Ārya Sayyambhava.