Dear List members,


In the first ajjhayaṇa of the first suyakkhaṃdha of the Jaina canonical text 
Āyāraṃgasutta the following passage is found:



lajjamāṇā puḍho pāsa / ‘aṇāgarā mo’ tti ege pavayamāṇā, jamiṇaṃ virūvarūvehiṃ 
satthehiṃ puḍhavikammasamāraṃbheṇaṃ puḍhavisatthaṃ samāraṃbhamāṇo aṇegarūve 
pāṇe vihiṃsati.



The passage is found 5 times more, with udaya, agaṇi, vaṇassati, tasakāya and 
vāu instead of puḍhavi. Furthermore, there are variant readings, to wit, plural 
samāraṃbhamāṇā and vihiṃsaṃti.

In his edition Schubring has a full stop after pāsa and after pavayamāṇā. 
Jambūvijaya has a daṇḍa after pāsa and a comma after pavayamāṇā.



Schubring’s translation, as rendered into English by Bollée and Soni, reads 
(note that pāsa is introducing the pavayamāṇā phrase here):



Ashamed in [many] individual cases, see, ([are] some, and confess: “we are 
houseless ones”.)

If one, now with tools of different kinds, through activities with acts towards 
the earth [water, fire, plants, animals, wind] with a tool, injures other 
beings of different kinds.



Compare, or rather, contrast, Jacobi:



See! There are men who control themselves [lajjamāṇā?], (whilst others only) 
pretend to be houseless, because one destroys this earth body …



I am unsure how to deal with the construction of the first part, or more in 
particular how to fit in the participle lajjamāṇā. In Jacobi’s translation this 
participle is a sentence by itself, in that of Schubring it is somehow to be 
linked to the pavayamāṇā sentence, which, however, lacks a proper predicate of 
its own.

I like assume that the passage means something like: people who claim to be 
houseless but hurt living beings should be ashamed. If so (but it is a very big 
IF), the function of lajjamāṇā resembles that of lajji(/e)jjaṃtu in the 
following Apabhraṃśa line quoted in Hemacandra’s Prākrit grammar (IV 351): 
lajji(/e)ṃtu vayaṃsiahu jai bhaggā gharu eṃtu “He would embarrass me in front 
of my friends if he came home beaten”. But with Apa. we are (are we?) far 
removed from the language of the Āyāra.

Does anyone have a suggestion on how to interpret this passage?



With kind regards, Herman

Herman Tieken
Stationsweg 58
2515 BP Den Haag
The Netherlands
00 31 (0)70 2208127
website: hermantieken.com<http://hermantieken.com/>

The Aśoka Inscriptions: Analysing a corpus, New Delhi: Primus Books, 2023.
https://primusbooks.com/ancient/the-asoka-inscriptions-analysing-a-corpus-by-herman-tieken/


_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
[email protected]
https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology

Reply via email to