mmdesh at UMICH.EDU
Mon Sep 7 12:55:54 UTC 1998
One may also note the special treatment of avadya according to Panini
3.1.101 (avadyapaNyavaryA garhyapaNitavyAnirodheSu). Only in the sense of
garhya can one have the form avadya, while in other contexts, the form
will be anudya. This means that according to Panini the form avadya was
not a normal negative of -vadya, but a formation to be understood on its
own, a nipAtana (see the KAzikAvRtti on this rule). In Sanskrit usage too
one generally finds the contrast between anavadya and avadya, rather than
between avadya and vadya.
On Mon, 7 Sep 1998, Madhav Deshpande wrote:
> The first volume of the Abhidhaanaraajendra cites the words avajja,
> avajjakara, and avajjabhiiru with citations and references.
> Madhav Deshpande
> On Sun, 6 Sep 1998, jonathan silk wrote:
> > The AMg dictionary says that at Pra"snavyaakara.nasuutra 2.4 (Bombay
> > Agamodaya-samiti, 1919) appears the word avajja = Skt. avadya. I am
> > interested in this because the normal MIA equivalent seems to be vajja.
> > Seth's Pkt. dictionary cites Suuyaga.da.mgasutta II.2.65 as containing the
> > word avajja, but actually in the Jaina Agama Series para 713 = p. 280.14
> > the reading is vajjabahuula. Does the word avajja actually occur in AMg?
> > Thanks for any help from someone who may have access to the edition
> > Jonathan SILK
> > jonathan.silk at yale.edu
More information about the INDOLOGY