¯ÖÎßÖÖ¾Ö®ÖÖ
INTRODUCTION
1. Age of the palm-leaf
manuscript of Dhavala
In
the introduction to Vol. 1 we had conjectured that the palm-leaf manuscript of Dhaval depsoited at Mudbidri was at least five or six hundred years old. We are now in a position to throw some more
light on the subject of the manuscript tradition. At the end of Satprarupana
after the colophon we find some text which, when reconstructed, yields three
verses in Kanarese in praise of Padmanandi,
Kulbhushana and Kulacandra
respectively. The relation between these
three notabilities has not been mentioned here, but there is no doubt that they
are identical with the teachers of the same names mentioned in the Sravana Belgola inscription No.
40(64) as successively related to each other in a spiritual geneological
order. There is similarity in the
adjectives used for them at both the places.
The inscription also tells us that the teachers belonged to the
brilliant line of Desigana, a branch of the Nandigana of Mulasamgha which has
owend, amongst others. Kundakunda, Umasvati,
Samantabhadra Pujyapada and
Akalamka.
One of the pupils of Padmanandi was Prabhacandra who is said to have been the author of a
celebrated work on Logic. He thus,
appears to be identical with the author of Prameyakamala-martanda
and Nyaya-Kumuda-candrodaya. This inscription is not dated, but the line
extends upto the third generation beyond Kulacandra and there we find Devakirti
Muni who, according to inscription No.39(63),
attained heaven in 1163 A. D. The
immediate successor of Kulacandra Muni
was Maghanadi whose lay disciple Nimbadeva Samanta was also found
mention in the Sukrabara Bastri
inscriptin of
The Prasasti
found at the end of the Dhavala Ms. Throws still more
light on the subject. The text of this
ling Prasasti is partly in Kanarese
and partly in Sanskrit, and the Kanarese
portion is very corrupt. But the fact tha temerges from it prominently
is that the Ms. Of Dhavala
was persented to the famous teacher subhacandra Siddhantadeva of the Banniyakere temple on the occasion of the completion of her
Srutapancami vow by Demiyakka
who was aunt of Bhujabalaganga Permadideva
of Mandali Nadu. Subhacandradeva is
said to have belinged to the Desigana. His line beings from Kundakunda
and the other names of teachers mentioned are Griddhapiccha,
Balakapiccha, Gunanandi, Devendra, Vasunandi, Ravichandra, Damanandi, Viranandi, Sridharadeva, Maladharideva, Candrakirti, Divakaranandi and lastly, Subhacandradeva,
on scrutinizing these facts in the light of epigraphic references that are
available to us, we find the Subhacandradeva to whom
the Ms. Of Dhavala was given is identical with that Subhacandradeva whose death is commemorated in Sravana Belgola-inscription No.
45(117) of 1123 A. D. because the spiritual geneology
of Subhacandra as given at the two places agrees
entirely. We even find three verses that
are common between our Prasasti and the
inscription. The
numbers of these verses in the inscription being 12, 13 and 21. The Banniyakere
temple with which Subhacandradeva, the recepient of the Ms. Has been
Associated, was built, according to Shimoga
inscription No. 97 (Ep. Carba.
Vol. VII) in 1113 A.D. In this
inscription Bhujabalaganga Permadideva,
also mentioned in our Prasasti, makes a grant to the
temple and at the close of the record Subhacandradeva
was associated was built in 1113 A.D., while he died in 1123 A.D. The Ms. Of Dhavala was, therefore, presented to Subhacandradeva
by Demiyakka between 1113 and 1123 A.D.
We also get some light about the donor
of the Ms. From epigraphic records. Sravana Belgola Inscription No. 49 (129) is in commemoration of a
lady variously named as Demati, Demavati
Devamati and Demiyakka, who
is said to have been a pupil of Subhacandradeva of Desigana and to have died by the Jaina
form of renunciation on the 11th day of the dark fornight
in Saka 1042 (A. D. 1120). In the inscritpion
the lady is highly eulogised for her four forms of
charity which included gifts of shastras or holy
books, These mentions leave no doubt in
our mind that this lady is the same as the door of the Dhavala
Ms. The date of the gift is, therefore, brought within closer limits i.e between 1113 and 1120 A.D.
The upshot of the above discussion is
that we are confronted with three facts about Dhavala
Ms. namely-
A copy of the Dhavala was made probably about
three generations prior to the death of Devakirti Muni in 1163 A.D., i.e about 1100
A.D.
A Ms. Of Dhavala was
presented to Subhacandradeva by lady Demiyakka sometime 1113 and 1120 A.D.
A palm-leaf Ms. Of Dhavala
making mention of the above fact and indicating fact No. 1 exists at Mudbidri.
The probability in my mind is that it
was the present palm leaf Ms. At Mudbidri
which was copied by a pupil of Kulacandra and
presented by Demiyakka to Subhacandradeva. But the possibility of the object of Demiyakka’s gift being a later copy of the first Ms. And
the present Ms. Being still more subsequent copy of the second, mechanically
reproducing the euligistic verses and the Prasastis of the former once, cannot be entirely precluded
until the present palm-leaf Ms. At Mudbidri is
thoroughly examined from all points of view internally as well as externally.
2.
Is Vargana Khanda included
in the available
Mss. Of Dhavala?
The six main division of the present work,
on account of which is acquired the title Satkhandagama,
were Jivatthana, Khuddabandha,
Bandhasamitta-vicaya, Vedana,
Vaggana and Mahabandha. We had already stated in the previous volume tha of these six Khandas, the
last i.e. the Mahabandha exists in a separate
manuscript and is not included in Mss, of Dhavala
which contain all the remaining five Khandas, To this an objection was raised from one
quarter that the available Mss. Of Dhavala contain
not even five, but only the first four Khandas, Vaggana Khanda being also missing
from them. This view was based upon a
misinterpretation of one text and a wrong reading of another text found at the
beginning of the Vedana Khanda
and then support was sought for the view by a series of wrong co-relations and a
number of allegations against the old reporters like Indranandi
ant the recent copyist from Mudbidri Mr. These have been critically examined by me
from every possible point of view on the basis of all availble
material, with the result that my previous statements have been fully
confirmed. The last word on this
subject, as well as on others of a similar nature, however, could only be said
when the Mudbidri Mss. Have also been thoroughly
examined and the whole work has been critically edited.
3.
Authorship of the Namokara Mantra
Panca-namokara
Mantra is the most sacred formula of Jaina
religion. It forms part of the daily
prayer of all the Jainas whether Digambara
or Svetambara.
It has been regarded almost as an eternal revelation and the question of
its authorship was never raised. It is
this very formula that forms the benedictory text at the beginning of Jivatthana and the author of Dhavala
throws important light upon its authorship.
He divides sacred writhings into two kinds
according as their benedictory text forms their integral part or not. Now, different benedictory texts are found at
the beginning of the Jivatthana Khanda
and that of the Vedana Khanda. But the author of the Dhavala
places the first Khanda in one category and the other
in the second category on the clearly stated ground that at the second place
the benedictory text was not an integral part of the writings because it was
not original composition of the author who had merely borrowed with the Jivatthana. This
shows that in the opinion of the author of Dhavala,
the Namokara formulas was
the original composition of author who had merely borrowed it from
elsewhere. But he regards the Namokara formula as integrally connected with the Jivatthana. This
shows that in the opinion of the author of Dhavala,
the Namokara formula was the original composition of Puspadanta the author of the Satprarupana
which was the first part of Jivatthana.
I tried to pursue the inquiry further
and found that in the Svetambara Agama, Ajja Vaira is credited with
having interpolated the formula in one of the Mulasutras. A survey of the Svetambara
Pattavalis and equivalent mentions in the Digambara texts revealed a number of points of contact and
of difference between them in the names and dates of various notabilities like Ajja Vaira. Ajja Mankhu or Mangu and Nagahatthi, associated with this sacred formula and with
the study and preservation of portions of the lost canon. But a clarification of these and ultimate
conclusions on the points raised must await further investigation and study.
4.
A comparative review of the contents
Ditthivada
The twelth Jaina Srutanga Ditthaivada, according to the traditions of both the Digambaras and the Svetambaras,
was irretrievably lost. But a brief resume
of its contents is found in the literature of both the sects. The Digambara work Satkhandagama of Puspadanta and Bhutabali as well as Kasaya-pahuda
of Gunadharacharya are claimed to be directly based
upon. It would ,
therefore, be interesting to take a bire’s eye view
of the contents of this most important Jaina Srutanga, leading upto the
portions that have been preserved.
The Ditthivada
was divided in to five parts, Parikamma Sutta, Padhamanioga, Puvvagaya and Culia, The Svetambaras place Puvvagaya first
and Anuoga, with its subdivisions Mulapadhamanuoga
and Gandianuoga, instead of Padhamanuoga,
next in the above order. The two schools
differ entirely in the matter of the subsections of the first part, Parikamma. The Digambaras name five Pannattis
under it, namely, Conda, Sura,
Jambudiva, Divasayara and Viyaha, while the Svetambaras
count under it seven Senias, namely Siddha, Manussa, Puttha, Oagdha, Uvasampajjana, Vippajahana and Cuacua, each of which is again divided into fourteen of
eleven sections like Maugapayaim, Egatthiapayaim,
Atthapayaim, Padhoamasapayaim,
Keubhuam, Rasibaddham, Egagunam Dugunam, Tigunam, Keubhuam, Padhoamasapayaim, Padiggaho, Samsarapadiggaho, Nandavattam and
Siddhavattam.
The nature of the subject-matter of these is shrouded in mystery. The Digambara
subdivisions, on the other hand, are quite intelligible and their contents are
also clearly stated. There is, however,
one thing remarkable about the Svetambara subdivision
that the first six divisions of Parikamma are said to
be in accordance with the Jaina view which recongnised four Nayas, while the
seventh was an addition of the Ajivikas who recongnised three Rasis or Nayas. It appears
from this that the Ajivika view-point was also accomodated in the Jaina Agama
and that at one time the Jainas recongnised
only instead of seven Nayas.
The second division of Ditthivada was Sutta which,
according to the Digambaras, dealt, firstly, with the
philosophy of the soul according to their own ideas and secondly, with the philosophical
theories of others, such as Terasiya, Niyativada, Saddavada and the
like. They also speak of eighyeight divisions of Sutta of
which, they say, the names five Pannattis under it,
namely, Conda, Sura, Jambudiva, Divasayara and Viyaha, while the Svetambaras count under it seven Senias,
namely Siddha, Manussa, Puttha, Ogadha, Uvasampajjana, Vippajahana and Cuacua, each of which is again divided into fourteen or
eleven sections like Maugapayaim, Egatthiapayaim,
Atthapayaim, Padhoamasapayaim,
Keubhuam, Rasibaddham, Egagunam, Dugunam, Tigunam, Keubhuam, Padiggaho, Samsarapadiggaho, Nandavattam and Siddhavattam. The nature of the subject-matter of these is
shrouded in mystery. The Digambara subdivisions, on the other hand, are quite
intelligible about the Svetambara subdivision that
the first six divisions of Parikamma are said to be
in accordance with the Jaina view which recognised four Nayas, while the seventh was an addition of the Ajivikas who reeognised three Rasis or Nayas. It appears from this that the Ajivika view-point was also accomodated
in the Jaina Agama and that at one time the Jainas recognised only four
instead of seven Nayas.
The second division of Ditthivada was Sutta which,
according to the Digambaras, dealt, firstly, with the
philosophy of the soul according to their own ideas and secondly, with the
philosophical theories of others, such as Terasiya, Niyativada, Saddavada and the
like. They also speak of eightyeight divisions of Sutta of
which, they say, the names have been forgotten.
The Sevetambaras mention twentytwo
subdivisions of Sutta and point out that they may be
studied according to for Nayas, namely, Chinnacheda, Achinnacheda, Trika and Catuska, of which the
first and the fourth Nayas are followed by the Jainas, while the second and the third are adopted by the Ajivikas. In this
way, Sutta is shown to posscss
eightyeight subdivisions. Here again, the mention of the Ajivika view-point and its accomodation
are remarkable.
Padhamanioga
division of Ditthivada, according to the Digambaras, deals with Pauranic
accounts. As mentioned before, the Svetambaras give the name of this division as Anuoga and subdivided it as Mula-padhamanuoga
dealing with the lives of the Tirthankaras and Gandianuoga, dealing with the lives of Kulakaras
and other distinguished persons in separate sections (Gandikas). Amongst these the account of the Citrantara Gandika is very
astonishing and staggering.
Puvvagaya was
the most imporant division of Ditthivada
because its fourteen subdivisions, known as Puvvas,
contained, in fact, all the essential wisdom of the Tirthankaras. There is no substantial difference in the
name or in the nature of the contents of the fourteen Prvvas
in the digambara and the Svetambara
accounts of them, except that the eleventh Puvva is
called Kallana by one and Avanjham
by the other, while there is also some difference in the exient
(number of padas) of the twelfth Puvva,
Panavaya. Both
schools agree that some studied the entire sruta
while others stopped at the tenth Puvva. This view, in a way, shows the significance
of placing Anuoga or Padhamanuoga
before Puvvagaya, for, otherwhise,
those that stopped at the tenth Puvva could have no
knowledge of Anuoga.
The fifth and the last division of Ditthivada is Culia, which,
according to the Digambara school,
dealt with the sciences pertaining to Jala, Sthala, Maya, Rupa and Akasa. The other
school has no account of the Culikas to give except
that they were appendexes of the first four Puvvas and that their number was, in all, thirty four. But if they were appended to the Puvvas, it remains unexplained why a separate division for
them was thought necessary.
The Puvvas
are said to have been divided into Vatthus and each Vatthu was subdivided into twenty Pahudas,
their total number, according to the Digambara school. Being 195 and 3900 respectively. The Kammapayadi-Pahuda,
of which the subject matter has been preserved with all its twenty four Adhikaras, in the Satkhondagama,
was one of the 280 Pahudas included in the second Puvva Aggeniyam, Similarly, the Kasaya-Pahuda of Gunadharacharya is based upon one of the Pahudas included in the fifth Puvva
Nanapavada.
Nothing corresponding to these portions in age and subject-matter is yet
found in the Svetambara literature.
5.
Subject-matter, language and style.
This volume is entirely devoted to the
specification of the various soul qualities under different stages of spiritual
advancement and under various conditions of life and existence, which have
already been dealt with in a general way, in the first volume. It is entirely the work of the commentator virasena who takes his stand upon the foregone Sutras; but
the idea of the twenty categories that form the basis of his treatment here is
borrowed from elsewhere. He starts by
quoting an old verse which names the twenty categories. The earliest work where we find the treatment
of the subject under the same twenty categories is the Tiloya-pannatti. It is, however, still a matter for
investigation as to who started the idea of the twenty categories first.
We have tabulated the numerical
specification on each page in order to show the subject at a glance and
facilitate reference and the number of tables is in all 546. The various divisions and subdivisions
leading to this high number would become clear by a glance at the table of
contents.
The language is throughout Prakrit except for a new Sanskrit passage in the beginning
and by the very nature of the subject-matter which consists mostly of
enumeration, the style is very indifferent to grammatical forms. In the enumerations of the soul-qualities
words have frequently been used without inflections. In fact, abbreviated forms with dots are met
with all over in the Mss. But since the
Mss. Used by us were not unifrom on the point, we
preferred to give the fuller forms and have also taken the liberty to complete
the enumerations where omissions in the Mss.
Were obvious.
But we have not attempted to make the words inflected for fear of
changing the entire character of the author’ style which is so natural in its
own way under the circumstances.
The number of older verses found quoted
in this volums is thirteen, all in Prakrit. One of them
(No.228, on page 788) is said to have been taken from ‘Pindia’
a work which is otherswise unknown.
As before, I have, in this brief
survey, avoided details which the interested reader would find in the Hindi
translation.