ÃÖÆÃÖ´¯ÖÖ¤ÛúÖî
þÖ. ¯ÖÓ. ±æú»Ö“Ö®¦: ×ÃÖ¨Ö®ŸÖ¿ÖÖáÖß Ã¾Ö. ¯ÖÓ. ²ÖÖ»Ö“Ö®¦: ×ÃÖ¨Ö®ŸÖ¿ÖÖáÖß
¯ÖÎÛúÖ¿ÖÛú:
•Öî®Ö ÃÖÓÃÛéú×ŸÖ ÃÖÓ¸õÖÛú ÃÖÓ‘Ö,
ÃÖÓŸÖÖêÂÖ ³Ö¾Ö®Ö , 734, ±ú»Ö™ÞÖ ÝÖ»»Öß,
ÃÖÖê»ÖÖ¯Öæ¸ - 2 ±úÖê®Ö - (0217) 320007
¾Ö߸ ×®Ö¾ÖÖÔÞÖ ÃÖÓ¾ÖŸÖË 2526 ‡. ÃÖ®Ö 2000
THE
PUSHPADANTA
AND BHOOTABALI
WITH
THE
COMMENTARY DHAVALA OF VEERASENACHARYA
Edited
(
SATPRAROOPANA )
By
Late Pt. Balachandra Siddhanta Shastri
Santosh Bhavan, 734, Phaltan Galli,
SOLAPUR – 2. Phone – 320007
Veera Samvat – 2526
A. D. 2000
Published by –
President
734,
Phaltan Galli, SOLAPUR - 2.
§
Financial Assistance for
Reprint
Shravika
Sanstha Nagar, Solapur.
§
Revised Fourth Edition –
September
2000 A. D. ( 1008 Copies )
§
Research Assistants –
Late Dr.
A. N. Upadhye
Late Pt.
Br. Ratanchandji Mukhtar,
Pt.
Jawaharlalji Jain Shastri, Bhindar.
Printed by –
Step
in Process
Kasba
Peth, Pune.
( Copyright Reserved)
¯ÖÎÛúÖ¿ÖÛúßµÖ ×®Ö¾Öê¤®Ö - 2000
¬Ö¾Ö»ÖÖ
ÂÖ™ËÜÖÞ›ÖÝÖ´Ö ×ÃÖ¨ÖÓŸÖ ÝÖÎÓ£ÖÛê ¯ÖÎ£Ö´Ö ÜÖÓ›Ûê ¯ÖÎ£Ö´Ö ³ÖÖÝÖ •Öß¾ÖãÖÖ®Ö
ÃÖŸ¯Öιý¯ÖÞÖÖÛúß “ÖŸÖã£ÖÔ †Ö¾Öé×¢ÖÛúÖ ÃÖÓ¿ÖÖê×¬ÖŸÖ ¯Öã®Ö´ÖãÔ¦ÞÖ Ûú¸®Öê´ÖêÓ Æ´Ö
†¯Ö®ÖÖ ÃÖÖî³ÖÖÝµÖ ÃÖ´Ö—ÖŸÖê ÆîÓ…
þÖ.
²ÖÎ. ¯ÖÓ. ¯Ö¤Ë´ÖÁÖß ÃÖã´ÖןֲÖÖ‡Ô•Öß ¿ÖÆÖ, ÃÖÓ“ÖÖ×»ÖÛúÖ, ÁÖÖ×¾ÖÛúÖ ÃÖÓãÖÖ
®ÖÝÖ¸, ÃÖÖê»ÖÖ¯Öæ¸ ‡®ÆÖêÓ®Öê ³Ö. ´ÖÆÖ¾Ö߸ ׸ÃÖ“ÖÔ ÃÖêÓ™¸, ÁÖÖ×¾ÖÛúÖ
ÃÖÓãÖÖ®ÖÝÖ¸ ÃÖÖê»ÖÖ¯Öæ¸ Ûúß †Öê¸ÃÖê
¬Ö¾Ö»ÖÖ ÝÖÎÓ£ÖÛê ‡ÃÖ ¯ÖÎ£Ö´Ö ³ÖÖÝÖ Ûê ¯Öã®Ö´ÖãÔ¦ÞÖ Ûê ×»Ö‹ †Ö×£ÖÔÛú ÃÖƵÖÖêÝÖ
¤êÛú¸ ו֮־ÖÖÞÖßÛúß ÃÖê¾ÖÖÛúÖ •ÖÖê ´ÖÆÖ®Ö †Ö¤¿ÖÔ ˆ¯Ö×Ã£ÖŸÖ ×ÛúµÖÖ ˆÃÖÛê ×»Ö‹
Æ´Ö ˆ®ÖÛúÖ ÆÖפÔÛú †×³Ö®ÖÓ¤®Ö Ûú¸ŸÖê Æã‹ ˆ®ÖÛê ¯ÖÎ×ŸÖ †®ÖêÛú¿Ö: ¬Ö®µÖ¾ÖÖ¤
¯ÖÎÛú™ Ûú¸ŸÖê ÆîÓ…
‡ÃÖ
ÝÖÎÓ£Ö¸Ö•ÖÛê ´Öæ»Ö ÃÖ´¯ÖÖ¤Ûú þÖ. ¯ÖÓ. ±æú»Ö“Ö®¦•Öß ×ÃÖ¨Ö®ŸÖ ¿ÖÖáÖß•Öß ÛúÖ
¾Öé¨Ö¯ÖÛúÖ»ÖÛê ÛúÖ¸ÞÖ Ã¾ÖÝÖÔ¾ÖÖÃÖ ÆÖê®ÖêÃÖê ‡ÃÖ ÝÖÎÓ£ÖÛúÖ ¯Öã®Ö´ÖãÔ¦ÞÖ Ûú¸ŸÖê
ÃÖ´ÖµÖ ˆ®ÖÛúß ¯ÖÖ¾Ö®Ö Ã´ÖéןÖÛúÖê ÁÖ¨ÖÓ•Ö×»Ö ÃÖ´Ö¯ÖÔÞÖ Ûú¸ Æ´Ö ÃÖ´Ö¾Ö꤮ÖÖ
¯ÖÎÛú™ Ûú¸ŸÖê ÆîÓ…
‡ÃÖ
ÝÖÎÓ£ÖÛúÖ ¯ÖÎæ±ú ÃÖÓ¿ÖÖê¬Ö®Ö ÛúÖµÖÔ •Öß¾Ö¸Ö•Ö •Öî®Ö ÝÖÎÓ£Ö ´ÖÖ»ÖÖÛê ÃÖÓ¯ÖÖ¤Ûú
þÖ. ¯ÖÓ. ®Ö¸ê®¦Ûãú´ÖÖ¸ ׳ÖÃÖßÛú¸ ¿ÖÖáÖß ŸÖ£ÖÖ ÃÖÆÖµµÖÛú ÁÖß. ¬Ö®µÖÛãú´ÖÖ¸
•Öî®Öß ŸÖ£ÖÖ ´Öã¦ÞÖÛúÖµÖÔ Ã™ê¯Ö ‡®Ö ¯ÖÎÖêÃÖêÃÖ, ¯ÖãÞÖê ‡®ÖÛê «Ö¸Ö ÃÖÓ¯Ö®®Ö Æã†Ö
Æî… ‡®ÖÛê ÃÖƵÖÖêÝÖ Ûê ×»Ö‹ Æ´Ö †Ö³ÖÖ¸ ¯ÖΤ׿ÖÔŸÖ Ûú¸ŸÖê ÆîÓ…
¸ŸÖ®Ö“ÖÓ¤ ÃÖÜÖÖ¸Ö´Ö ¿ÖÆÖ.
´ÖÓ¡Öß
EDITORIAL
The
Satkhandagama-sutras of Puspadanta and Bhutabali and the Dhavalâ Commentary
thereon by Virasena occupy a unique position in Jaina literature. Their
palm-leaf Mss. Were preserved only in
the Jaina Bhandaras (or Mss.-Collections) at Moodabidri in
The
late lamented Sheth Shitabrai Laxmichandji of Bhelsa (Vidisha) gave a donation
for the publication of these great scriptures; and consequently, when we took
up the study and critical editing of them, the society showed a variety of
reactions. The sensible scholars of the
new generation heartily welcomed it; and even some Panditas and Sastris of the
older generation, such as the late Pt. Devakinandanaji, Pt. Hiralalaji Shastri,
Pt. Phoolachandaji Shastri and Pt. Balachandaji Shastri offered active
co-operation. But a section of scholars
expressed severe opposition. Their contention was that to print the scriptures
like the Satkhandagama was a sacrilege, a disrespect of the scriptural
knowledge. It was also argued that the
house-holder (Grhastha or Srâvaka) is not entitled even to read the Siddhanta
texts; only the monks (who have relinquished the worldly ties) can read
them. Some Panditas even doubted the
ability of English-educated Babus (a term used as against Panditas, in those
days) like us to understand and critically edit difficult Siddhanta texts. Despite all this opposition, we, along with
our colleagues, firmly pursued our project; and when, within a year, the first
Volume, namely, the Satprarupana, was published, it was a surprise to all. The
function of the publication of the first Volume was celebrated with great eclat
by the Jaina community of Amraoti under the leadership of the late Singhai
Pannalalaji. Thereafter, the Panditas
began to take more interest in these texts; and then followed almost waves of
competition to publish them. The late
Pandit Bansidhar Shastri,
On
behalf of the Jaina Sahityoddharaka Fund, established by the late Sheth
Laxmichandji, the critical editing-cum-publication of the Satkhandagama with
its Tika, Hindi translation, etc., was completed in Sixteen Volumes during the
period of twenty years, from 1939 to 1959.
Even before the last Volume was published,the copies of some of the
earlies Volumes were exhausted; and there was a demand from the readers for
their republication. But the Board of
Editors was determined not to expend their energy and time on reprinting the
earlier Volumes unless all theVolumes were out once. There was also the idea that, when the second
edition is taken up, every effort should be made to check the printed text in
the light of the readings of the palm-leaf Mss. preserved at Moodabidri. The text adopted in the first edition was based on the Nagari copies
of the Kannada transcript (of the palm-leaf Mss.) which was secretly smuggled
out. Right from the start, we were aware
of our limitations; and repeatedly we were urging the Bhattaraka Maharaja
of Moodabidri to help us in correctly
presenting the text; but, to begin with, there was no response. Still, after the publication of the third
Volume, there was a significant change in his attitude. He indicated to us that, if we so wished,
facilities would be made available for verifying the text in comparison with
the palm-leaf Mss. We looked upon
this as a great blessing (punyopalabdhi)
and a boon. The palm-leaf Mss. are
written in Old-Kannada script which could be read by few scholars
(now-a-days). Luckily we got the
co-operation of the late Pandit Lokanath Shastri in this direction; and the
variant readings received from him were included in an Appendix of the Third
Volume. The readings supplied by him
were used while fixing the text itself in subsequent Volumes.
Even
before the entire work was published, there shot up another controversy.
In the first Volume, in order to interpret Sutra No. 93 in a consistent
Manner, it was felt necessary that the word ‘samjada’ be added on to the
available “samjadasamjada’; but the consequent doctrinal implications disturbed
the minds of some Panditas; and they started saying that such an addition was
unjustified. There were sessions of oral
discussions, followed by a chain of writings covering replies and
counter-replies; some of them were published in the form of independent books
too. In order to have a conclusive
satisfaction, we got carefully scrutinised the readings on the palm-leaves; and
it was found that the two different Mss. had the word ‘samjada’proposed to be
added by us. Thus the two points were clear: first, our critical editing was
based on (principles of) sound judgment and sensible nderstanding; and
secondly, still there remains the urgency of consulting the palm-leaf Mss.
directly, because the variant readings received from Moodabidri and included at
the end of the third Volume did not present the additional ‘samjada’.
In
the meanwhile, there was a programme of inscribing these works on
copper-plates; and, in that connection , there too arose a controversy whether
the term ‘samjada’ be added or not, even though the presence of that term in
the plam-leaf Mss. was already confirmed.
Further, efforts were made to take photographs of all the palm-leaves of
these works. This was also successfully
done; and all these photographs are now preserved in the Sastra-Bhandara at
Phaltan (
When
the publication of the Satkhandagama was completed in Sixteen Volumes in 1959,
the Editors felt anxious about the arrangements of finally editing the text
critically, especially of those Volumes which were no more available, after
collating it with the photographs. After
much thought and deliberation, it was decided that the responsibility of
bringing out the second edition be entrusted to the Jaina Sanskrit Samrakshaka
Sangha,
Pamca-namokara-mantra
Lately,
the Pannavana-sutta is nicely edited and published (Jaina Agama Granthamala-9,
Parts 1-2, Sri Mahavira Jaina Vidyalaya,
Bombay-26, 1969-1972). It is an
important text belonging to the Upanga category of the Ardhamagadhi canon; and
it bears a good bit of resemblance with the Satkhandagama-sutra in contents and
style. The detailed Introductions in
English and Gujarati by the Editors: Muni Shri Punyavijaya, Pandit Dalsukh
Malvania and Pandit Amritlal M. Bhojaka are quite important. Two topics, which are relevant in the present
context, deserve to be noticed here. On
page 235 of the Introduction in English, there is a discussion about the
Mangalacarana of the Prajnapana and about the Pancanamaskara-mantra; and it
purports, in short, to say that, in the earliest Jaina works, the entire Mantra
is not mentioned. In later literature it
is employed in its entirely; still, nowhere, there is any specific mention of
its author. The Satkhandagama-sutras
open with this Pancanamaskara-mantra; and it is indicated by virasena in his
Dhavala Commentary that its first auther is Puspadanta himself. In the Introduction of the Second Volume and
elsewhere, it has been already stated, on the authority of the Commentary on
the First Sutra, that Virasena held the view, without any doubt, that this
(Pamcanamokara) Mantra was an inseparable part of the Satkhandagama-sutra and
its author is Puspadanta himself.
According to the Commentator (i.e., Virasena), the Mangala is of two
types, one nibaddha and the other anibaddha; and their definitions are
thus explained. When the author of the Sutras composes the
Mangalacarana himself, that is called ‘nibaddha-mangala’; and when he adopts
the Mangala-patha composed by others, it is named as ‘anibaddha-mangala’. In view of this distinction, the Commentator
describes the pancanamaskara-mantra used here as ‘nibaddha-mangala’, and the
longish Mangala-patha, ‘namo Jinanam’,
etc., given at the beginning of the Fourth Khanda, Vedana, as
‘anibaddha-mangala’, because this latter was not composed by the Sutrakara
himself but was composed by Gautama Ganadhara and has been reproduced here. so
there is no scope for doubt so far as the opinion of the author of Dhavala is
concerned.
In this connection, it would be proper
to explain another point as well. In the
Namokaramantra, the first expression ‘namo Arihamtanam’ has, in some places,
also an alternative reading ‘Arahamtanam’.
In view of the nature of the Prakrit language, there is nothing
surprising in this. But, as in the
Satkhandagama, this very reading Arihamtanam is found at the beginning of the
Prajnapana-sutra; and the commentators, Haribhadra and Malayagiri, have
accepted the same. Virasena, the author
of the Dhavala and Jinabhadra, the author of the Visesavasyakabhasya, have
adopted this very reading and explained its etymology in various ways; and
finally, they have noted its Sanskrit counterpart Arhat of which too the
definition is given. According to the
author of Dhavala:
†×¸üÆüÖÖÖ¤Ëü †×¸üÆüŸÖÖ, ¸ü•ÖÖêÆüÖÖÖ¤Ëü ¾ÖÖ
†×¸üÆüŸÖÖ ¸üÆüõÖÖ³ÖÖ¾ÖÖ¤Ëü ¾ÖÖ †×¸üÆüŸÖÖ… †×ŸÖ¿ÖµÖ-¯Öæ•ÖÖÆÔüŸ¾ÖÖ¤Ëü ¾ÖÖ
†ÆÔüŸÖ:
Satkhandagama
and Prajnapanasutra
In
one of the sections of the Introduction (pp.223 f.) of the
Pannavana-sutta,there is a discussion comparing the Prajnapana with the
Satkhandagama. It is pointed out that
both these works have got significant similarities: i) The subject matter of
both of them is a doctrinal discussion about Jiva and Karman. ii) The basic
source for both of them is the Srutanga Drstivada. iii) They are compiled in the form of
Sutras. iv) Here and there, in both the
works, the Sutras assume the form of
Gathas. v) Some Gathas are common to
both; and they are found also in the Niryuktis and Visesavasyakabhasya, etc. vi) Both the works are of the nature of
compilation and have common words and expressions. vii) The topic Alpa- bahutva is almost
identical and it is called Mahadandaka.
viii) In the discussion on Gatyagati, there occur, in both, the
discussions on the aquisition of the position of Tirthakara, Cakravartin,
Baladeva and Vasudeva. ix) The topics or
Padas (23-27 and 35) Karma,
Karma-bandhaka,
Karma-vedaka, Veda-bandhaka,
Veda-vedaka and Vedana of the Prajnapana remind us of the Six Khandas of the
Satkhandagama, namely, Jiva-sthana, Ksudraka-bandha, Bandha-svamitva, Vedana,
Vargana and Mahabandha. These common
points between the two works are undisputable; and they indicate a common
tradition in view of their meaning and exposition.
Despite
these common points, both the works possess many a speciality of their
own. I) The Prajnapana contains 36
sections called Padas; and according to the subject matter, their sub-sections
like Prajnapana, Prarupana, etc. But in
the satkhandagama, the same six Khandas are there; and under them, the fourteen
Jiva-samasas (Gunasthanas) and fourteen Margana-sthanas are discussed at
length, in their order; all this is completely absent in the Prajnapanasutra. ii) The Prajnapana has single
authorship, while it is accepted that
Puspadanta and Bhutabali are the authors of the Satkhandagama; and it might be
inferred that many of its appendices (culikas) were added later on, as in the
case of some canonical texts like the Daeavaikalika. iii) The discussion of the subject matter in
the Satkhandagama is more detailed and profound, systematic and well-planned as
against that in the Prajnapana. iv) The
question-and-answer style is employed more in the Prajnapana than in the,
satkhandagama. v) The Prajnapanasutra is
written in the style of original Sutra, while the satkhandagama presents a commentarial style employing the
Anuyogadvaras. Here the Niksepas like
Nama, Sthapana, etc., as in the Niryuktis; Anuyogadvaras like Sat,
Samkhya, etc,, as in the
Tattvartha-sutra; and such terms like Praruupana, Nirdesa, Vibhasa, etc., are used : all these
are the characteristics of the Bhasya style employed here. Further are employed Gatianuvada, Indriya-anuvada. etc., too.
vi) The exposition of Alpa-bahutva, under the title Mahadandaka, in the
satkhandagama (VII. 79), is more systematic under 78 Padas with such predicated
as ‘vattaissamo’, ‘kadavvo’; while in
the Prajnapana such predicates are not used and the exposition is loose
presenting 98 Padas, some of which are primary and some secondary
divisions. vii) In the
Prajnapana-sutra, under Sthanapada, the
description as to where, in the
universe, living beings of various types dwell is loosely discussed at length,
but the same in the Satkhandagama (VII. Pp. 299, etc.) is present in the order of
Margana-sthanas, comparatively in short and in a systematic style. viii) In the Prajnapana the Alpa-bahutva is
described through 26 Dvaras, and therein
the topics of Jiva and Ajiva are intermingled in a haphazard manner. In the satkhandagama, however, the same are
systematically presented under fourteen Marganas. The names of Marganas like Gati, Indriya,
etc., are found here and there in the
twenty-six Dvaras of the Prajnapana-sutra, but a clear-cut specification of 14
Marganas is absent. The same holds good
about the use of Sthiti, Sparsa, Kala,
etc. ix) The Prajnapana-sutra has the same three Gathas (99-101, p. 25),
which are found also in the satkhandagama (XVI, Sutras 122-24). In the satkhandagama these are introduced
with the words ‘lakkhanam bhanidam’, which indicate that they are
quotations. Some of their readings are
correct in the Prajnapana, but incorrect in the satkhandagama.
Taking
into account the above points of agreement and difference, the authors of the
Introduction of the Prajnapana-sutra have expressed their opinion that on the
one hand both the works agree in their inheritance of traditional doctrines and
also, to a certain extent, in their method of treatment; but, on the other
hand, in view of the classification of
topics, the style, system and method of exposition and the use of technical
terms, the Prajnapana is prior to and a work earlier than satkhandagama. To strengthen this view, they have considered
the age of the composition of these works.
As to the date of composition of the satkhandagama, they have
accepted the same as fixed in the
Introduction of Volume One, namely 683
after the Nirvana of Mahavira or sometime in the second century of the Vikrama
era. But, in fixing the date of
Prajnapana, they have not found any undisputed historical facts and evidence;
so they had to depend on certain indications of doubtful validity noted below.
1) In the Prajnapana-sutra, after the benedictory verses, there are two
Interpolated Gathas which, after offering salutation to Ajjasama (Arya-Syama),
mention that he was the 23rd in the Vacaka lineage and he presented
this sruta-ratna from the ocean of scriptural knowledge. From this, it is inferred that Arya Syama is
the author of the Prajnapanasutra.
2)According to the Pattavalis, there flourished three Kalakacaryas, and
it is the first Kalaka that was Syamacarya.
3) The death of the
first Kalaka according to the Dharmasagariya Pattavali, but the birth of him
according to the Kharatara-gacchiya Pattavali, falls in 376 years after the
death of Mahavira.
Based
on these three points, it is concluded that the Prajnapanasutra was Composed by
syamacarya in the fourth century of the Viranirvana era, i.e., about One
hundred years before the Vikrama era, and accordingly some three hundred Years
earlier than satkhandagama.
The above arguments may be scrutinised here:
1)
Not even the name of the Pannavana-sutta occurs in those two interpolated
Gathas. The gift of the sruta-ratna made
by Syamacarya can imply some other Grantha-ratna. If Haribhadra comments on them, calling them
interpolately,it proves only this much that during his time, in the 8th
century A. D., Syamacarya was already well-known. What evidence have we to ascertain by whom
and at what time these were interpolated ?
The Gathas specify that
Syamacarya was the twentythird in the Vacaka lineage. Where is the discussion as to when this
lineage started and what would be the period for the 23rd person in
that line ? The earlier gunuine Gatha
clearly says the Pannavana was preached by the revered Jina for the spiritual
(nivrtti) benefit of pious saints; while the interpolatory Gathas speak of the
highly gifted (durdhara, dhira, etc.) monk Syamacarya donating some un-specified
Srutaratna to his pupils. Can the
authorship specified in the original and interpolatory passages be said to be
the same ?
2) The tradition of the Pattavalis is not ancient; the age of their
composition and their authority are not beyond doubt; and they are mutually
inconsistent as well. They do not
clearly establish with whom of the three Kalakacaryas Syamacarya should be
identified. Based on these, Dr. U. P.
Shaha expressed his inconclusive opinion (p. 232) that syamacarya mentioned
eleventh in the line and Kalakacarya, destroyer of King Gardabhilla, became
identical, if the first two Kalakas were regarded as one identical person. Thus to identify syamacarya with Kalaka and
then to fix his date are attended with many hurdles.
3) When were Dharmasagariya and Kharatara-gaccha Pattavalis composed,
What are their sources, what is the reason for their mutual contradictions
? Unless These questions are
satisfactorily explained, how can the dates given by them be Aauthoritative and
how can Kalaka be taken as identical with syamacarya.
As
far as the evidence is presented, it is not clear where Kalakacarya is called
the auther of the Prajnapanasutra ? To
propose an identity of syama Arya with Kalaka Acarya is catching, because
‘syama’ and ‘kala’ mean black; but such a procedure is methodologically
defective. To reach such a conclusion,
we need independent sources to specify Syamarya as well as Kalakacarya as the
authors of the Prajnapana: then alone identity can be proposed; and then the
question of the date can be tackled.
Really
speaking, it would be a great asset for the history of Jaina literature,if the
composition of any Jaina work could be assigned to the second or first century
before the Vikrama era. There is hardly
any work in the available Jaina Prakrit literature which holds any prospects in
this direction, because the linguistic tendencies there do not belong to the
first stage of the Middle-Indo-Aryan, but they belong to the second stage which
did not come into vogue prior to the second
century of the Vikrama era. For
instance, we have in the Pannavana: loc. (loke), bhayavaya (bhagavata), suya
(sruta), ditthivaya (drstivada) thii (sthiti), veyane (vedanâ); here
intervocalic consonants are being lost replaced by ya-sruti. This tendency is not noticed in the Prakrit
languages prior to the second century A.D. The earlier phase of Prakrits is
found in the Pâli Tripitaka, in the
inscriptions of Asoka, Kharavela and those of the Sunga and Andhra dynasties
and in the plays of Asvaghosa, where we do not notice the tendency of dropping
the medial corsonants. This tendency
began after the second century, and this indeed became the distinguishing
feature of Māhārāstri (Prâkrit).
As it is found in plenty in Jaina
prākrit literature Pischel and other scholars named the diallect of Jaina
Prākrit works as Jaina Māhārāstri and Jaina Saurasenī. In the light of this linguistic study, the
composition of the Pannavanā-sutta can in no way be assigned to the period
earlier than the second century.
The
claim that the Pannavanā is older than the Satkhandāgama is not
indisputable. The points of agreement
between these two works conclusively prove that both of them have a common
heritage. This is true not only of these
two works but also of all the canonical (including procanonical) works of the
Digambara and Svetāmbara traditions and schools. Their soul is the same, but their body and
physical structure are different. In
this connection, the observation of Virasenācārya, the author of the
Dhavala, deserves our attention (Satkhandāgama, Vol. I, p. 60). There are
two kinds of authors, Artha-kartā and Grantha-kartā. So far as the Satkhandāgama is
concerned, the Artha-kartā is the revered Mahāvīra, but-the
Grantha-kartā stands for Gautama and other saints down in succession
to Puspadanta and Bhutabali. The composition of the Satkhandāgama is based
on the very preachings of Mahāvira
on which that of the Prajnāpanā-sutra is based. But it was natural that there arose
differences in style and classifications, etc., according to the traditions of
(different) schools. In texts of fixed traditions; chronological priority or
posteriority can be inferred from the development in style, etc.; but in
independent traditional inheritance such an inference proves invalid; and, on
this point, the editors of the Prajnāpanaā-sutra have themselves laid
sufficient stress. They say
(Introduction, p. 230):
“The
style of treatment i.e., its simplicity or otherwise, cannot be a deter-mining
factor in fixing up the chronological. order of these works. This is so because the nature of the style
was dependent on the objective of the author and on the nature of the
subject-matter, simple or subtle. Hence
we would be making a great blunder in fixing up the chronological order of
Prajnāpanā and Satkhandāgama if we were guided only by the fact
that the treatment of the subject-matter in the Satkhandāgama is more
detailed and subtle than that found in Prajnāpanā-sutra.”
It
would not be out of place to clarify another point also. The Svetāmbara Scholiasts primarily
confined themself to the Ardhamāgadhi canon and pursued the resurrection,
compilation and expansion in their composition.
But the Digambara saints, accepting that the original Agamas were lost,
started composing works in a new style with some independence; in this pursuit
learned Acāryas used their intellectual gifts without any restraint (or
inhibition). As a result of this, the
authors of the Satkhandāgama acquired the knowledge of the traditional
lore (Siddhānta) from Dharasenācārya; and, on the strength of
their intellectual gifts, Developed the five-fold Mangala from two-fold one,
namely, ‘Namo Arahamtānam’ and ‘Namo sava sidhānam’ found on the
Khāravela inscription. Such efforts
must have been made in different regions, in different circles of learned monks
and at different ages. When one
scrutinises the Cattāridanoaka, it has a four-fold Mangala. The third item mentioning Sāhu could
easily get expanded, along with the organisation of ascetic community, to
include Acarya, Upādhyāya and Sarva-sādhu. One of the early Tamila Kāvyas,
Jīvakacintāmani, adopts the Cattāri-mamgalam in the benedictory
verses instead of five-fold Mangala.
Likewise possibly, it is these authors that systematised, for the first
time, Jīva-samāsa (Gunasthāna) Mārganāsthāna and
the various Anuyoga-dvāras and, on their basis, gave a systematic
exposition of the entire Siddhānta.
May be, to begin with, their systematisation was naturally met with some
opposition or neglect, but gradually this very systematisation, on account of
its being more methodical, pervaded the entire gamut of Jaina Siddhānta,
and proved acceptable to all. The
authors of the Satkhandāgams have not omitted any item from the
Siddhānta inherited by them; and they have given due place to useful
traditional Gāthās in their works.
By such introductory words as ‘bhanidam’, etc., they have indicated that
these Gāthās are not composed by them but are traditionally
inherited: this gives us an idea about their scholarly honesty and scholastic
integrity. If any other author just
ignores indicating the fact of inheriting such verses and included them along
with other verses, this cannot be taken as a proof of his chronological
priority. The name of Arya Syāma
occurs in interpolatory verses. He is
not the author (in the strict sense of the term) of the Prajnāpanā
but only a compilor, putting together traditional material. Thus when the authors of both the
Satkhandāgama and Prajnāpanā are recording and arranging only
traditional material, the term ‘bhanidam’ has no chronological value.
The
Prajnāpana has got some traditional Gāthās common with the
Uttarādhyayana and Nijjutti, and these are called Samgrahanī
Gāthās (See Prajnāpanā and Satkhandāgama by D.
Malavania, JOR, Vol. 19, pp. 35 ff.
Baroda 1969). These cannot be
used as evidence for relative chronology.
If it is accepted that the Prajnāpanā is posterior to the
Uttarādhyayana, the age of the Prajnāpanā remains still more
uncertain. The Uttarādhyayana, as
it stands today, cannot be,en bloc, assigned to the 3rd-4th
century B.C. Some of its dogmatical chapters, which are clustered together at
the end of the work, especially the 28th chapter etc. can be
legitimately looked upon as pretty late, and, in the opinion of some, nearer
the age of the Tattvārthasutra. In
this context another fact also has to be taken into account: the inheritance of
scriptural knowledge was primarily oral; and one should not handle this
material as if it is recorded in Mss. and copied by different authors. If any Gāthā is more correct in one
text than in the other, it might be the result of the carefulness or otherwise
of the coyists; it would be improper to impute the mistakes to original authors
who were learned Acāryas. If the
readings are more correct in the Prajnāpanā but incorrect in the
Satkhandāgama, one should rather
infer from this that the former could not have been the direct source of the
latter.
The
gist of the above discussion is that, as yet, we have not got any evidence to
say that the Prajnāpana-sutra was composed earlier than the
Satkhndāgama. The age of
Satkhandāgama is 683 years after the Nirvāna of Mahāvīra,
i. e., about 200 years of the Vikrama Era; and it is accepted by all. It also stands proved that the inscription,
etc., discovered in the Baba Pyara Caves near Girnar or Junagad belong to this
period; and possibily it is the same Candraguphā in which
Dharasenācārya used to dwell, and he might be the same Dharasena
whose demise, According to Sallekhanā, is indicated in the record there.
On
the other hand, nothing definite can be said about the author of the Prajnāpanā-sutra. The Acāryas of the Satkhandāgama
tradition donot seem to be aware even of his name: for, if they were, how
Virasena, the author of the Dhavala, who has mentioned Twelve Angas and fourteen
Anga-bāhya texts like the Dasavaikāikālika, Uttarādhyayana,
Kalpa, Vyavahāra, Nisitha; etc; (Satkhandāgama Vol. I, p. 96), could
fail to take note of such an important text like the Pannavanā. In view of its linguistic features the
Pannavanā cannot be dated earlier than the 2nd or 3rd
century of the Vikrama era. Incidentally
it may also be noted that the Satkhandāgama inclines more towards
softening the intervocalic surds (tike k and t) than dropping them; according
to experts, softening is linguistically an earlier stage than eliding
them. This much can be definitely said
that the Pannavanā is earlier than its first Commentator Haribhadra (9th
century of the Vikram era). And if, on
account of its mention in the Nandisutra, it is to be earlier than the Valabhi
redaction, then it may be assiged to a period earlier than Vira Nirvāna
Sanvat 993 (Vikrama Samvat 523). Another
question has to be answered. Why is it
that the Prajnāpanā, considered to be so important in view of its
contents and assigned to such an early date by the editors, is put under the
categoryof upanga, a division which is quite late and of artificial connection
with Angas. The Upānga division
came into existence perhaps after the Valabhī redaction; and the works
under it contained extraneous and residuary traditional matter not included under
Angas. This, to a great extent, explains the relatively discursive
contents, collected and compiled by Arya
Syāma: i.e., all the material is not thought out by himself (see p. 229,
Introduction). In fine, the
Prajnāpanā, though it contains a good deal of old material not
properly preserved, its present form
cannot be dated earlier than the Valabhi
Council when it was put under the category of Upānga and interpolatory
verses became a source for the name of its so-called author.
Pandit
Phoolchanda Siddhanta Shastri has given details about editing the Present
Volume in his ‘Avasyaka Nivedana.’ We
are very thankful to him for the pains taken by him in this work. From the table of corrected readings given by
him it is clear that he has carefully done the work; and it can be said that
the palmleaf, Mss. are no more indispensible.
It is a matter for satisfaction, taking into account the material on
which the first edition was based, that there are not as many wrong readings as
they were feared to have been. It is not
a surprise if some significant various readings are detected; but what is
remarkable is that the set-up of the interpretation of the earlier edition
stands vindicated to be quite systematic.
We have every hope that other Volumes are also soon published in this
way with their readings duly scrutinised.
Our hope has a solid basis that Shri Walchand Deochandaji, the Secretary
of the Samskriti Sangha and his other colleagues are taking a keen interest in
the matter and are giving maximum co-operation.
The
late Shri N. Chadraraj had prepared the collotions from the photos of palm
leaf-Mss. in reading which he was specially trained. In this work he was helped by Prof.
J.D.Bhomaj who took down the readings as he read them from one of the Mss. Both Prof. J.D.Bhomaj and Shri. Narendra
Bhisikar have given valuable co-operation in seeing the work through the Press
and in correcting the proofs:
our thanks are due to all of them.
24-11-1972 Editors:
Balaghat, M.P. HIRA LAL JAIN
POSTSCRIPT
Manasa Gangotri, Mysore
A.N. UPADHYE
May 1, 1973