DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.29591#0396
392
Charpentier, Uttaradhyayanasutram
too, that the old canonical texts do not always give the same concise
and strict definitions as the later theologians and philosophers.
21. Cp. Umasvati VIII, 16 and 21. — S. reads mohcmijje u
ukkosa.
22. Cp. Umasvati VIII, 18 and 21. — S. reads tettisa sagardim.
23. Cp. Umasvati VIII, 17 and 20.
24. aicchiya-: aicch- is enumerated amongst the substitutes
of gam- in He. IV, 162, and in Aup. S. § 54 we find samaicch-
= samatiJcram-] however in Setubandha the root has the form
aimeh-, and according to Leumann Aup. S. s. v. there occurs in
two passages of Nayadh. a form samatitth-1. I am unable to
make any suggestion concerning the etymology of this word,
except that it certainly must contain the preposition ati. It is
possible, though not very probable, that aicchai may be *a(t)i-
acchai (on acchai v. Pischel § 480).
Chapter 34.
D.: anantaradhyayane karmaj)r alert ay a uktds tatsthitir lesya-
vasata ity atas tadabhidhanartharn catustrimsam lesyddhyayanand-
makam adhyayanam drabhyate \ asya cedam adisutram ||
The lesyd-theory, which is common to the Jains and the
Ajlvika’s -—- the followers of Gosala — is certainly one of the
darkest and most difficult points in the Jain religion. In a paper
called »The Lesya-theory of the Jainas and Ajlvikas», and pub-
lished in Festskrift till K. F. Johansson, Upsala 1910, pp. 20—
38 I formerly tried to connect this marvellous theory of the colours
of the soul with the Samkhya doctrine of the chciyd or pratibimba
(cp. Garbe Samkhya-Phil. p. 315 sq.). Although I have privately
met with several contradictory opinions, and there are certainly
in my treatise several rather obvious mistakes, I am not yet
wholly convinced of the incorrectness of my opinion. In two works
which are not accessible to me, viz. Malayagiri’s commentary on
1 But this may only be bad orthography, tth and cell resembling
each other in Jain Mss., and t often being inserted in places where it
does not belong, as is well known.
Charpentier, Uttaradhyayanasutram
too, that the old canonical texts do not always give the same concise
and strict definitions as the later theologians and philosophers.
21. Cp. Umasvati VIII, 16 and 21. — S. reads mohcmijje u
ukkosa.
22. Cp. Umasvati VIII, 18 and 21. — S. reads tettisa sagardim.
23. Cp. Umasvati VIII, 17 and 20.
24. aicchiya-: aicch- is enumerated amongst the substitutes
of gam- in He. IV, 162, and in Aup. S. § 54 we find samaicch-
= samatiJcram-] however in Setubandha the root has the form
aimeh-, and according to Leumann Aup. S. s. v. there occurs in
two passages of Nayadh. a form samatitth-1. I am unable to
make any suggestion concerning the etymology of this word,
except that it certainly must contain the preposition ati. It is
possible, though not very probable, that aicchai may be *a(t)i-
acchai (on acchai v. Pischel § 480).
Chapter 34.
D.: anantaradhyayane karmaj)r alert ay a uktds tatsthitir lesya-
vasata ity atas tadabhidhanartharn catustrimsam lesyddhyayanand-
makam adhyayanam drabhyate \ asya cedam adisutram ||
The lesyd-theory, which is common to the Jains and the
Ajlvika’s -—- the followers of Gosala — is certainly one of the
darkest and most difficult points in the Jain religion. In a paper
called »The Lesya-theory of the Jainas and Ajlvikas», and pub-
lished in Festskrift till K. F. Johansson, Upsala 1910, pp. 20—
38 I formerly tried to connect this marvellous theory of the colours
of the soul with the Samkhya doctrine of the chciyd or pratibimba
(cp. Garbe Samkhya-Phil. p. 315 sq.). Although I have privately
met with several contradictory opinions, and there are certainly
in my treatise several rather obvious mistakes, I am not yet
wholly convinced of the incorrectness of my opinion. In two works
which are not accessible to me, viz. Malayagiri’s commentary on
1 But this may only be bad orthography, tth and cell resembling
each other in Jain Mss., and t often being inserted in places where it
does not belong, as is well known.