DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.29591#0044
40
Charpentier, Uttaradhyayanasutra
The Uttarddhyayana is not the work of one single author,
but is a collection of materials differing in age and derived
from different sources. It was perhaps in its original contents
more like the old Buddhist works, the Dhammapada and the
Suit a Nipdtci* 1. At the beginning it probably did not contain
for the jirakirna's it is more difficult to judge of their being men-
tioned here. One might possibly suggest that the prakirna's might
mean the same texts that are elsewhere styled as anangapravistds,
but this is, of course, impossible here, as the bdhira’s, which are
apparently identical with those texts, are mentioned two verses above.
That the present set of prakirna s should be intended is also scarcely
possible, as many of these texts most clearly belong to the very latest
period of canonical scriptures. But AVeber Ind. Stud. XVI, 427 ff.
gives other lists of prakirna" s from different sources, amongst which
are included the Nandi, the Anuyogadvdrasutra and a number of
other treatises not now belonging to the prakirna s, and it is perhaps
possible that such scriptures of a certain age, the position of which
in the canon is somewhat doubtful, may be meant here. The number
of lectures in the Sutrakrtdnga mentioned here coincides with the
number known already to the author of ahga 4, and likewise the first
srutaskandha of ahga 6 seems always to have contained nineteen
chapters. Reference to the three texts Dasdsrutaskandha, Brhatkalpa
and Vyavahdra taken as a unit is given by AVeber Ind. Stud. XVI,
447, 449 from the Avasyaka niryukti XVI, 199, but not from any
older texts of the canon. The mention of the twenty-eight lectures of
the Prakalpa (Acara) in XXXI, 18 looks much older; for at present ahga
1 has only twenty-four chapters, and although all the authorities assign to
it one chapter more, viz. the Mahaparinnd (Acara I, 7, cp. Weber
Ind. Stud. XVI, 251 sq.; Jacobi SBE. XXII, p. xlix sq. ; Schubring
Ayar. p. 49 sq.), this only gives twenty-five. The only possible solution
of this problem is that at the time when the verse in question was
composed the Nislha (now the first chedasutra) with its three parts .-
ugghdiya, anugghaiya and arovand (Avas. niry. XVI, 114; Weber
Ind. Stud. XVI, 255 n.) formed part of the first ahga, as seems also
to appear from ahga 4 § 25 and other sources (cp. Weber Ind. Stud.
XVI, 453 sq.). However, this is not necessarily a proof of the great
age of our verse, as it is also possible that it only gives traditional
matter, and moreover we do not know at what time the nislha was
really separated from the first ahga. After all, it is the mention of
canonical texts in this part of the Uttarddhyayana that makes the differ-
ence between it and the other chapters, not the texts that are referred
to or the way in which they are mentioned.
1 I shall deal further with this topic later on.
Charpentier, Uttaradhyayanasutra
The Uttarddhyayana is not the work of one single author,
but is a collection of materials differing in age and derived
from different sources. It was perhaps in its original contents
more like the old Buddhist works, the Dhammapada and the
Suit a Nipdtci* 1. At the beginning it probably did not contain
for the jirakirna's it is more difficult to judge of their being men-
tioned here. One might possibly suggest that the prakirna's might
mean the same texts that are elsewhere styled as anangapravistds,
but this is, of course, impossible here, as the bdhira’s, which are
apparently identical with those texts, are mentioned two verses above.
That the present set of prakirna s should be intended is also scarcely
possible, as many of these texts most clearly belong to the very latest
period of canonical scriptures. But AVeber Ind. Stud. XVI, 427 ff.
gives other lists of prakirna" s from different sources, amongst which
are included the Nandi, the Anuyogadvdrasutra and a number of
other treatises not now belonging to the prakirna s, and it is perhaps
possible that such scriptures of a certain age, the position of which
in the canon is somewhat doubtful, may be meant here. The number
of lectures in the Sutrakrtdnga mentioned here coincides with the
number known already to the author of ahga 4, and likewise the first
srutaskandha of ahga 6 seems always to have contained nineteen
chapters. Reference to the three texts Dasdsrutaskandha, Brhatkalpa
and Vyavahdra taken as a unit is given by AVeber Ind. Stud. XVI,
447, 449 from the Avasyaka niryukti XVI, 199, but not from any
older texts of the canon. The mention of the twenty-eight lectures of
the Prakalpa (Acara) in XXXI, 18 looks much older; for at present ahga
1 has only twenty-four chapters, and although all the authorities assign to
it one chapter more, viz. the Mahaparinnd (Acara I, 7, cp. Weber
Ind. Stud. XVI, 251 sq.; Jacobi SBE. XXII, p. xlix sq. ; Schubring
Ayar. p. 49 sq.), this only gives twenty-five. The only possible solution
of this problem is that at the time when the verse in question was
composed the Nislha (now the first chedasutra) with its three parts .-
ugghdiya, anugghaiya and arovand (Avas. niry. XVI, 114; Weber
Ind. Stud. XVI, 255 n.) formed part of the first ahga, as seems also
to appear from ahga 4 § 25 and other sources (cp. Weber Ind. Stud.
XVI, 453 sq.). However, this is not necessarily a proof of the great
age of our verse, as it is also possible that it only gives traditional
matter, and moreover we do not know at what time the nislha was
really separated from the first ahga. After all, it is the mention of
canonical texts in this part of the Uttarddhyayana that makes the differ-
ence between it and the other chapters, not the texts that are referred
to or the way in which they are mentioned.
1 I shall deal further with this topic later on.