DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.29591#0060
56
Charpentier, Uttaradhyayanasutra
for this most extraordinary fact is that Devendra in these passages
absorbed into his work materials from various other sources, and
especially from the fourth part of the drslivada, which seems to
have been of a legendary and biographical content; consequently,
Santisuri would here represent the true Uttaradhyayana-tradition,
while Devendra has mixed it up with a variety of materials be-
longing to other parts of the canon.
This point of view is probably the correct one. For Dev-
endra himself (Ausg. Erz. p, 55, 9—10) — in a passage already
pointed out by Leumann — tells us that: etcmi cci caritani1 2 3 yathci
purvaprabandhesu drstdni tcdhd likhitdni. Although it is not quite
easy to find out the correct meaning of the wordpurvaprabandhcdt, I
assume that Leumann must be right in the main in suggesting that
this expression denotes some part or other of the drstivcida. For
the purvapraband'hah can scarcely mean anything but 'commen-
taries on the purva s and, consequently, we may suggest that
Devendra has here made use of some old compositions containing
tales and legends, meant to illustrate some tenets of the oldest
part of the canon. In connection with this we may perhaps re-
member that the second chapter of our text, where quite a number
of tales are preserved both by Santisuri and Devendra, is said
to have been itself extracted from a certain part of the purva's.
But this is perhaps of little importance. What seems certain is
that Devendra has followed Santisuri in other points, but not as
regards the tales, for which he must have had access to quite
different sources of much greater extent.
According to the prasasti at the end of his work, Devendra-
ganin completed the commentary called the Sukhabodhcl at Anahila-
pataka in the house of the merchant Dohatti saniv. 1129= 1073
A. D." In the same prasasti3 Devendra gives us further particulars
of his life and work: he himself — belonging to the Tapdgaccha
according to Klatt IA. IX — had as his teacher Amradeva, .who
was himself the pupil of Uddyotana of the Brliadgaccha, that be-
1 Viz. the biographies of the four pratyekabuddhci s, which are
certainly drawn from older sources.
2 Cp. Jacobi Ausg. Erz. p. vn for further details.
3 Published by Bhandarkar Report 1883/84, p. 441 sq. (cp. Pe-
terson Report 1884/86, App. p. 71).
Charpentier, Uttaradhyayanasutra
for this most extraordinary fact is that Devendra in these passages
absorbed into his work materials from various other sources, and
especially from the fourth part of the drslivada, which seems to
have been of a legendary and biographical content; consequently,
Santisuri would here represent the true Uttaradhyayana-tradition,
while Devendra has mixed it up with a variety of materials be-
longing to other parts of the canon.
This point of view is probably the correct one. For Dev-
endra himself (Ausg. Erz. p, 55, 9—10) — in a passage already
pointed out by Leumann — tells us that: etcmi cci caritani1 2 3 yathci
purvaprabandhesu drstdni tcdhd likhitdni. Although it is not quite
easy to find out the correct meaning of the wordpurvaprabandhcdt, I
assume that Leumann must be right in the main in suggesting that
this expression denotes some part or other of the drstivcida. For
the purvapraband'hah can scarcely mean anything but 'commen-
taries on the purva s and, consequently, we may suggest that
Devendra has here made use of some old compositions containing
tales and legends, meant to illustrate some tenets of the oldest
part of the canon. In connection with this we may perhaps re-
member that the second chapter of our text, where quite a number
of tales are preserved both by Santisuri and Devendra, is said
to have been itself extracted from a certain part of the purva's.
But this is perhaps of little importance. What seems certain is
that Devendra has followed Santisuri in other points, but not as
regards the tales, for which he must have had access to quite
different sources of much greater extent.
According to the prasasti at the end of his work, Devendra-
ganin completed the commentary called the Sukhabodhcl at Anahila-
pataka in the house of the merchant Dohatti saniv. 1129= 1073
A. D." In the same prasasti3 Devendra gives us further particulars
of his life and work: he himself — belonging to the Tapdgaccha
according to Klatt IA. IX — had as his teacher Amradeva, .who
was himself the pupil of Uddyotana of the Brliadgaccha, that be-
1 Viz. the biographies of the four pratyekabuddhci s, which are
certainly drawn from older sources.
2 Cp. Jacobi Ausg. Erz. p. vn for further details.
3 Published by Bhandarkar Report 1883/84, p. 441 sq. (cp. Pe-
terson Report 1884/86, App. p. 71).