Word OE In Some Canonical Jaina Texts

Here's a comprehensive summary of Herman Tieken's "The Word 'OE' in Some Canonical Jaina Texts," based on the provided text:

Central Argument:

Herman Tieken challenges the traditional interpretation of the Jaina canonical word "oe," which is often glossed with the Sanskrit word ojas ("strength"). Instead, Tieken argues that "oe" is more likely derived from the Sanskrit word okas ("house") and, by extension, signifies "worldliness" or attachment to the mundane world. He supports this by analyzing various occurrences of "oe" in canonical Jaina texts, demonstrating how this alternative interpretation resolves textual inconsistencies and offers a more coherent meaning within the contexts.

Key Points and Analysis:

1. Challenging the ojas Derivation:

   • Tieken notes that the traditional interpretation sees "oe" as an adjective describing a monk as "strong." However, he points to the accompanying glosses by Sīlānka, such as "ojah eko ragadveṣarahitah" (strong, unique, free from passion and aversion), which suggest an "embarrassment" with the word, implying a struggle to fit the meaning.
   • He highlights the existence of a regular adjective oyaṁsi (ojasvin, "possessing strength") in the same texts (e.g., Āyāra II.1.4.2), questioning why a different, less clear form like "oe" would be used if ojas were the intended meaning.

2. Proposing the okas Derivation:

   • Tieken's primary alternative is the derivation from Sanskrit okas ("house"). He suggests that "oe" can function both literally as "house" and figuratively as "worldliness" or attachment to one's dwelling, family, and worldly affairs.
   • This interpretation is particularly supported by the Sūyagada 1.4.1.11 passage: "oe kulāni" (families of the house). Tieken argues that oe here should be seen as an independent phrase or synonym for kula ("family"), pointing to okas. He further suggests that the emendation of kulāņi to kulāna by scholars like Schubring and Alsdorf is unnecessary if oe is understood as "house" or "worldliness." The original text, "oe kulāni," would then mean "a house, families," and one attached to these situations is not a nirgrantha (one without possessions or attachments).
   • This interpretation also resolves a perceived contradiction: how can a monk be described as "strong" (oe) if he is influenced by families? The meaning of "worldliness" avoids this issue.

3. Analyzing Specific Textual Instances:

   • Sūyagada 1.4.1.11: As mentioned above, this is a pivotal text for the okas derivation, suggesting "oe" means "house" or "worldliness" in conjunction with "families."
   • Sūyagada 1.4.2.1: Tieken suggests reading oe instead of oje and interpreting it as a locative of okas ("house"), meaning attachment to the "house" (as a source of worldliness).
   • Āyāra 1.8.6/224 and 1.8.7/228: The phrase "oe tinne" is interpreted as "having overcome worldliness."
   • Āyāra 1.5.6/176: In the phrase "oe appatitthānassa khettanne," Tieken proposes reading oe as an apposition to khetta ("place"), meaning "he knows the house (oe) as the place (khetta) of one who is without ground [for salvation]," or "he knows that one who remains attached to the house is without ground [for salvation]."
   • Āyāra 1.8.3/209-210: Tieken analyzes the problematic phrase "oe juimassa khet[sic]anne." He argues that the gloss "khedajño" for khetanne suggests a confusion with khedajña ("one who knows distress"), and that juimassa (from dyutimat, "brilliant") makes little sense. He proposes an emendation to "cuimassa" (from cyutimat, "one who will die [and be born again]"). Thus, "oe cuimassa khetanne" would mean "he knows the house as the place of one who dies (to be born again)," linking attachment to the house with the cycle of rebirth. He also connects "oe dayam dayati" ("he has pity on their worldliness") in this section with a similar phrase in Āyāra 1.6.5.
   • Sūyagada 1.14.21: Tieken translates "oe tahiyam" as "simply to be told the truth with regard to their worldliness," reinforcing his core argument.
   • Āyāra 1.6.5/196: In the phrase "oe samitadaṁsane," Tieken argues against linking it to the preceding sentence and instead connects it to the following one. He interprets it as "endowed with complete knowledge of worldliness," aligning with the context of pitying worldly people and teaching houselessness.

4. Textual Criticism and Emendations:

   • Tieken is cautious about emending texts and prefers to find interpretations that fit the transmitted reading. However, in the case of Āyāra 1.8.3, he proposes an emendation from juimassa to cuimassa as a way to make sense of the passage.
   • He also notes that many emendations, like Schubring's to kulāna in Sūyagada 1.4.1.11, might be unnecessary if the traditional interpretation of "oe" is reconsidered.
   • He acknowledges that textual corruption and intentional editing by commentators have occurred throughout the transmission of these texts, justifying a careful and sometimes critical approach to the existing readings.

5. Broader Implications:

   • Tieken concludes that the Sanskrit word okas has had an "unfortunate fate" in the Jaina canon, being misunderstood not only in its form "oe" but also in other instances like ukka (in anukkasain).
   • The study emphasizes the importance of careful contextual analysis and a willingness to question traditional interpretations when they lead to inconsistencies or difficulties in understanding.

In essence, Tieken's article provides a linguistic and philological argument for reinterpreting the word "oe" in key Jaina scriptures. By shifting the etymological focus from ojas to okas, he offers a more cohesive understanding of passages related to monastic practice, attachment, and worldly concerns, thereby contributing significantly to the scholarly understanding of these foundational texts.