UTTARAJJH~Y/~ STUDIES by

L. ALSDORF

Hamburg

This is the fourth in a series o f articles devoted to the critical treatment o f selected chapters o f the Uttarajjh~yL x The first three short m o n o graphs on one chapter each are here followed by contributions to the textual criticism and interpretation o f a few more chapters3 Some general methodological remarks m a y be premised. In the Preface to his critical edition o f Utt., Charpentier states (p. 5) that his aim in preparing it has been " a n d must be, as far as I understand the matter, to restore as far as possible that text o f the Sfitra which was used by the c o m m e n t a t o r Devendra", justifying this principle on the ground that Devendra's authority is superior even to the "united authority o f all the Mss." because his c o m m e n t a r y is "older than all the existing Mss. o f the text" and he "has gone thoroughly through the text and selected - undoubtedly with m u c h care - the p~lha that seemed to him to be the best one". This is excellent theory. In Charpentier's practice, it has resulted in utter disregard o f the metre - that invaluable help o f textual criticism and blocked the way to m a n y necessary, and often obvious, corrections. Every attentive reader o f canonical Jain texts cannot fail to make two observations. First, even the oldest and best commentators are completely unreliable. We are greatly indebted to their traditional knowledge and shall always carefully examine their suggestions; but in countless x 1. Vfintam/ipgttum (Ind. Linguistics, XVI [Chatterjee Jubilee VoL], 21-28; on Utt.22). 2. The Story of Citta and Sambhfita (S. K. Belvalkar Felicitation Vol., 202-208; on Utt. 13). 3. Namipawajja. Contributions to the study of a Jain canonical legend (Norman Brown Commemoration Vol.; on Utt. 9). s The editions of the text consulted for the present article will be abbreviated as follows: J = Jacobi's ed. (Ahmedabad, 1911). C = Charpentier's ed. (Uppsala, 1922). D = ed. with Devendra's commentary (B~tl~tpur, 1937; .~ri-/~tmavallabha-grantl~nka 12). K = ed. by Muni Jayantavijaya (Agra, 1923), with T-flea of KamalasatByama. H ~ old (Hyderabad) Sth~nakv~si ed. S = Sutfftgame (ed. Muni .4ri Phfilehandji Mah~raj, new Sthanakvasi ed.; Gurgaon, 1954), (Vol. II, p. 977ff.). I regret that ~ntis0xi,s commentary was not available to me.

UTTARAJJHAYASTUDIES

111

instances they misunderstand and misinterpret perfectly clear passages and offer fanciful explanations for palpably corrupt ones. Second, many, if not most, of the real textual corruptions are very old, much older in fact than all our commentaries, let alone even the oldest Mss. This is why high hopes based on the old palm leaf Mss. at last becoming accessible have been and will be largely disappointed. We are not only entitled but bound to disregard the commentaries wherever necessary or advisable and to correct the text even against them and the combined authority of all our Mss. I hope to give some convincing proofs of these contentions on the following pages. 1. DUMAPATTAYAM The tenth chapter of Utt. is a poetical sermon, put in the mouth of Mah~vira who addresses it to his disciple Goyama, on what becomes later technically known as the first and eleventh of the twelve bhhvan~s or anuprek.s~s (meditations), viz. anitya-anuprek.sa (on the transitoriness of human life) and bodhi-durlabhatva :3 enlightenment and salvation can only be attained by him who possesses a "gradation of rarities": birth as a human being, as an ~rya (not dasyu or mleccha), with all five senses unimpaired, with an opportunity to hear the true dhamma, with the faculty to understand and follow it, etc. The interest of this remarkable piece of genuine ancient "ascetics' poetry" is enhanced by its form: it is one of not more than four chapters in the whole of the Jain Canon composed in the old Vait~liya/Aupacchandasaka metre. 4 It is the first duty of a critical editor, an indispensable preliminary to every critical treatment of the text, to examine its metre with a view to recognizing and correcting corruptions. Such an examination, unfortunately omitted by Charpentier, clearly shows that Devendra is not troubled by any metrical scruples: he explains the traditional text before him without the slightest regard to metrical correctness. Thus in the very first phda he reads dumapattae pa.n.duyae jaha and explains that pa.n.duyae is Ardham~gadhi for normal pa.n.durae (pan. .duyae tti ar.satvat p~.durakam). It need hardly be pointed out that the metre compels us to read (with one of Charpen3 Cf. A. N. Upadhye's introduction to his edition of Sw~mi-Kum~ra's Karttikey~nuprek~fi, p. 10, 15, 18t". ' The others are" SQyagaOa12 (Vait~liya)and Utt. 15/Dasav. 10 (Aupacchandasaka), the two sa-bhikkha chapters which will be treated in the next section. Schubring's statement ("Worte Mah~viras" p .3) that Utt. 12, too, is written in Aup-/Vait. metre is erroneous: except for the ~lokas 1-5.26.34, the whole chapter is composed in Tri~tubh metre; it contains not a single Aup./Vait. stanza.

112

L. AI.SDOI~

tier's Mss.!) pan..du~ and that, consequently, Devendra explains a text which is metrically - slightly but indubitably - corrupt. A m u c h more conspicuous case is that of stanzas 17 and 18

laddhf~n.a vi ariyattan.am. ~
. . . . . . . . . . . . .

ah~n.a-pancendiyaya hu dullaha

aMn.a-pancendiyattam, pi se lahe, uttama-dhamma-suf hu dullahd,

" E v e n when birth as an firya (and not mleccha) is obtained, difficult o f attainment is birth with (all) five senses unimpaired... One m a y even obtain birth with (all) five senses unimpaired, (but even then) hearing o f the highest d h a m m a is difficult to obtain." The m o s t cursory glance should convince every reader that in both stanzas ahin.a is a well-meant but unnecessary interpolation. Its elimination makes the metre o f 18a perfectly correct. B In 17 b, there remains a deficiency o f two m o r a e ; here, apparently, ah~n.a has superseded an original word o f two morae (aha? pun. a?). On no account can ahin.a be regarded as anything but a later interpolation violating the metre, which must be removed from our text; yet Devendra in both cases reads and explains it - j u s t as in 27 e he reads and explains viha.dai viddhar~sai te saHrayam, t h o u g h the metre categorically demands the removal o f viha.dai, a s y n o n y m o f viddham, sai no d o u b t added as an explanative gloss. St. 31 a,b reads:

na hu jin.~ aria dissa~,

bahuma~ dissai magga-desie.

Jacobi's translation: "There is now no Jina, but there is a highly esteemed guide to show the w a y " follows Devendra's explanation, but the translator adds in a footnote: " A s this assertion [that there is now no Jina] cannot be put in the m o u t h o f Mah~vira, this verse must be set d o w n as a later addition - or perhaps as a blunder o f the poet similar to that noted before, in 9,42." I have shown in m y article on the Namipavvajj~ that in 9,42 we have to do not with a blunder o f the poet but with a simple 5 Most Mss. and some editions read ~yariyatta~ar~, which is not only unmetrical but totally unsuited to the clear context. Here Devendra does not quote the text-word but explains it correctly as dryatvam. 6 pancendiyatta~ has to be scanned as . . . . . ; several parallel cases show that the treatment of a double consonant as a single was a normal metrical licence: 2 a kus'aggi jaha Osa-bindu~ (. . . . ~); 4 9 dullah# khalu ma~us~ bhav~ (~ . . . . . . . . ); 16b ~riyatta~ pu~aravi dullaha~ (- ~ ~ - . . . . ) ; Utt. 15, 8d, 9d tar~ parinn,~ya parivva# sa bhikkhft ( - ~ - ~ . . . . ); 15, 10b: appavai~.na va sa~thuya havejjd (~ . . . . . . . . . . ); 15, 14b divv~ m~.nussag~ tah~ tiricch~ (- . . . . . ...).

UTTARAJJH.~Y.~STUDIES

113

corruption (ghor~sama for ghar~sama), commented upon by Devendra. As to 10, 31 a,b, it should be noted that Jacobi's "but" connecting the two p~das is an addition of Devendra not found in the text. It seems clear that in the whole context of our sermon the meaning of the two p~das can only be: there is now a Jina, a highly esteemed guide etc., you are fortunate in having this opportunity, so make the best use of it! The suspicion that the first p~da has been corrupted to the contrary of its original meaning is strengthened by the fact that one mora is wanting at its beginning ( . . . . . . . . . ); I am, however, unable to suggest a convincing emendation. The theme and purport of the whole chapter is aptly summed up in a burden recurring as the last pAda of every (except the concluding) stanza:

samayam. , Goyama, m~ pam~yae!

Devendra explains this as follows: yata~ caivam, ata.h samayam api, astern avalik~di, aper gamyam~natv~t, he Gautama iti Indrabhf4ter amantran.a.m, ma pram~dTh., ma pram~dam, k.rtha.h. This shows that he gives samaya its technical Jain meaning as the designation of the shortest unit of time (the next longer one being the ~valika), taking the p~da to mean: "Do not be careless even (api! "gamyam~na", not found in the text) for (the immeasurably short time of) one samaya." Jacobi's translation: "Gautama, be careful all the while" seems to follow Devendra's rendering rn~ pram~d~.h, ma pram~dam, k.rth~.h but to take samaya not in its technical Jain but in its general meaning "time". But the translation m~ pram~d~.h is doubtless wrong, pam~yae clearly is the optative not ofpramadyati but of the causative pramadayati (pramadaye.h) ; and for pramadayati the smaller St. Petersburg Dictionary records as only meaning: "Etwas verscherzen", i.e. "to forfeit something (through negligence or carelessness)." As the object of this verb, samaya is neither the shortest Jain unit of time nor time in general but has to be taken in its recognized Sanskrit meaning of "occasion, opportunity; fit time, proper time or season, right moment" (Apte): "Do not forfeit, do not squander your opportunity!" This is indeed the exact purport of the whole sermon which from the transitoriness of human life and from the "gradation list of rarities" (Upadhye, loc. cit.) draws the confusion that the opportunity which Goyama is so fortunate to have is as short as it is rare so that he must make use of it and on no account forfeit it through carelessness. There can be no doubt that Devendra has misunderstood and mistranslated this central dictum of the chapter though it cannot be said to offer any linguistic difficulty.

114

L. ALSDORF

The first three stanzas stress the transitoriness of human life; st. 4 begins the "gradation list of rarities":
dullah~ khalu ma~us~ bhav6 gad.ha ya vivaga kammu~o cira-kal6n, a vi savva-pa~i.nam. , samayam. , Goyama, ma pamaya~!

(Jacobi :) "A rare chance, in the long course of time, is human birth for a living being; hard are the consequences of actions; Gautama, etc." The logical continuation of this is st. 16:
laddhfm, a vi ma.nusattan, a.m bahav~ dasuya milakkhuya ariyattam, pu.naravi dullaham. ; samayam. , Goyama, ma pamaya~!

(Jacobi :) "Though one be born as a man, it is a rare chance to become an ,~rya; for many are the Dasyus and Mlecchas; Gautama, etc." The connection between these two stanzas is so obvious and so close that anything interrupting that connection, i.e. anything standing between them, must be strongly suspected to be spurious. Actually, it would be difficult to find anywhere a more palpable interpolation than st. 5-15 of our text. The whole of the Dumapattayam. is concerned with human life only; the "gradation list of rarities" begins with birth as a human being and narrows down conditions for attaining salvation within human existence. A later scholarly theologian, finding this limitation unsatisfactory and taking his cue from 4 e: g~.dha ya vivaga kammu.no, thought fit to add the full scale of possible incarnations as elementary being (5-8), plant (9), being with two to five senses (10-13), god and denizen of hell (14). This whole passage is not only, as we have seen, a most awkward interruption of the "gradation list"; it betrays its different origin as clearly as possible by its style and metre. The original sermon is poetry - not, perhaps, of the very highest order, but plain popular poetry not devoid of vigour and feeling. St. 5-15 are driest dogmatic statistics, as prosaic as anything could be. The interpolator has indeed tried to adapt his product to its metrical surroundings, but with only partial success. He has kept the burden samayam., Goyama, ma pamayae throughout and has contrived some Vait~liya padas of his ownT; but whenever he finds it difficult to 7 Of st. 5-14, the followingp~das are Vait~liya: 1.5-14b (ten times repeated ukkosa~ jfvo u sa~vas#); 2. a-pfidas: 10-13 (aigao to be scanned - ~ - , i.e. ,~- standing for -); 14 (read dev~ nara~ ya-m-aiga5 [C: neraie; D: narae ya gao]); 3. c-pfidas: 9 (read kdlam anantar~ durantaya~ [C: ananta-du ~ D: ananta~ duranta~]) ; 10-12 (three times kala~ sarl~khejja-sanniyam).

UTTARAJJHA, Y.~ STUDIES

115

squeeze his subject matter into the ancient unfamiliar metre he unhesitatingly falls back on the usual metre of his own later time, the Ary~ s, and in his last summarizing stanza (15), the Vait~liya burden is preceded by three ~ r y a p~das: the author himself has clearly marked his product as belonging to a later period. When this interpolated passage is removed and the corrections detailed above are made, there remains a poem of 26 pure and nearly perfectly regular Vait~liya stanzas) They conform to the rules of classical Sanskrit prosody, with one slight exception: the 6 morae at the beginning of the odd, and 8 at the beginning of the even pada should not consist wholly of long or wholly of short syllables. This rule is neglected in 33 a (paccha pacch~n, ut~va~), 36 e (santi-maggam. ca vftha~) and 37 e (ragam. d6sam, ca chindiya). 1~ The metrical situation is more complicated in the only chapter of Utt. composed in the closely related Aupacchandasaka metre. As this chapter (15) is inseparably connected with Dasavey~liya 10 by the c o m m o n refrain sa bhikkhft, which also serves as title to both chapters, I shall treat them together.

2. THE SA-BHIKKHO STANZAS In the introduction to his edition and translation of Dasav., p. VI, Schubring writes: " I t may not be out of place to point out the similarity between Dasav. l0 with Utt. 15 with regard to metre. In both these chapters we have a curious mixture of Indravajr~, Aupacchandasaka and Vait~liya p~das, to say nothing of prose and (perhaps) fragments of Ary~, a mixture which shows that the author or the authors had, to a great extent, lost their feeling for the niceties of prosody." I hope to show that in both chapters no prose occurs; as to the only alleged ,~,ry~ p~da (Dasav. 10, llb), Schubring himself remarks in a note that it becomes Vait~liya if the final ya is cancelled. An admixture of 8 Of st. 5-14, the following are Axy~-p~das: 1. a-padas: 5-8; 9 (vanassai to be scannexi . . . . ); 2. c-pfidas: 5-8; 13 and 14 (read with DK: bhava-ggaha.ne). 9 1 8 ~ read ku-ttitthi ~ (for doubling of initial consonant of 2nd member of compound cf. Pischel, w 196, and e.g. further down 15, 10e ihaloiya-pphal'at.t.ha; 16~ a.nu-kkas~f, etc.). As already noted by me (Chatterjee Jubilee VoL, p. 27 n. 8), in st. 29 a~ag~riya~ has to be corrected to ~Vag `~~(= ~nag~ryam, not anag~ritg~ml). In the same stanza, p~da c, vanta~n has to be read as vanta (- ,~); likewise 35b loyar~ = loya (- v). At the end of the poem, it seems that the final tti bemi has to be read as part of the last pftda (37a) which thus becomes an Aupacchandasaka phda: siddhigai~ gaS Goyame tti b6mi. to The frequency of such pftdas in the interpolated stanzas 5-15 is significant.

116

L. ALSDORF

occasional Vait~liya p~das in an Aupacchandasaka poem is no more "curious" than the familiar mixture of Tri.st.ubh and Jagati p~das. There remains as really remarkable only the mixture of Aupacchandasaka and Tri.s.tubh; we shall discuss it after having examined the text. As to the metrical deficiencies of the latter, we shall see that most of them can be healed, in not a few cases by merely selecting the correct reading preserved in one ore more Mss. This strongly points to the unsatisfactory metrical condition of the text being due not to its author(s) but to those who handed it down to us. We have seen above that even a great medieval scholar like Devendra had lost every feeling not merely for the niceties of prosody but for the metre of Utt. l0 altogether. We have to realize that texts like the sa-bhikkhf~ stanzas have been handed down by countless generations of students and copyists for whom the metre was simply non-existent so that the protection it could have afforded to the text was lacking. We are thus justified in resorting to a fair amount of metrical emendation. I shall now present the texts of both chapters with metrical and textcritical notes (in which "trad." stands for "unanimous tradition" [Mss. and commentaries]). Of Utt. 15, I add a new translation with commentary. For Das. 10, the reader is referred to Schubring's translation (Ahmedabad, 1932, henceforth "Sch."); where in a few cases I suggest a different interpretation, I have explained this in notes incorporated in the critical apparatus. In the latter, Ca refers to the COrn.i, not yet accessible to Leumann and Schubring (published by the ~ri .R.sabhadevaji Ke~arim~lajin~mni ~vet~mbarasa .msth~ of Ratlam, Indore, 1933), H. to Haribhadra (text with his commentary publ. by L~lan Mansukhl~l Hir~l~l, Bombay, V. S. 1999), L. to Leumann's text in ZDMG, 46; it will be seen that his metrical scheme and suggestions (p. 638 note, reproduced by Sch., p. 129) need a number of corrections.

a) Uttaradhyayana chapter 15. I.

mona .m cariss~mi samecca dhamma .m sahie ujju-ka.de niy~.na-chinne sa .mthava.m jahejja akhma-k~me ann~esi parivvae, sa bhikkhfl.

1 a: Indravajr~. b: Aup. c: Tri~t.ubh (9.), but first four syll. wholly irregular; the p~tda could be made Aup. by reading e.g. sa.mthav~pajah~ ak~ma~ but this is hardly more than guesswork, d: trad. ann~ya-~si; cf. Utt. 2, 39: annaesi.

UTTARAJJHAYA STUDIES

117

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

rfi6varayam, carejja la~ihe vira~ veyaviySya-rakkhi~ < y a > , pann~ abhibhfi ya savva-da .msi j~ k a m h i .m ci na mucchi~, sa bhikkhQ. akkosa-vaham, viittu dhire mu.ni car~ la.dh~ niccam_ aya-gutte; avvagga-ma .n~ asa .mpahiLthe j~ kasi.na .m ahiyasa~, sa bhikkhfL p a n t a .m saya.nfisan.a .m bhaitta si'u.nham, viviha .m ca da .msa-masaga.m avvagga-man. ~ asa .mpahi.t~he j~ kasin.am, ahiy~sa~, sa bhikkhfi. no sakkaim_ icchai, na pfaya .m, no vi ya vanda.naga .m, kuo pasa .msam! j~ sa .mja~ suvva~ tavassi sahi~ ~ya-gavesa~, sa bhikkhfL jen.a pun.a jah~i jiviya .m m 6 h a .m v~ kasi.na .m niyacchai, [nara] nfiri .m pajah~ say~ tavassi na ya koQhalla .m uvS, sa bhikkhQ. chinna .m sar~ bhoma_m antalikkha .m sumina .m lakkha .na-dan..da-vatthu-vijja .m anga-viyara .m sarassa vijja .m j8 vijjahi na jivai, sa bhikkhtZ m a n t a .m [mOlam.] viviha .m ca vejja-cinta .m, v a m a .na-vireyan. a-dhQma-netta-sinh .na.m

2 a, c: Aup. b: Vait., easily changed to Aup. by adding a final ya. d: Aup.; metre requires kamhim, ci, instead of which CK read k a m h i ci, DHS k a m h i vi. 3 b: trad. mu~i care, which might be a Tri~t.. beginning. For niccam JH read
niydm.

4 b: masagam. = - - @ ~ for -; cf. above note on 10, 10-13a). 5 a: D K sakkiyam, c: trad. se sa.mjae; my emendation, though not absolutely necessary, seems to me probable. 6 a, b: Vait. c: metre and sense demand elimination of nara against trad. d: koahalam. C (but v.l. ~ DHS. d: trad. uvei, the final i of which is metrically redundant; at the same time, beside the opt. pajahe w e expect another opt., not an indicative. An opt. uve may appear strange but is easily accounted for by analogy; carejja : care ~- uvejja : uve. 7 c: the traditional sarassa vijaya.m is metrically not impossible (~ v _ for - - ) but makes no sense; el. commentary. 8 a: my restoration of this pfida is tentative, b: sindna.m metrically -(sndna.m). c: trad. ~ure. d: parinn~ya . . . . . ,

118

L. ALSDORF ~ura-sarana .m tigicchiyam, ca tam. parinn~ya parivvae, sa bhikkhfi. khattiya-gan, a ugga r~yaputtg m~han.a bhoiya viviha-sippi.no ya no tesi vae siloga-pfiya .m! ta.m parinnfiya parivvae, sa bhikkhQ. gihin, o j~ pavvaien, a di~hfi appavaien.a va sa .mthuy~ havejj~, tesi .m ihaloiya-pphal'at.t, h~ [jo] sa .mthav~ na karei < j ~ > , sa bhikkhO. sayan. ~san. a-p~n, a-bhojana .m viviham, khhima-s~ima .m paresi.m ada~ pad.isehi~ niyan.~he j~ tatth~ na paussai, sa bhikkhO. ja.m kim. c'~hfira-p~.na-jhya .m viviha .m kh~ma-sfiima .m paresi .m [laddhu .m] jo ta.m tivihe.na na.nukampe man.a-vaya-k~ya-susa .mvu.d~, sa bhikkhO. ~y~maga .m ceva j a v 6 d a n a .m ca siya .m soviram, j a v 6 d a g a .m ca no hila~ pi.n.d~ nirasa .m ta.m, panta-kulfii parivva6, sa bhikkhO.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

9 b: trad. vivih~ ya sippitw. My tentative restoration of the metre assumes for viviha scansion as - v (~ ~ for-), c: trad. vayai, metrically impossible. Reading no tesim, vayai would yield two morae too much. The opt. vae was erroneously replaced by the ind. vayai just as uve by uvei in 6 a. 10 a: pavvaiet~a . . . . . . for -~,~,. b: appavaie.na . . . . . . . . c: CHS loiyapha ~ D K ~ ~ d: trad. jo sam. thavam, na karei sa bhikkha, metrically impossible. Insertion of j6 before sa bhikkha makes the p~da metrically correct, but then, of course, jo at the beginning becomes impossible. Its mere dropping would yield an odd pfida. It seems more probable thatjo has displaced some other word, becoming in turn itself the reason for the omission of je before sa bhikkha. 11 a: Vait. d: trad. tatth~. 12 a: CS kim. ca ~o, J D K H kim. ci ~o. D K om. jtiyam., b: laddhum, metrically redundant (om. JI); introduced from Dasav. 10, 9b: viviham, khtiima-saimam. labhitt~! d = Dasav. 10,7 a (where interpolated j e spoils the metre). 13 a: Indravajrfi. b: soviraja ~ CDKS. c: na hi ~ JCI-I. trad. nirasam, tu; I believe that tam. was replaced by tu because a "but" was felt to be wanting. The wrong position of tu (which should of course come after panta-kulaO would not matter as is proved by many explanations of commentators even of classical Sanskrit works.

UTTARAJJH.~Y.~STUDIES 14. sadd~ viviha bhavanti loe divvh m~n.ussag~ tah~ tiriceh~ bhim~ bhaya-bherav~ ur~l~ j~ socc~ na vihijjai, sa bhikkhO. v~da .m viviha .m samecca loe sahi~ khey'aig~ ya koviy'apph pann~ abhibhQ ya savva-da .msi uvasant~ avihe.da~, sa bhikkhQ. asippa-jivi agih~ amitte ji'indi~ savvao vippamukke an.u-kkashi lahu-appa-bhakkhe cecch giham, egacar~, sa bhikkhQ.

119

15.

16.

14 b: rnaeussaga (DK ~ ..... . tahti om. JCHS. d: jo DS, om. JHC. 15 b: trad. kheyaeugae. Jacobi remarks on sahie: "This is a later addition, proved to be such by the metre, though the commentators comment upon it." Charpentier has a similar note, stating that he has retained sahie in the text because Devendra comments upon it. But if the p~da with sahie is two morae too long, mere elimination of it makes it two morae too short (unless we accept it as an odd pfida, which is hardly advisable). The conjecture khey'aig~ (khed~tiga.h), healing the metre and giving better sense (the commentators' explanation of kheda as niyama is certainly unfounded) was suggested to me by Schubring. d: = Dasav. 10,10d (where interpolated je spoils the metre). 16 a-d: Upajfiti.

TRANSLATION 1. " I will lead a monk's life having understood the D h a r m a " - accomplished, upright, freed from desire (for reward in the next life); he should abandon (former) acquaintance and, not longing for pleasures, he should wander about begging from unknown (families) - such a one is a (true) monk. 2. He should live with affection ceased, distinguishing himself, abstaining (from sins), versed in sacred lore, protecting his soul; wise and conquering, perceiving everything, who is not attached to anything - such a one is a (true) monk. 3. Overcoming abuse and injury, steadfast, a m o n k should live distinguishing himself (and) always protecting his soul (from bad karman); with an undistracted mind (and) not excessively joyful, he who endures everything is a (true) monk,

120

L. A L S D O R F

4. Enduring lowly beds and lodgings, cold and heat and all kinds of flies and gnats, with an undistracted mind (and) not excessively joyful, he who endures everything is a (true) monk. 5. He does not want respectful treatment, nor homage, nor reverence, let alone praise; he who restrains (his passions), keeps his vows, practises austerities, accomplished, making efforts for his soul - he is a (true) monk. 6. Through which, however, he would abandon his life or fall into complete delusion - w o m e n the ascetic should forever give up and not become curious (about them) - such a one is a (true) monk. 7. (Fortune-telling from) rents (in garments), sounds, (portents) earthly and celestial, and dreams, the science of (body-)signs, staffs and (lucky and unlucky) building-sites, (fortune-telling from) bodily defects, and the science of cries (of animals) - he who does not live on (such) sciences is a (true) monk. 8. Charms and various doctor's prescriptions, emetics, purgatives, fumigation, eye(-treatment) and bathing, the patients (crying for) help, and medical treatment - he who abstains from (all) this is a (true) monk. 9. K.satriyas, aristocrats, Ugras, Bhogas and princes, brahmins and all sorts of artisans - these he must not praise and honour; he who abstains from this is a (true) monk. 10. He who does not, for earthly gain, cultivate acquaintance with householders whom he has visited after or with whom he was acquainted before his renunciation of the world, he is a (true) monk. 11. Bed and seat, drink and food, various dainties and spices of strangers - a Nirgrantha who on being refused permission to partake of these does not get angry, he is a (true) monk. 12. Any possible kind of food and drink, various dainties and spices of strangers - he who does not commiserate with that (monk who was refused permission to partake of them), well protected in thought, word and action - he is a (true) monk. 13. Rice-water and barley-pap, cold sour gruel and barley-water such unsavoury alms he must not despise (but rather) visit the lowliest houses: (then) he is a (true) monk. 14. There are in the world all kinds of sounds - of gods, men and beasts, dreadful, frightful, awful ones; he who hears them without being perturbed is a (true) monk. 15. Having understood the various doctrines in the world, accomplished, wise and conquering, perceiving everything, tranquil, unoffensive such a one is a (true) monk. 16. Not living by manual labour, without house, without friends,
-

UTTARAJJH~Y~ STUDIES

121

subduing his senses, free from all ties, with infinitesimal passions, eating quickly and little, living alone after having left the house - such a one is a (true) monk. COMMENTARY 1. Metrical analysis has shown that the stanza is a patchwork of Indravajr~ and Aup. p~das. This result is confirmed by the incoherence of the first p~da, a direct speech in the first person grammatically not connected with the rest of the stanza in the 3rd person. - sahie is explained as sahita.h, sameto 'nya-sddhubhir iti gamyate, na tv ekakf, and translated by Jacobi "in company (with other monks)"; this is directly contradicted by the egacare of the last stanza, cf. also Utt. 2,18: ega eva care la.dhe abhibhftya par~sahe / g~me va nagare vdvi nigame [v~] rayah~.nie. My translation "accomplished" renders Schubring's "fertig"; cf. glossary to his edition of ,~y~ranga s.v. sadh. - Jacobi's translation of annaya-es~: "as an unknown beggar" is based on Devendra's aj~ata.h, tapa-adibhir gu.nai.h anavagata e~ayate grasddikam, aj~atai.sL His explanation of annaes~ occurring Utt. 2,39 is different but equally wrong: aj~ato jati-grutadibhi.h e~ati u~chati pin..dadi, iti aj~atai~; but there Jacobi translates correctly "begging from strangers". Of our passage, a perfectly correct paraphrase is given in H: aj~at kul m~ ahar k~ gave.sa.n~ karta huva vicare. 2. On la.dhe Jac. remarks: "La.dh~, explained sad-anu~thanataya pradhana.h. La.dha is also the name of a country in western Bengal, inhabited, at Mah~vira's time, by uncivilised tribes, see part I, p. 84, note 1. The etymology of both words is doubtful." Pischel w564 regards la.dha as an AMg variant of lattha (= anyasakto manohara.h priyam, vada~ ca, De,in. 7,26) and derives both words from *la.sta, normal Skt. la~ita; but Skt. lar means only "to wish, desire, long for." Now according to Sanskrit dictionaries, the name of the Bengal district is Ra.dha while the fem. noun ra.dha means "lustre, beauty, splendour." ra.dha/la.dha might be a perfectly regular Pkt. form of Skt. ra.slra (Pischel w167 87 and 304; of. e.g. ve.dha < ve~;Ia, d~.dh~ < dam..st.r~, Mara.dh~ < M~har~s.tr~). raatra comes from raj, the p.p. of which, of course, is rajita for which the smaller St. Petersburg dictionary records the meanings "sich auszeichnend, prangend, gl~inzend, verschrnert" (distinguishing oneself, shining, glittering, embellished). Formed without it, the p.p. of raj would be *ra~;la, which in Pkt. can also become ra.dha/la.dha. I have no doubt that actually the name of the Bengal district goes back to Skt. ra.st.ra while the lexicographers' *ra.dh6 "lustre, splendour" and AMg la.dha

122

L. ALSDOILF

"sadanur pradhana.h" are both derived from the anit p.p. *ra~ta. - c: editors print, and commentators explain, abhibhf~ya as an absolutive; I prefer to read abhibhf~ (adj., cf. Pali abhibhft as an epithet of Buddha) ya. 3. I fail to understand Jac.'s translation of akkosa-vaham, viittu by "ignorant of abuse and injury." Dev. renders viittu (for which D reads vidittu) by viditva. The context confirms Schubring's explanation of the parallel viitta as vijitya (~y~ranga glossary s.v. fi). 6. Jac.'s translation is quite different: " I f he does not care for his life or abandons every delusion, if he avoids men and women, always practises austerities and does not betray any curiosity, then he is a true monk." Jac., of course, takesjen, a in the sense of "because; in so far as", which may amount to an " i f " ; the only slight objection to be raised is the optative pajahe which it is difficult not to regard as an injunction. My tentative translation follows (with deviations in particulars) Devendra: yena hetu-bhfaena...jahati tyajati fivitam, sam.yama-fivitam, moha.m va mohan~yam, ka.saya-nokar k.rtsnam, samastam, niyacchati badhnati, tad evam. vidham, narag ca nar~ ca nara-nari prajahyat tyajed ya.h sada tapasv~ na ca kutfthalam, stry-adi-vi~ayam upaiti, sa bhik~u.h. I prefer to take niyacchai as nigacchati (ni-gam "to go to, attain, acquire, obtain, enter"). 7. It should be noted that the list of "prophetical arts" (Jac.) is given in the accusative and cannot be grammatically constructed with the last pAda. For the items of the list cf. Charpentier's commentary and the literature quoted by him, to which should be added Rhys Davids' translation of Dighanik~ya, 1,21f. 8. The emendation of aure to aura recommended by the metre (it would, however, also be possible to scan aurg) is virtually confirmed by Devendra who explains that ature stands sub-vyatyayat for aturasya. We cannot, however, accept his explanation of saran.a.m as smara.nam ('ha tata! ha mata.h! ity-adi-rfipam); it is Skt. ~arat~am (Schubring). 11. Devendra says: ...paresirn. ti parebhya.h, adae tti adadadbhya.h prati~iddha.h kvacit kara.ndntaren, a yacamano nirakrta.h.., yah tatra adane na pradu.syati... This comes nearer to the true meaning of the stanza than Jac.'s translation: "A Nirgrantha is forbidden to take from householders, if they do not give it themselves, bed, lodging..."; but of course the explanation of adae as adadadbhya.h is utterly impossible. The strange form adae can hardly be anything else but an infinitive of ad "to eat, to enjoy". The normal AMg inf. ending in (i)ttae, we should expect as inf. of ad forms like attae or adittae. Is adae influenced by the present ind.

UTTARAJJH.~YA STUDIES

123

adai, adae? Schubring draws my attention to the equally strange forms carae and earie (Vavah. 4,1-9 and 19, Kappas. 1,36) which the context (kappai/no kappai.., cdrae) proves beyond any doubt to be infinitives of earai; actually, the normal inf. carittae appears as v.1. of both. - Being
refused alms is the fifteenth of the twenty-two pari.sahas; Utt. 2,30f.:

paresu ghasam_ esejjd bhoyan, e parin, ilthie / laddhe pin.de aladdhe vd ndn. utappejja paed. ie // "ajj'evdham. na labbhdmi, avi ldbho sue siyd" / j o cram. pa.disam, cikkhe, aldbho tam. na tajjae, "He should beg food among
others (i.e. householders) when they have quite finished their meal; whether he gets alms or not, the wise (monk) should not be sorry. "1 get nothing today, perhaps I shall get something tomorrow" - he who reflects thus will not be afflicted by his failure to obtain (food)." 12. The interpretation of the commentators is embodied in Jac.'s translation: " I f a monk gets any food and drink, or dainties and spices, and does not feel compassion (on a sick fellow-monk) in thoughts, words, and deeds, (then he is not a true monk); but if he has his thoughts, words, and acts under strict discipline, then he is a true monk." Jac. himself points out the impossibility of this interpretation in a footnote: "The commentators supply these words [(then he is not a true monk)]; something to that purport is wanted to make out a consistent meaning, but there is not so much as a hint of it in the text itself. As it stands now, the meaning would be just the opposite of that given in the translation, which is in better accordance with the established custom." The commentators quite rightly felt that the two halves of the stanza are incoherent, but failed to establish an acceptable connection between them and with the preceding stanza. My translation tries to connect the two stanzas as follows: if a begging monk is refused food he has asked for, it is not only sinful for him to get angry but it is even a sin if another monk witnessing the refusal commiserates with him: such compassion implies a feeling that the fellow-monk has been wronged, a sharing of the other's sinful disappointment. 16. Devendra is forced to resort to the ludicrous explanation of egacare as eka.h r~ga-dve.sa-rahita.h caraty ekacara.h because the correct explanation "living alone, living singly" would contradict his explanation of sahie as "living together with fellow-monks" (cf. above on st. 1).

b) Dasaveyaliyasutta chapter 10
. nikkhamma-m-fin, fiya-buddha-vayan.~ nicca .m citta-sam~hi6 havejj~

124

L. ALSDORF itthin.a vasa .m n a y~vi gacch6, v a n t a .m n o pa.diy~yai [je], sa bhikkhfi. pucJhavi .m n a khan~ [na] kha.n~va~, si6dag~ na pi~ [na] piy~va~, aga.ni .m sattha~a j a h ~ su-nisiyar0 ta.m na jal8 n a jal~va~ [je], sa bhikkhfi. a.nilen.a na vie n a viyavae, hady~.ni n a chind6 [na] chid~va~; biy~ .hi say~ v i v a j j a y a n t o saccitta .m n~hhra~ [je], sa bhikkhQ. vaha.na .m tasa-th~varhn.a h6i

.
1

nikkhamma . . . . (L records v.1. nikkhamam ~o!). vayae~: ~ for CO first quotes and explains a text nikkhamma-m-addya buddha-vayan.am.; subsequently it explains L.'s text as nis.kramya ajfiaya...tasmin buddhavacane nitya.m citta-samahitdttma bhavet. This second explanation is followed by H (who further explains ajfiaya by tirthakara-gan.adharopadegena). Sch., differing from this interpretation only in taking tieaya as an abs. aj&iya, translates: " H e who, having renounced the life of a householder and being well informed, should always concentrate upon the teaching of the Jinas and should not come into contact with women [and therefore] does not swallow [his own] vomit - he [is] a [true] monk." I venture to suggest that we should rather regard aeaya-buddha-vayaee as the nom. of a bahuvrihi: ajfitita-buddhavacana.h, and translate the stanza: "Having renounced the world as one who has understood the teaching of the Jinas, he should always have a composed mind, and he should not become subject to women - he who does not swallow his own vomit is a (true) monk." The first p~da thus becomes an exact parallel to Utt. 15,1~: monam, carissami samecca dhammam., "I will lead a monk's life having understood the Dharma." F o r the phrase "to swallow one's own vomit" (meaning: abandon monkhood and return to w o r d y life) cf. my paper "v~ntam i p ~ t u m " quoted above. 2 L. describes a and b as "Vait~liya + ~"; they become normal Vait. by eliminating the second na. b: L. suggests si'udaga.m, c: trad. agaei, su-nisiyam.=
- - .

k~v~--

for

v ~ -

3 a and b seem to be composed after the model of 2".bwithout regard to metrical consequences, b becomes, however, normal if the second na is cancelled and chind~va~ read as chfdava~ ; but cf. Utt. 2,2: na chinde na chindavae na pae na payavae ; the second p~da appears in the next stanza (4d). a is a victim of parallelism, attempts to normalize the metre would be futile and hardly appropriate. 4 trad. hoi, pudhavi. L. regards b as an odd phda, an expedient not too lightly to be resorted to. There are other possibilities of supplying the wanting two morae beside the one suggested above, c, d: Devendra translates pae and paytivae as pacet and pacayet; if Sch.'s very plausible translation: " H e who, therefore, does not eat or drink.., nor causes..." is right, the text will have to be emended to pig and piyava~; but cf. Utt. 2,2, just quoted on 3 b: na chinde na chindavae na pae na payavae.

UTTARAJJH.~YASTUDIES pu .dhavi- < j a l a > - t a .na-ka.ttha-nissiy~ .na.m, tamhfi uddesiya .m na bhunj~, no vi pa~ na payfiva~ [je], sa bhikkhQ. roittA N~yaputta-vayan. a .m appa-sam~ mannejja chap-pi kfi~ panca ya ph~s~ mahavvay~im. panc~sava-sa .mvarae [je], sa bhikkhQ. cattfiri vam~ say~ k a s ~ dhuva-jogi ya havejja buddha-vayan.6, aha .n6 nijjAya-rQva-raya~ gihi-joga .m parivajja6 [je], sa bhikkhQ. sammad-dit..thi sayfi amfi.dh~ "atthi hu n~n.~ tav~ ya sa .mjam~ y a " tavasg dhun. ai purfi.na-pfiva .m ma.na-vaya-k~ya-susa .mvud.~ [je], sa bhikkhQ. taheva asa.nam. < v a > p~n.aga.m v~ viviha .m khfiima-s~ima .m labhitt~ " h o h i attho su~ par~ vfi" ta.m na nih~ na nihAva6 [je], sa bhikkhQ. taheva asa.na .m < v a > pfin.aga .m v~ viviha .m kh~ima-saima .m labhitt~ chandiya s~hammiya.na bhunje, bhocca sajjhaya-rae ya je, sa bhikkht).

125

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

5 a: Mss. roiya-Nayaputta-vayaee; L.: "beginning rocayitvd (roitta-?) H and Avac." In H, the text roiya...vayaee is explained rocayitva...vacanam (CQ: ... vaya~.m roviaea). There can be no doubt that the only metrically correct reading roitt~.., vayaeam, must be put into the text. The corruption of vaya~tam, to vayan.e was caused by the concluding vaya~e of 1= and 6 b. b: C-Yaatta-same, d: sam.varae for trad. ~ (CQ: ~ suggested by L. 6 b vayae~ and c raya~ . . . . for - -. 7 b: L. prints: atthi hu naee tav~ sa.mjame ya, explaining that only the first half is Aup.; the second half he leaves undefined but records the v.1. "tare ya s ~ (tapag ca s ~ H and Avac." As read by me the p~da is quite normal, c: L. (trad.) dhunai...pavagam.; according to L. an even Vait. pada; I hope my restitution of a normal odd Aup. p~tda will be found convincing; corruption ofpavam, topavagam, possibly under influence ofpaeagam. 8 =. d: = Utt. 15,12 a, but there correct without je. 8 a: < v a > suggested by L.; beginning taheva ( ~ - ~) metrically impossible and almost certainly corrupt; I cannot suggest an emendation. 9 d: L. (trad.) bhocc& L. includes the stanza among those where je must be cancelled; but elimination o f j e would leave the p~da wholly irregular, bhocca sajjhaya . . . . . . . According to Pischel, the abs. in -cca is, though rarely, shortened to -cca in verses (w 587; e.g. abhocca!).

126 10.

L. ALSDORF na ya vuggahiya .m kaham, kahejj~ na ya kupp~ nihu'indi~ pasant~, sa.mjama-dhuva- < dhira- > joga-jutt~ uvasante avihed.a~ [je], sa bhikkh~. jo sahai hu g~ma-kan..ta~ a k k o s a .m ca pahhra-tajja.nfio [ya], bhaya-bherava sadda sa-ppahfis6 sama-suha-dukkha-sah~ ya y~, sa bhikkhQ. pa.dima .m pa.divajjiy~ masfin.~ no bhh~ bhaya-bheravhi diss~, viviha-gu.na-tavo-ra6 ya nicca .m na sarira .m c'abhikankhai [je], sa bhikkh0. asaim, vosa~ha-catta-deh~ akkut.t.h~ va ha~ va lftsi~ v~ pud.havi6 sam~ mun.i havejjfi an.iy~.n~ akuQhal~ [ya je], sa bhikkhQ. abhibhQya kh~.na parisahai .m samuddhar~ jfii-pah~o a p p a y a .m viittu jfii-maran.a .m m a h a b b h a y a .m tav~ ra6 sfima.ni6 [je], sa bhikkhfl. u v a h i m m i amucchi~ agiddh~ ann~ya-uncham, pula-nippul~e kaya-vikkaya-sannihi6 vira~ savva-sang~vaga~ ya j~, sa bhikkh0.

11.

12.

13.

14.

16.

10 c: L. suggests sa.rnjama-<niyama->dhuva, which is metrically unsatisfactory (- . . . . . . ~); before the concluding . . . . . a long syllable is required, d: = Utt. 15,15 d, but there correct without je. 11 a: Vait. b: in its trad. form: akkosa-pahara-tajjan.do ya actually the b-pgtda of an .~ry~; but CQ om. ya, and, as Sch. remarks, "without ya it is an even Aup. p~da." In this statement, "even" is an error for "odd", but as shown in the text, a very slight emendation will yield the required even phda. 12 b, d: trad. dissa, cdbhi~ dissa, c'abhi ~ suggested by L. 13 c: L. pud. havi-same, CO pu~lhavi-samo ; L. suggests ja(la-pu(lhavi or pu~lhavisama-same, d: L. prints aniydn. # ako'halle ya j e sa, recording as v.1. "akouh ~ B; ~ s." Ca akouhalle. 14 a: Indravajfft (abhibhaya . . . . . for - - ~). b, c: Va .m~astha. d: Upendravajfft. - Sch. translates c: "knowing the great danger of birth and death"; I should prefer to take viittu here, too, asvijitya (cf. above p. 122on st. 3; CQ vidittu): "having overcome...". 16 b: Indravajrfi. c: L. sannihio, Sch. (misprint!) ~ virae: ~ , ~ - f o r - - . d: savva = ~ ,~; L. suggests "-ssang ~ and deletion o f j e , which would yield a wholly irregular pfida.

UTTARAJJH.~YASTUDIES

127

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

alola-bhikkhO na rasesu giddhe uncha .m care jiviy~ nhbhikankhi id..dhi.m ca sakk~ra.n~ pOyan.a .m ca cae .thiy'apph a rlihe [je], sa bhikkhO. na para .m vaejj~si "ayam. kusl-le", jen.' ann~ kuppejja, na t a $ vaejja; j~.niya pattey~ pu.n.na-p~va .m att~n.am, na samukkas~ [je], sa bhikkhQ. na jhi-matt~ na ya rOva-matte, na l~bha-matt~ na suen.a matte, may~.ni savv~n.i vivajjayanto dhamma-jjh~n.a-ra~ ya j~, sa bhikkhfL paveya~ ajja-paya .m mah~-mun.i, dhamm~ t.hio .thhvayai para .m pi; nikkhamma vajjejja kusila-linga .m na yfivi h~sa .m kahae [je], sa bhikkhQ. ta.m deha-vhsa .m asuim, ashsaya .m sayh ca~ nicca-hiya-t..thiy'appo; chindittu j~i-mara.nassa bandha.na .m uvei bhikkhQ apu.n~gamam, gai.m tti bemi.

17 is a complete and regular Upaj~tti stanza, a: L. alolo (no v.l.), but CO and H alola, b, c: trad. jiviya, sakkara.na. 18 a, b: IndravajrL a: na param. ~ ~ - for - - . b: L. anno, v.1. anne; Cfa jettam, no, H jettam, ca kuppejja. Sch. translates: "... and not say a word which might raise another persons anger." H's reading underlines that the anne and "tam." of b is identical with the para/aya.m of a: "and thou must not say anything that would raise the other's (H: his) anger." - c, d Aup. 19 a-c Upendravajr~, d Aup. 20 a-d Upaj~ti. 21 a: Indrava .m~, b" Upendravajr~, c: Indrava .m~, d: Vain.~astha. The metrical scheme of the two texts as constituted above is as follows : a) Utt. 15. Vait.: 6a,b. 11a. Tri.s~./Jag.: 1a, 16 (?). 16. b) Dasav. 10. Vait. 2a, b. 3a, b. 11a. 15a, b. Tri.st../Jag. 14. 16b. 17.18 a, b. 19a-e. 20.21. irregular: 3a. 8/9 a. It will be seen that there are only two p~das which are irregular or whose restitution remains doubtful. There is no prose, no .~ry~ pgda, and no odd phda standing for an even one or vice versa, a most unlikely irregularity assumed by Leumann three times (Dasav. 10,3a; 4b; 7e). The mixture of Aup. and Tri~tubh (including Jagati) stanzas, and p~das

128

L. ALSDORF

within the same stanza, may appear strange at first sight; but it can be understood and accounted for when it is realized that an Aup. and Upajfiti pfida are of practically equal length and, though characteristically different in their first, are identical in their second halves: both end in ..... . They become thus exchangeable, and e.g. a refrain sa bhikkhft may conclude an Upaj~ti just as well as an Aup. p~da. That it is the identity of the second halves which leads to the "curious mixture" of Aup. and Upaj~ti is confirmed by the fact that no such mixture occurs in the Vait~liya chapters (Utt. 10 and S0yagad.a 1,2): the Vait. pfida differs from the Aup. pfida only by being one syllable shorter so that the two may be mixed just like Tri.st.. and Jagati - but without the final syllable of the Aup. the second half of the Vait~liya pfida is not identical with that of the Upajfiti so that no mixing of the two is encouraged. It is further significant that the admixture of Tri.s.t./Jag. is limited in Utt. 15 to the first and last stanza, in Dasav. 10 to the last third of the chapter: Utt. 15,1 is, as we have seen, a mixed stanza, 16 is a complete Tri.s~ubh stanza. In Dasav. 10,1-13 no Tri.sL/Jag. pfida occurs, but of the remaining 8 stanzas four (among them the two last) are pure Tr./Jag., only one is pure Aup. (15), the rest (16, 18, 19) are mixed. The conclusion seems inevitable that the Tr./Jag. pfidas and stanzas are late intruders and accretions to the old sa-bhikkha-stanzas in Aup. metre: when these were collected and incorporated into Utt. and Dasav., they were supplemented at the beginning and end of the chapters with p~das and whole stanzas in the closely related and (by then) less unfamiliar and obsolete Tri.sL/Jag. metre. We have noticed that even some pure Aup. stanzas are patched up with p~das or half-stanzas badly or not at all fitting together. On Dasav. 10, 16b, Schubring aptly remarks: "The metre (Indravajr~) of this pfida b seems to show that it comes from another context. This would account for its grammatical isolation." The same explanation holds good e.g. for Utt. 15,1, and there can hardly be any doubt that in the other mixed stanzas, too, fragments of different origin are pieced together.
3. UTT. 12 (HARIESIJJA) AND 25 (JANNAIJJA)

These two chapters are among the most interesting specimens of "ascetics' poetry" preserved in the Jaina Canon. They are variations of the same theme: a Jaina monk on his begging tour comes to a brahmanical sacrifice and demands a share of the sacrificial meal, which he is refused on the ground that the food is destined for brahmins only; there ensues a disputation in which the monk explains that the true brahmin is the

UTTARAJJH/~Y.~ STUDIES

129

Jaina monk, the true sacrifice is his monkish discipline. In the Hariesijja, the controversy is intensified by the fact that the monk, Harike~a, is a ~vapaka; the gist of the old poem is summed up by divine voices proclaiming the monk's triumph, which was secured by the help of yak.sas (st. 37):

sakkham, khu d~sai tavo-viseso na d~sa~jai-visesa koi: sovaga-putto Hariesa-sahft 11 jass' erisa i.d.dhi mahanubhaga!
"Here can be clearly seen the excellence of penance, can be seen that birth confers no excellence whatever: a ~vapaka is the m o n k Harike.4a who has such miraculous power." Both chapters have parallels in Buddhist literature discussed by Charpentier first in two articles in ZDMG, 63 (Hariesijja) and W Z K M , 24 (Jannaijja) and subsequently in the commentary to his edition; in both chapters, unfortunately, there remain a considerable number of dark or corrupted passages. I am unable to offer solutions to all problems and therefore refrain from attempting a new edition and translation of the whole. But in some cases it is possible to correct the text or its traditional interpretation reflected in Jacobi's translation. It is hoped that the following remarks on some points and passages will be welcome to prospective readers of the two texts. Utt. 12 is one of several chapters where to an original old poem is prefixed a later introduction in different metre22 The Hariesijja is composed in Tri.s.tubh; five introductory ~lokas correspond to the prose introduction, and the first two Tri.s.tubh to the first gatha, of J~taka 497:

6. kayare agacchai ditta-rftve 1. kuto nu agacchasi rummavasf kale vigarale phokka-nase oma-celae pam. su-pisaya-bhfte otallako pam. su-pisacako va sam. kara-dftsam, parihariya ka.nfhe? sam.kara-dftsam, parihariya ka~the 7. ko re tuvam, iya adam. sa.nijje ko re tuva.m hosi TM adakkhineyyo? kae va asa' iha-m-agao si? oma-celaya pa~su-pisdya-bhf~ya, gaccha, kkhalahi! kim_ iha 3 d apehi ettol4! kim_ idha fthito si? Hhio si?
ix Charpentier prints ~ ~ but remarks in his commentary that ~antisOri's ~ ~ is better; it is indeed the only possible reading. I have left untranslated -putto since it merely characterizes Harik~a as a member of the gvap~ika caste; Jacobi's translation "son of a ~vapLka" becomes inexact by being literal. la Cf. Charpentier, ZDMG, 63, p. 173 n. 2, and my article on the NamipawajjA. 18 Fausb. hohisi. 14 Fausb. ettho.

130

L. ALSDORF

It is quite obvious that the Pali stanza is more original while the Jaina version is secondarily puffed up (of. particularly the repetition of 6 e in the voc. as 7c). It is significant that the Pali g~th~ is metrically flawless (if, as the sense demands, we correct hohisi to hosi) while the Jaina recasting shows a number of defects: in 6a the change from the second to the third person has led to correct kuto nu being replaced by irregular kayare; the new p~da 6b is defective (10 syll.) and irregular (. . . . . . ...); Pali otallako is indeed unexplained but metrically correct, Pkt. omacelae is intelligible but metrically wrong; in 6 a, traditional sam.kara must be corrected to sam.kara as in Pali; 7 a iya irregular, Pali hosi normal. - 6a is translated by Jacobi: "Who is that dandy coming there?" (Charp. : "Was ftir ein vornehmer Herr kommt wohl hier?"), i.e. he takes ditta-rf~ve as an ironical expression; but Devendra explains it as b[bhatsa-r@a.h, and Skt. dictionaries tell us that dfpta is not only "lighted, flashing, radiant" but also "heated by the sun, exposed to sunshine (and therefore) inauspicious". - In 6 b, vigarale is not simply "dreadful" (Jac.; Charp. : "schrecklich aussehend"); Devendra quite correctly explains it as danturatvadina bhaydnaka.h. (vi)karala originally means "having projecting teeth", and this is a characteristic mark of demoniac beings15; thus vigar~le suits very well with the pam.su-pisaya of the following p~da. - The next word, phokka-nase, is explained by Devendra: phokka agre sthala unnata ca nasasyetiphokka-nasa.h. Charp. (ZDMG, 63, p. 174 n. 1) does "not know whatphukka ~ is" and tries, with Jacobi's approval, to connect the word with phukka mithyd, De,in. 6,34. Whether this is right or not, phokka is doubtless identical with Hindi phok "hollow, concave". 10a: Charp.'s unmetrical text viyarijjai khajjai bhujjai must be corrected to viyarijja~ khajjai bhujja~ ya, which is exactly what D reads; initial ~ stands for - . To g. 2 and 3 of the Jfitaka correspond st. 11 and 12:

annam, mamam.16pakatam. brahmaganam. att' atthaya saddahato mamedam.. 17 apehi etto TM, kim idha [[hito si? na madisa tuyham, dadanti, jamma!

uvakkha4am, bhoyan, a mahan, a.nam. att'allhiyam, siddham ihegapakkham. naft vayam, erisam_ anna-pa.nam. dflhamu tujjham. , kim_ iham. thio si?

1~ 1~ t~ is

Cf. H. Liiders, "Sk. ka(lara-viklidha", Acta Orientalia, XVI, 131f. Fausb611(with Mss.) mama ida.m. Fausb. prints mama idar~ and remarks "so all three MSS. for mam~da~." Fausb. ettho (no v. 1.).

UTTARAJJI-I.~Y.~STUDIES

131

thale ca ninne ca vapanti b?jam. anftpa-khette phalam 8sasana ; etaya saddhaya dadahi danam. , app'eva aradhaye dakkhin, eyye.

thalesu b~yai vavanti kasaga taheva ninnesu ya asasae; eyae saddhae dalahi majjham. , arahae pu.n.nam_ in.am, khu khettam. .

In the J~taka, the proud prince declares that he is giving his food to brahmins out of ~raddh~ (saddahato mama), i.e. out of "desire to spend in the hope of acquiring merit", x9 By the simile of the seed sown on high and low ground the beggar explains that a gift to a lowly person like himself may produce just as much merit as a gift to brahmins: "Out of this ~raddh~ give me a gift!" As etaya saddhaya clearly is a repartee to saddahato mama, the identical eyae saddhae of Utt. 12e must refer to a previous mention of ~raddh~ corresponding to saddahato mama of g. 2 b, i.e. the strange siddham ihegapakkha.m must conceal a corruption of some form or other of saddha or saddahai. I am unable to restore the original text, but no doubt seems possible that the present one is corrupt. The following stanza (13):

khett~n.i amham, viiyan,i loe je maha.na jai-vijjovaveya,

jahi.m paki.nn, a viruhanti puv.na. taim. tu khettai supesalaim.

is translated by Jacobi: "All the world knows that we are (as it were) the fields on which gifts sown grow up as merit; Brahman.as of pure birth and knowledge are the blessed fields." Charpentier's translation in ZDMG, 63, is to the same effect. But amha.m (J~t. g. 5: mayha.m) is a genitive; the brahmin actually says: "I (not you!) know the fields in this world on which (gifts) sown grow up as merit: brahmins possessed of (high) caste and learning, they are blessed fields!" 16b: read not kim. tu but (with D) kim. nu (Charp. v.1. ki.n.nul). 18 is printed in C:

ke ettha khatta uvajoiya va eyam. da.n.den,a phalaen, a hanta

ajjhavaya va saha kha.n.diehim. kan. thammi ghettf~.na khalejja jo .nam. .

The metre of pSda c is rather irregular. But J, D and H read eyam. tu dan..den.a phalen, a hanta, K and S have eya.m khu dan..de.naphale.na hant& Both readings make the metre perfectly regular, but I think that khu is better than tu. - Jacobi's translation runs: "Are here no Kshattriyas, no priests who tend the fire, no teachers with their disciples, who will beat 1~ On the meanings of saddha cf. H. W. K6hler's thesis Jrad-dha in der vedischenund altbuddhistischen Literatur (G6ttingen, 1948), where, however, our passage is not mentioned.

132

L. ALSDOgr

him with a stick, or pelt him with a nut, take him by the neck, and drive him off?" khatta is indeed explained by Devendra as k$atrd.h k$atriyajataya.h; but if his explanation of the next word, uvajoiya, as upajyotisa.h, agni-sam~pa-vartino mahdnasikd.h is right - as I believe it is -, khattd is much more likely to be Skt. ksattara.h "meat-carvers, distributors of food"; on k.sattr, Pali kattar and khattar, of. Liiders' article on the Vidhurapan..ditaj~taka, ZDMG, 99, p. 115ff. As to a nom. pl. of an r-stem in a cf. Pischel, Pkt. Grammar, w 390. 20 In pgda d, jo is evidently impossible; Devendra explains that it stands for je by exchange of numbers (jo tti vacana-vyatyay~t ye). The more probable explanation is that an original text in Eastern Pkt. (cf. further down on st. 31!) had a nom. pl. je which was misunderstood for a nom. sing. and therefore translated into AMg. as jo. Imploring the monk to forgive his assailants and cease his wrath the sacrificer says st. 31a: na hu [read ht~] mun.~ kova-pard havanti. To this corresponds g. 19a of the J~taka: na pan..ditd kodhabald havanti. The Pkt. pada is perfectly clear: na khalu munina.h kopa-para bhavanti, "monks are not inclined to wrath." In the Pali pada, kodhabala is strange. Since -bala can hardly have the meaning of-vaga as last member of compound, it could only be translated "whose power is wrath", which in the context makes no satisfactory sense. Now in Eastern ("protocanonical") Pkt., Skt. krodhapara will - if the initial p ofpara is treated as a medial sound become kodhavala; and this form could easily be mistranslated into Pali as kodhabala. If, as seems to me pretty certain, this is the true explanation of the strange Pali text it follows that at any rate this p~da, but more probably the whole common nucleus of Utt. 12 and J~t. 497 goes back to an original in protocanonical Eastern Pkt. Of st. 36, Charpentier remarks in his commentary: "This verse in .&ryfi-metre is certainly an interpolation: the rain of flowers, the shower of wealth, and the drums of the gods are typical incidents in the legends." The stanza runs:

tahiyam, gandhodaya-pupphavasam, pahaydo dunduh~o surehim,

divvd tahi.m vasuhdrd ya vutthd, dgdse 'aho ddtta~!" ca ghuHhatp.

There cannot be the slightest doubt that all four padas are Tri~ubh, though all of them are irregular: a and c begin ~ v _ instead of - with short 3rd syllable (in c read dunduhio); in b, the only slight itso Unfortunately the corresponding Pali gath~i (8) is corrupt; Fausb611 prints katth' eva bhaltha Upajotiyo ca, but the Singhalese Mss. read kattha~ (or kattheva) hatthd, the Burmese kvattha gatd.

LrVrARAJJI-Li~y~, STUDIES

133

regularity (from the standpoint of the classical Upaj~ti!) is that syll. 5-7 are ,~ ,~- instead o f - ,~ ~ ; in d, the 3rd syll. is long and the 6th and 7th syll. which are normally short are contracted into one long syll.: Schubring's "type 1" of abnormal Tri.s.tubh p~das (cf. his ~y~ranga edition, p. 54). As there does not seem to be a convenient and convincing way to normalize the stanza, its metrical deficiencies will have to be accepted as genuine shortcomings; but neither they nor the contents justify any suspicion that the stanza is an interpolation; on the contrary, the context proves its genuineness: it is the indispensable introduction to the following stanza (37, quoted above) which cannot be missed as it sums up the gist of the whole chapter. 44c: C prints kammeha sam.jama-joga-sant~ and proposes in his commentary to read kamma eh& This, however, leaves the p~da with an irregular beginning. D and K read kammam, eha, which is no less irregular as the 3rd syll. remains long. I believe that the p~da should be restored as kammaf eha, sam.jama-joga-sant~, i.e. we have here Schubring's "type 3" (,Z, yaranga p. 54): the caesura falls after a redundant 5th syll.~1 The plural kamma~ is suggested by the plural of the question answered by our p~da, 43r eha ya te kayara santi, bhikkhft? In the Jannaijja, st. 6ft., the yajam~na says to the Jaina monk:

C. a na hu dahami te bhikkham. , bhikkhft, j~yahi an.~ao! 7 je ya veya-vifl vippa, jannattha ya je diya, jois' anga-vift je ya, je ya dhamma.na paraga . . . . 8e tesim, annam_ inam. deyam....
"I will not give thee alms, bhikkhu, beg elsewhere! Brahmins who are versed in the vedas, jannat.lha ya je diya, those who are versed in the jyoti.s~nga, and those who are well grounded in the dharmas.., to them is this food to be given!" jannallha ya je diya is explained in D and K: jannaltha ya tti yaj~artha yaj~a-prayojana ye tatraiva vy@riyante ye dvija.h. This interpretation 2z is unconvincing and as unsatisfactory as the metre of the phda which lacks one syllable. That ancient students of the text were not insensitive to this deficiency is shown by the variant jannallha ya fiindiya read by J, C's Mss. B 1,2, and H: manifestly the unsuccessful emendation of a very ancient corruption; it does rectify the metre but leaves untouched the
~ It is the old vedic type of Tri$~ubh described by Oldenberg, Metrische und textgeschichtliche Prolegomena, p. 66ff. ~ Jacobi's translation is different: "(Priests who) are chaste as behoves offerers"; I fail to understand how it is arrived at.

134

L. ALSDOe, F

crux jannallha and gives the second half of the p~da a Jain flavour unsuited to the context. An easier way out of the metrical difficulty was found later: in both D and K the mflla reads janna-m-at!ha ya je diya, but this is at once contradicted by the text of both commentaries quoted above; there can be no doubt that Devendra read janna!tha and that jannamattha is a much younger emendation than jannalfha ya fiindiya. What, then, was the original text? I venture to suggest that it can only have been janna-jatlha ya je diya, i.e. yaj~a-ya.slara~ ca ye dvija.h, "and brahmins sacrificing sacrifices". For the plural jattha = yas.lara.h cf. Pischel, w 390; for the expression yaj~a-ya~t.r cf. further down st. 38:

tubbhe jaiya janna.nam. = yflyam, yajino yaj~anam.

If my conjecture is accepted, as I trust it will be, it is of some significance for the textual history and criticism of the Jaina canon. It means that for Utt. 25,7 the whole tradition available to us, including not only all extant Mss. but even the oldest commentaries, goes back to one single, individual manuscript (not oral tradition!), in which through an ordinary clerical mistake one akr had been omitted. What can be proved in this particularly clear case is certain to be true in many others where we are less fortunate ~s, and we may draw the general conclusion that we need not hesitate to assume an old corruption and attempt correcting it even if the text is supported by the unanimous testimony of all Mss. and commentaries. St. 17:

jaha candam, gaha~ya citlhant~ panjaH-a.da vandamana namam, santa uttamam, ma~aharin,o

is explained by Devendra: yatha candram, grahadika.h panjal[ya.da tti

krta-pranjalaya.h ~ vandamana.h stuvanta.h namasyanta.h namaskurvanta.h uttamam, pradhanam, ma~ahari~o tti vin~tataya cittak~epa-kari.nas ti~thant[ti sambandha.h, tathainam api bhagavantam, devendra-pramukha ity upaskara.h. Jacobi accordingly translates: "The beautiful (gods) with
joined hands praise and worship the highest Lord (i.e. the Tirthakara) as the planets, & c., (praise) the moon." As noticed long ago by Charpentier, the stanza corresponds to Suttanip~ta 598:

~a In our chapter two passages which are doubtless very corrupt but so far defy emendation are 16bjanna.tt.hiveyasa muha~ and 36e samudaya taya.mtam tu. s4 This translation confirms that Devendra actually read panjaliya(la, not ~162 according to his principle quoted above (p. 110), Charpentier ought to have put this
into his text.

UTTARAJJHAY.~ STUDIES

135

candam, yatha khayat~tam, pecca panjalika jana vandamana namassanti, eva.m lokasmim. Gotamam. ,
' As the people, when they see the moon waxing again (lit. : gone beyond waning), salute and worship her with joined hands, so (they worship) G o t a m a in the world." The Pali p~da candam, yatha khayat~ta.m can leave no doubt that we have to read jaha candam, gaha~yam.~5 and that gahaiya is not grahadika but grahat?ta which, as graha is primarily a name of Ketu, means "gone beyond Ketu", i.e. reappeared after an eclipse; this makes decidedly even better sense than khayat~ta. That the last pfida, uttamam, ma.naharin,o, is not in order is suggested by the fact that ~hntisQri records two variant readings: uddhatta man.aharin,o and uddhattum an.agari.no, both of which, however, do not seem to make sense. In any case ma.nahari.no can hardly, as assumed by Devendra, qualify the subject; more probably we have to read man.aharin,am. and to take it as an attribute of candam.. It looks as if the stanza, taken from a different context or from the stock of "floating" stanzas, was imperfectly adapted to its present use suggested by the preceding stanza: the praise of the Jina likening him to the moon reappearing after an eclipse was a particularly apt continuation of 16c, a: nakkhatta.nam.

muham, cando, dhamman, am. Kasavo muham. .~

The following stanza (15, 18) is printed in C as follows:

aja.naga jannava~ vijjam~han, asam.paya gf4.dha sajjhayatavasa bhasacchanna ivaggin,o.

Devendra's construction of p~das a, b is fantastic: by his unfailing device of assuming a sub-vyatyaya (exchange of cases) he treats vijjamahan.asam,paya (explained as vidya eva brahman.asa.mpada.h) as a gen. plur. depending on ajan.aga ("ignorant of the wealth of brahmins consisting in knowledge"); on c he comments: tatha gft.dha.h, bahi.hsa.mvrtimanta.h, kena hetuna? svadhyaya-tapasa vedadhyayanopavasadina. For Jacobi, the subvyatyaya was of course unacceptable; but his translation remains heavily indebted to Devendra: "The ignorant (priests) pretend to know the 25 ~ntisfiri's pA[h~mtaracandegahafe would be grammatically possible, but the Pali parallel rather recommends the accusative. 26 K~ava according to Devendra (whom Jacobi follows) is bhagavan l~abhadeva.h; Dev. no doubt believed that dhamma.na.mmuha.mcould only refer to the first tirthakara. But ~,$abha is, as far as I know, never called (and could not be called) K~ava, and there is no reason why Kfisava should not be here what it normally is, viz. the gotra name of Mah~vira.

136

L. ALSDO~

sacrifice, those whose Brahmanical excellence consists in (false) science; they shroud themselves in study and penance, being like fire covered by ashes." I believe that language and contents of the stanza are much simpler, a and b are two independent sentences: "Devoid of knowledge are those who teach the doctrine of sacrifice (yajFta-vadinab); (but true) knowledge is the wealth of the brahmin (vidya brahman.a-sam.pat)." In c, sajjhaya-tavasa is not an instr, but a nom. plur. (from a thematic stem tavasa-): "Study and penance (of the yaj~avadinab) are hidden like fires covered by ashes."