P.104

            Traidhaatukaviitaraaga.h    samalo.s.takaa~ncana
        aakaa'sapaa.nitalasamacitto vaa'siicandanakalpo vid-
        yaavidaaritaa.n.dako'so vidyaabhij~na.h pratisa.mvi-
        tpraapto.... This  is part of a list of ephithets of
        one who has just become an arhat(arhan sa.mv.rtta.h).
        It occurs  at least  nine  times, four times  in the
        Divyaavadaana and five times in the Avadaana'sataka.
        In  Divy.   it  is  found  twice   in  the  singular
        (180,282), once  in the dual (55I), and once  in the
        plural  (97).  The above form is where it occurs for
        the  first  time  in the singular.  Yet in spite  of
        these repetitions the editors have not made up their
        minds as to what readings  to adopt, and do not seem
        to have decided on the meaning.
           It will be necessary to show first how the editors
        waver about the text.The spelling vaa'siicandanakalpo,
        as given above (Divy.  I80), is only a conjecture of
        the editors.  The Mss.  have vaasi- and vaalii-.  In
        all the other instances  the editors  leave vaa'sii-
        in  the  text, but  in  the  index  they  give  both
        spellings,  showing  that  they  leave  the  meaning
        undecided.  Speyer is still worse.  In Av.  'Sat. I.
        96, 7 his Ms.  reads  vaasii-, but he emended  it to
        vaasi-.  Then in his index  he goes back  to vaasii,
        but  does  not say why, and in I.  104.  7 he prints
        vaasii as a separate word. He ignores the conjecture
        vaa'sii.  Yet when  the editors  of Divy.  suggested
        vaa'sii-  one would suppose that they thought  it to
        give a better meaning, and that when Speyer rejected
        it  he had  a reason  for  going  back  to  the  Ms.
        reading.
            The index of Divy. gives a.n.dako'sa  as `cocoon
        of ignorance'with a query.One meaning of a.n.dako'sa,
        however, is `egg=shell' (instances in Paali),and the
        whole  word  is  vidyaa-vidaaritaa.n.dako'so,  `with
        knowledge-broken egg-shell,' which might mean `whose
        egg-shell  is broken  by knowledge.'  But  there  is
        nothing  to show that a.n.dako'sa  means  ignorance,
        except that this meaning  seems to fit.  However, in
        Divy. 55I, I9 the reading is avidyaa-. This would be
        a possibility  in all the other  passages, but  then
        they should be printed  `vidyaa-, or there should be
        some explanation  of the solitary  avidyaa-  in 551,
        19. It seems clear that the editors were not decided
        about either the reading or the meaning.
            Vidyaabhij~na.h. Here too they are not  decided.
        In Divy.  97, 26 they  read  vij~naa.h  (plur.) with
        vidyaa  joined  to the  previous  word.  But  a word
        merely  meaning  knowing  or  intelligent  is not  a
        significant epithet in a list


                                P.105


        of an arhat's qualities.  Still, the fact that it is
        given  once  in the text  shows  how far the editors
        were  from  making  up  their  minds.  Two  possible
        readings remain, one which makes vidyaabhij~naa.h  a
        separate  word, and the other which combines it with
        the  next  vidyaabhij~naa-pratisa.mvit-praapto.  But
        here are two different words.  Abhij~na.h, occurring
        in   vidyaabhij~na.h,   would    mean    `thoroughly
        understanding  (the  knowledge),' but in the  second
        case  we  have   not  an  adjective   but  the  noun
        abhij~naa, `higher  knowledge,' of which  there  are
        six possessed by an arhat. Here again the reading is
        left undecided.
            It  may be said  in favour of  the editors  that
        whatever  readings  are chosen some of them yield no
        intelligible sense.  My suggestion is that the words
        have been wrongly divided. In that case it will have
        to be held  that  the  scribes  themselves  did  not
        always know the meaning. This seems probable, as the
        words  are full  of figures  of speech, and may have
        been taken from some stotra.
            It will at least be a step forward if it can  be
        shown that intelligible  meanings  can be found, and
        that little more is needed for this than a different
        division of words.  In vaasii-candana-kalpo there is
        no reason  for vaasii-, unless  it can be shown that
        vaasii-candana  is  a  particular  kind  of  sandal.
        Candana-kalpa  is `like, or behaving  like, sandal.'
        Sandal  is  well-known  as  a  refrigerant,  and  is
        mentioned as such in Divy. 508, 28, where in a verse
        passage  it is said to have the quality of coolness,
        'saityagu.no hi candanaraso.  However, it is not the
        arhat  himself  who  has  cooling   qualities.   The
        coolness is produced by the state of knowledge, when
        the arhat becomes  traidhaatukaviitaraaga, free from
        passion  for the three  worlds.  If vidyaa  from the
        next  word  is  joined  on  we get  an  intelligible
        epithet   of  an  arhat,  candanakalpavidyo,  `whose
        knowledge  acts like sandal.' Vaasii can be disposed
        of   by   adding   it   to   the   previous    word,
        aakaa'sapaa.nitalasamacitta.  This, taken by itself,
        means, `whose mind is the same towards space and the
        palm  of the  hand,' and  practically  no difference
        results  from adding vaasii, for samacittavaasin  is
        `dwelling with an even mind.'
            This  leaves the next  word without the  initial
        vidyaa-, and what  remains  is vidaaritaa.n.dako'so,
        I80.20,   or   vidaaritaa.n.dako'saavidyaa   (plur.)
        97.26.  The latter  combination  is only what struck
        the  fancy   of  the  editors,  but   it  may  be  a
        preservation  of the real division.  In that case we
        get for the singular vidaaritaa.n.dako'saavidyo, and
        then  the last element  of the compound  is avidyaa.
        The


                                P.106


        result is an at least permissible description  of an
        arhat, `in whom ignorance is a broken egg-shell.'
            We are thus freed in the next word from the weak
        epithet  vidyaabhij~na.h, and  abhij~na.h, which  is
        left, is found  only once (and in a corrupt  form as
        vij~na.h).  It may be discarded  for the much better
        attested  abbij~naapratisa.mvitpraapto.  This  is in
        fact the only reading  found in Av.'Sat.  It gives a
        clear, technical  description  of the arhat `who has
        attained the (six) higher knowledges  and the (four)
        analytical knowledges.'
            The  highly figurative nature  of some of  these
        terms  gives  them  a  poetical  aspect, but  it  is
        unlikely  that the passage is intended  to be wholly
        metrical, as it  occurs  in the  singular, dual, and
        plural.  Some  of it  almost  fits  into  an  aaryaa
        scheme, and this may be due to dependence on phrases
        from some stotra.  It would  not be surprising  that
        the scribes  should  have  divided  suffixes  in the
        wrong places.
            In  the  first  word  traidhaatuka-looks  like a
        poetical adaptation  of traidhaatuloka.  The second,
        samalo.s.takaa~ncana   is   almost   paralleled   by
        samalo.s.taa-'smakaa~ncana  of  the  Giitaa, VI, 18,
        and  samacitta  is  paralleled   in  the  Giitaa  by
        samabuddhi,  VI,  19   and   samadar'sin,   V,   18,
        Vidaaritaa.n.dako'saavidyo   is  another  figurative
        expression, about the division  of which the scribes
        were  uncertain, and without  more knowledge  of its
        source it cannot be treated as final. The egg-simile
        occurs  several  times  in Paali  (A.iv, 126  etc.),
        where the hatching  of chickens  from eggs is made a
        simile fo the disciple winning release.  Just as the
        hen thinks, `would  that my chickens  with  claw  or
        beak may break  through  the egg-shell,' so the monk
        intent  on discipline  thinks, `would  that  my mind
        free  from  clinging   may  be  released   from  the
        aasavas.'  Here the point  of comparison  is not the
        egg-shell  but  the striving  of the  chickens.  The
        egg-shell  simile  also occurs  in an Udaana  (Divy.
        203), where Buddha decides to live only three months
        longer, and shakes off his aggregate of rebirth. `So
        he broke it as the bird(the  egg-creature)breaks its
        shell,' abhinat  ko'sam  ivaa.n.dasa.mbhava.h.  Here
        there is no breaking  of the shell of ignorance  but
        of the  bhavasa.mskaara, which  if it had  not  been
        broken would have kept him in existence for the rest
        of  the   kalpa.   This   Udaana   occurs   in   the
        Mahaaparinibhaana-sutta (D.  ii. I07) and in several
        other  parts  of the Paali  Nikaayas, but there  the
        shell is replaced  by a coat of mail(kavaca).  Which
        reading was the original  does not concern us, as it
        is practically  certain that the form mentioning the
        egg-shell was that known to the


                                P.107


        authors  of the Avadaanas.  The  Paali  commentaries
        always  explain  it without  any  reference  to  the
        egg-simile,  but   it  is  curious   that   in   the
        Nettippakara.na under the category Pa~n~natti (p.6I)
        the words abhida kavaca.m are explained  as aversion
        of mind, grasping at omniscience and breaking of the
        egg-shells of ignorance,  padaalanaa avijjaa.n.dako-
        saana.m.    These   examples   however   show   that
        a.n.dako'sa   without   any  qualification   has  no
        doctrinal significance, and does not in itself refer
        to ignorance.  They  thus favour  the emendation  of
        vidyaavidaaritaa.n.dako'so   (where  a.n.dako'sa  is
        left undefined) into the form suggested above.