________________
46
M. A. Dhaky
SAMBODHI
15. The two sūtra-verses in question are cited here for comparing:
समाए पेहाए परिव्वदंतो, सिता मनो निस्सरती बहिद्धा । न सा महं नो वि अहं पि तीसे, इच्चेव ताओ विनएज्ज रागं ॥ आयावयाही चय सोगुमल्लं, कामे कमाही कमियं खु दुक्खं । छिंदाहि दोसं विणएज्ज रागं, एवं सुही होहिसि संपराए ॥
-दशवैकालिक-सूत्र २.४-५ See here the paper “Arhat Vardhamāna's Attitude toward 'Ahimsā” where
I had cited these very verses to prove the point. 16. In this verse, it is stated that an object is not parigraha or possession but
mūrcchā or attachment toward it is in a real sense the possession: न सो परिग्गहो पुत्तो नातपुत्तेन तातिना । मुच्छा परिग्गहो पुत्तो इति पुत्तं महेसिन ॥
—and calfach-FEE.RO This ancient clarification is the basis for the famous sūtra inside the Tattvārthādhigama-sūtra of Vācaka Umāsvāti (c. A.D. 350), namely Murcchāḥ parigraha (7. 12 in the bhāsya-mānya version inherited by the
Śvetāmbaras.). 17. This myth today is known from a reference in the Parisisaparva of
Hemacandra (c. A.D. 1166). Its source seemingly is traced in verses from some late bhāsya. (Cf. Kusumprajñā, “Eka Nayi Niryukti” (Hindi), Sambothi,
Vol 12, Nos, 1-4, April 1983-Jan 1984, pp. 3-5.) 18. The style, leaving aside the initial few later verses, is quite archaic. 19. The original Ardhamāgadhi forms of the words in the most ancient canonical
works can be largely traced in the curnis as well as sometimes in the citations figuring in the older Sanskrit commentaries. K. R. Chandra had been working on the restoration of the Ardhamāgadhi forms, as I am working in my own way on the basis of the principles formulated by me. The Indian editors of the texts of the āgamas knew the meaning, but not the philological/ linguistic precision (or otherwise) of the word-forms; the genuine/accurate Ardhamāgadhi, more often figuring in the assembly of the variant readings they sometimes showed in the foot-notes! In the Mahārāșri Prakrit, 'na' most often replaces 'na', ya' replaces several consonants like 'ta', 'da', etc., 'ha' figures for 'tha' and 'dha', 'da' for 'a', and so on. The Mahārāșrī Prakrit has ruined the original look and, as a result damaged the antiquity of the earliest texts of the Nirgrantha canon. The Western Nirgranthologists have done very little on the score of restoring the original Ardhamāgadhi wordforms of the texts they edit. They are largely concerned with the textual
