Author in Hindi : Shri Dalsukh Malvania
Translated by: Dr. Nagin Shah
Contents
(2) Obstructions to their Preservation
(4) Works Composed on the basis of the Purvas
(5) A List of the Jain Agam Works
(6) Age of the Composition of the agams
(7) Subject Matter of the Agams (55)
(8) Commentaries on the Agams (56)
The Agams, also called the Jain Shrut, are as important in the Jain
Dharma as are the Vedas in Brahmanic religion and the Pitakas in
Buddhism. The thinkers of the Mimamsa branch of Brahman philosophy
considered the Vedas to be eternal and hence demonstrated them to be
authorless, while the thinkers of the Nyaya-Vaishesik and the other
branches of the same philosophy maintained and demonstrated that the
Vedas are composed by God. But if we ponder a little over these two
views, we at once realize that the purpose behind them is one and the
same. It suggests that the date of the composition of the Vedas was
not known. On the other hand, the Buddhist Tripitakas and the Jain
Agams were composed by human beings, not by ‘God,’ and their date of
composition is known to history.
Man loves what is old.
This was one of the reasons why the Vedas were
believed to be authorless. Some might have run down the Jain Agams,
saying that they are new and have no ancient basis. To this the Jain
reply was that our twelve Anga Agams (an ‘Anga’ being a ‘limb’),
collectively called Dvadsangi or Ganipitaka, were at all times in the
past, are in the present, and will be at all times in the future.
They are eternal, firm, permanent, non-destructive, non-decaying and
everlasting’ (1).
The logic behind this Jain answer is as follows:
From the transcendental standpoint, Truth is one. However from the
standpoint of different time, space and human beings, it is manifested
in various ways, but through all these manifestations there runs one
eternal truth.
If we concentrate on the eternal truth and pay no attention to its
various manifestations, then we must say that any person who has
conquered attachment and aversion, and thus become a Jina always
preaches the eternal truth about conduct, equanimity, universal
affection and friendship, and the eternal truths on thinking, namely,
the principle of relativity, principle of non-onesideness. There is
no time when there is an absence of this eternal truth. Hence, from
this standpoint, the Jain Agams can well be described as beginningless
and endless, that is, they are as authorless as are the Vedas.
At one place (2) it is said that there is a vast difference among the
body structures of the twenty four Tirthankars, beginning with Lord
Rishabha and ending with Lord Mahavir.
However, there is no
difference whatsoever with regard to their endurance, body
composition, wisdom, omniscience, and so on. Hence there cannot be
any difference in their preaching.
Another point worthy of note is that all the modes of all the things
that are to be preached are beginningless and endless. The totality
of all the modes; past, present, and future, of all things is always
the same. Therefore, the Omniscient persons, who know these modes in
their totality, preach them in different ages of time, but their
preachings will never differ on account of the difference of time.
Therefore, it is again said that the Agams, are beginningless and
endless they are eternal.
Corroborative statements about the uniformity of the preachings of all
the Tirthankars are found in the scriptures also.
The Acharang Sutra
declares(3) that the teachings of all the Tirthankars belonging to the
three divisions of time; past, present, and future are basically
uniform. They all teach, “Do not kill any living beings, or overpower
them, or enslave them, or harass them, or drive them
away.” This is
the religion, which is eternal, firm, everlasting, and demonstrated in
precept and practice by virtuous persons.
But if from the empirical standpoint we ponder over what form in which
the Truth was manifested, who manifested it, and when and how the
manifestation took place, then the Jain Agams are proven to be a
creation and consequently composed by human beings. Thus they do have
their author, they are not authorless. Hence the scriptures declare;
“Having climbed the tree of perfect knowledge, an omniscient Lord
Tirthankar showers flowers of knowledge to enlighten principal
disciples, called Ganadhars. They collected all these flowers in the
cloth of the intellect, and have interwoven them into the garland of
Dvadsangi” (4).
Thus the two views, one of authorship and the other of the
authorlessness of the Agams get well synthesized and the principle of
relativity finds its fulfillment here.
Speaker’s Point of View:
The test of goodness of anything depends on the measure of its
spiritual merit. For this reason, from the absolute standpoint, Jain
scriptures could be ‘invalid’ (Mithya Shrut) if a person were to make
their use in fostering vices, while, on the other hand, the any other
religious scriptures (Vedas, Bible, Kuran, etc) are considered ‘valid’
(Samyak Shrut) if a person desirous of liberation were to utilize them
in illuminating the path leading to it.
From the empirical standpoint, the Jain scriptures are nothing but a
collection of the essentials of the teachings of Lord Mahavir (6).
In substance, this means that the absolute standpoint mainly keeps the
listener in view while determining the validity of the scriptures, and
the empirical standpoint mainly keeps the speaker in view while
determining the same.
A sentence or a word written in scriptures has no knowledge or
consciousness. However, it possesses the power to convey the meaning
with which it is conventionally related. It may mean or express
different meanings to different people. In such a situation, from the
absolute standpoint, the validity of a sentence or a word is not
intrinsic but extrinsic. That is, it depends on the merit of the
speaker as well as of the listener. Therefore, it becomes inevitable
for one to consider the validity of the scriptures from the speaker’s
standpoint and from the listener’s standpoint. The Jain consideration
of the validity of the Agam from both these standpoints is presented
below.
The composition of scripture has a specific purpose of showing the
listener the path of true happiness and liberation. This is accepted
by all Indian thinkers. Usefulness or harmfulness of scripture does
not depend on words but does depend on the merit of the person who
listens to words. This
is why the philosophical thinkers formulate
divergent doctrines including mutually opposed meanings in the same
scriptural statement.
There are many mutually opposed philosophical doctrines are derived by
different thinkers using the same scripture such as done in case of
Bhagavad Gita and Brahma-sutra of Vedic religions.
Hence, from the listener’s standpoint, to call a particular book
absolutely valid or invalid or to call a particular book Agam would be
quite misleading. Considering this point, the Jain thinkers adopted a
very broad and cohesive view according to which whatever doctrine
fulfills the ultimate purpose of life is a valid Agam; the ultimate
purpose is to assist each living being in its efforts to attain
liberation. According to this point of view, all scriptures including
the scriptures of other religions are accepted by Jains.
The person whose faith is rational will certainly utilize any book
that comes before him in illuminating the path of liberation; hence,
for him all scriptures are valid. But for the person whose faith is
perverse, that is, who does not desire liberation, not only are the
scriptures of other religions invalid but so are the Jain Agams. In
this attitude adopted for the determination of validity of scriptures,
there is persistent devotion to truth without a sectarian attachment
to scriptures of one’s own faith.
Now let us consider the validity of scriptures (Agam), made from the
speaker’s standpoint, that is, the empirical standpoint. From this
standpoint, all the works included in the group of Jain Agams are
valid Agams. In
other words, all those works that are regarded by the
Jains as their own scriptures are included in the group of valid
Agams; and the works which the Jains regard as their Agam do not
include works other religions such as the Vedas etc.
Generally, if a scripture contains the statements of a self- realized
person, it is called Agam Praman (7). But who is a self realized
person according to the Jains? It is said that one who has conquered
attachment and aversion is a self realized person, a Jina, or an
Omniscient Lord. Hence the Jain Agams contain the teachings of Jinas.
The speakers of Jain Agams were a self realized persons, free from
attachment and aversion, and possessed the direct perception of all
entities with their modes. So there is no possibility whatsoever of
any faults or defects in the content of the Agams, nor is there mutual
contradiction or anything that stands contradicted by
reason. Thus,
primarily the direct teachings of Jina are regarded as the Jain Agam
Praman. However secondarily the other works, based on the direct
teaching books (Ang Agams) books also regarded as Jain Agam Praman.
There arises a question as to whether the Angs (the first twelve books
of Agam) are the direct words of the Tirthankars. Have the
Tirthankars themselves composed these Agam works?
Before answering this question it is necessary to clarify that the
extant Agam works are the compilation of the Agams composed by the
Ganadhars. Here, having pointed out the general belief of the Jains
about the composition of the Agams, we shall further devote ourselves
to the special consideration of the extant works.
The Jain traditional view answers the above question as follows.
Having pointed out the fundamental principles of reality and conduct,
Tirthankars have accomplished their objectives.
As has been already
shown, the Ganadhars or the Acharyas give these principles the form of
a composition. It clearly follows that the author of the teachings
embodied in the composition is Tirthankar, while the Ganadhars
authored the word form of Sutra composition.(9)
When it is said that the Tirthankar authored the Agams(10), what is
meant is that he is the author of the meaning, not of the Sutras.
From this exposition it is clear that the Jain Agams handed down to us
in the Ganadhars’ Sutra form are valid because the Tirthankars, the
authors of their meanings, are free from attachment and are direct
seers of all entities with all their modes.
According to the Jain tradition, like the Agams preached by the
Tirthankars, even those preached by a Pratyeka-buddha (11) are valid
(Praman) (12).
The twelve Anga works composed by the Ganadhars are not the only works
included in the entity called Jain Agam. Other works which were not
composed by Ganadhars are also revered as a part of the sacred
literature, as it is a traditional view that the Ganadhars only
composed the twelve Angs. The other canonical literature (Anga-bahya)
were composed by Stathviras or elder monks.
Such Sthavirs are of two types; Shrut-kevalis (one who comprehends the
entire Shrut-14 Purvas) and Das-purvis (one who has acquired knowledge
of the ten Purvas). Shrut-kevalis,
are those who are especially well
versed in the meaning and essence of the Agams.
Therefore, whatever
they will say or write could never contradict the Agams. Their
objective is to compose works which expand upon or a bridge the
scriptures, according to the needs of the society of their times.
Since the Jinas expounded the subject matter, the Jain Order has
naturally and without any hesitation included their works in the
entire ‘Jin-agam.’ Of course, the validity of their work is on
account of their being non-contradictory to the Agams composed by the
Ganadhars.
One of the reasons given to support the view that one who has acquired
knowledge of the entire Scripture can never be contradictory to the
words of a Kevalin (an omniscient, enlightened human being). Also
that not all things are capable of becoming an object of words. Only
some part of all the objects of the Tirthankar’s knowledge become the
object of his work. And one who acquires knowledge of the written
scripture can thus ‘say’ what the Tirthankars had said (16). From
this standpoint, there obtains no difference between a Kevalin (the
Omniscient) and a Shruta-kevalin (the Knower of the entire Shrut).
Here, their validity is of equal strength.
Chronologically, 170 years (162 years according to another view) after
Lord Mahavir’s nirvan, the Jain Order became devoid of any
shrut-kevalis and there only remained those versed in the knowledge of
the ten Purvas. Jains believe that only those persons who know and
comprehend the Purvas can be the spiritual practitioners having
rational faith (Samyak Darshan) (17). Hence in their works there is
no possibility of there being present anything that may go against
Agam. This is the reason why their works also gradually got included
in the Jain Agam.
Eventually, other precepts, though not supported by the Ang
scriptures, but simply constituting the approvals given by the wisest
Sthavirs in regard to some subject are also included in the Ang-bahya
Agams. Even several muktaks (detached stanzas embodying relieving
wisdom) are also given place in the Ang-bahya Agam (18).
On the question as to whether adeshes and muktaks are included in the
Agam, the Digambar tradition is silent. But both the Digambar and the
Swetambar traditions agree on the point that all the works composed by
Ganadhars, Pratyek-buddhas, Chaturdas-purvis and Das-purvis are
included in the Agams.
From this discussion it is clear that, from the transcendental
standpoint, truth manifestation takes place in the conscious soul, not
in the unconscious word. Hence, the pages of a book are important
only in so far as they can serve as a means to spiritual development.
With this standpoint all the literature in the world can be
acceptable, or Upadeya, to the Jains because, for a judicious soul,
seeking and finding the required spiritually beneficial material is
relatively easy. But for an injudicious soul this same path of
regarding all the world’s literature as acceptable is fraught with
dangers. Therefore, Jain sages have shown only the selected works
from the entire world literature to be Upadeya and placed them in the
Jain Agam.
The fundamental principle for selection is that the preachings of only
that subject which the speaker has directly seen, as it is, can be
acceptable; likewise, that subject should have been described as it is
in the preaching if the same is to acquire the characteristic of
acceptability. No narration is regarded as valid if its roots are not
in such a preaching or if it is contradictory to such a preaching.
The words of one who, though not directly seeing things as they are,
but who hears, directly or indirectly, the truth, are to be regarded
as valid (Praman). Such
a hearer, being either a Shruta-kevalin or
Das-purvis, has no right to say things unheard from the above
mentioned right seer.
In short, the words or narration could be regarded as valid/authentic
only if someone had the true experience (true perception) of what is
narrated in words, as Agam is that Praman which is rooted in true
experience. According to this principle, the adesh which we have
already mentioned cannot be included in the Agam.
The Digambars maintain that within a period of time after the Nirvan
of Tirthankar Mahavir, the entire Agam preached by him
became extinct.
This is the reason why they did not find it necessary to include the
adeshas in the Agam. But when the Swetambars tried to preserve the
Agams, having compiled them, they found many things which have come
down from ancient Acharyas through oral tradition which were not
fundamentally based on the preachings of the Tirthankar; with a view
to preserving such things they placed them in the Jain Agam; and
calling them adesh or muktak, they suggested their difference from
the Agams of the other type.
Foot Note
1) See introductory description of 12 Anga works, occurring in
SamavayAnga; and
Nandi Sutra 57.
2) Brihatkalpabhasya, 202-203.
3) AcharAnga, Adhyay-4, Sutra-126,
SutrakritAnga 2.1.15, 2.2.41.
4) Avashyaka-niryukti
tavaniyamanarukkham arudho kevali amiyana
to muyai nanavutthi bhaviyajanavibohanatthea
tam buddhimaena padena ganahara ginhium niravana
titthayarabhasiyam gamthamti tao pavayanattha
5) Anya-yoga-vyava-cchedika - 5.
6) Nandi Sutra 40-41; Brhat gatha 88.
7) aptopadesah sabdah/Nyaya Sutra 1.1.7; also Tattvarthabhasya
1.20
8) Nandi Sutra 40.
9) attam bhasai araha suttam ganthanti ganahara niumam
sthiyatthai tao suttam pavatte Ava. Ni.
10) Nandi Sutra 40.
11) A Pratyekabuddha is one who attains Keval©jnan
(enlightenment, omniscience) without listening to the
teachings of others but only through
pondering over any event occurring in the world.
12) suttam ganaharakathidam taheva patteyabuddhakatha*******
13) ***************
14) In the Jain Agam curriculum, the fourteen Purvas which form
a part of the twelfth Anga were placed last on account of
their deep meaning. So, the meaning of Chaturdas©purvi
(possessor of knowledge of the entire Shrut (sampurnashrutadhar).
According to the Jain tradition it is clear that Bhadrabahu was the
last who possessed knowledge of these f ourteen Purvas.
Sthulabhadra learned from him the same, but following the order of
Bhadrabahu he could teach others the first ten Purvas only. Hence
after Sthulabhadra there flourished Jain monks who possessed
knowledge of those ten Purvas only. Titthogaliya, 742;
Avashyakachurni, Part II, P.187.
15) Brihatkalpabhasya, gatha 964.
16) Ibid 963, 966.
17) Brihatkalpabhasya 132.
18) Brhat. 144 with a foot note thereon; Visheshavashyakabhasya,
gatha 550.
It is a wonderful feat of the Indians to have composed and preserved
the Vedas. Even today one can come across hundreds of Brahmans who
can recite from memory, without any error, the entire Vedas from the
beginning to the end. Though they do not have the tradition of the
meaning of the Vedas, they do have the tradition of Veda-recitation.
Jains too had made strong efforts in the past to preserve their Agams.
However, the form in which the Ganadhars had compiled the teaching of
Tirthankar Mahavir is not available to us today.
Its language being
Prakrit, it is quite natural for its language to undergo changes. So,
Jain monks could not preserve the Anga Agams word for word as the
Brahmans could do with regard to their Vedas. In addition, they
completely forgot several works and made the state of several other
works perverse or corrupt. Yet, we can certainly say that a large
portion of the extent Anga Agams is very near to the actual teachings
of the Lord Mahavir. Although
there have taken place changes in those
teachings and though even additions have been made, we cannot say that
the preaching as we have it is totally new, i.e., mentally imagined.
It is so because the Jain Order has often made sincere efforts to
protect and preserve the entire Shrut. History as a witness to it, we
cannot ignore these efforts.
Could the obstructions that caused the destruction of the Jain Shrut
in the past, not destroy the Vedas? What is the reason why the Vedas,
which are even more ancient than the Jain canon, remain well
preserved, while much of the Jain Agams got destroyed or lost? The
answer to this is easy.
In the preservation of the Vedas, lineages of two types have extended
their cooperation. In the birth-lineage, the father teaches his sons,
and the later their sons, the Vedas; and in the learning-lineage, the
teacher teaches his pupils, and they their pupils; and thus they
continued, without any interruption, the tradition of Veda-recitation.
But in the preservation of Jain Agams the birth-lineage has no place
whatsoever. Father teaches the Agams not to his son but to his pupil
alone. Hence attempts were made to keep the tradition of the Jain
Shrut alive through the learning lineage alone.
This very deficiency
is the cause of the disorder of the Jain canon. There was no
difficulty for the Brahmans to secure a well learned son and similarly
a well learned pupil; but for the Jain Shraman, his well learned son
was not necessarily entitled to read and to learn the scriptures, if
he himself were not a Shraman, while a less educated Shraman, though
not his son, is entitled to read and to learn from him the Shrut.
Again, preservation of the Vedas was done by one special class whose
self interest was in their preservation only.
Preservation of the
Jain Shrut is not dependent on any one special class. Any one is
entitled to read and to learn the scriptures provided he becomes a
Shraman. Moreover, a Brahman who has a birth right to learn the Vedas
cannot escape from the obligation entailing this right. That is, in
the first stage of his life, it was obligatory for him to study the
Vedas; otherwise he had no place in Brahmanic society. Contrary to
this, though a Jain Shraman possesses the right to study the Jain
Shrut, he cannot enjoy his right on account of certain
reasons. For a
Brahman, the study of the Vedas was everything, while for a Shraman it
was the good conduct that was everything.
Hence, even if some
dull-witted pupil could not study the entire Shrut, there would be no
obstruction of any sort in his attainment of emancipation (Moksha),
and his present life also passed easily without any obstruction
whatsoever on the strength of this good conduct.
In daily practices there is no special use of the Jain
Sutras. Since
there is possibility of the path of liberation being illumined through
the study of Samayik Pad (daily meditation an thought purification)
alone, is there any wonder if very few persons attempted to acquire
the knowledge of the entire Shrut? Most of the Vedic hymns are
employed in rituals of various types, while only very few Jain Sutras
are meant to be used in the daily practices of the Shraman. There is
a possibility of being immersed in the ocean of the Jain scripture,
only if a Shraman has special interest in knowledge for the sake of
knowledge; otherwise, without knowing much of the Jain Agam he can
enjoy the nectar of Shraman life. The Jain Shramans could have penned
down their Agams, given them book form, and thus preserved them; this
would have relieved them of burdening their memory. But they thought
that the act of penning down involved the violation of the vow of
non-attachment and non-possessions. Such a violation was unbearable
to them. In the act of penning down Agams and giving them book form
(the form of written documents) they found lack of self-discipline and
self control (19).
When they made liberal the vow of non-attachment and
non-possessiveness, they had already forgotten much of the Agams. The
possession of books (pustak-parigraha), which they had formerly
considered to be the cause of the lack of self-discipline and
self-control, was now thought to be the cause of both (20). They
totally changed their attitude towards the possession of books because
otherwise there was a fear of the destruction of the Shrut.
But what
could they do now? What they had lost could not be recovered and
regained.
Of course, this benefit did accrue that whatever wealth of the Agam
which was still extant at that time remained protected and preserved.
No more damage to it took place. For the sake of the preservation of
the Shrut, the rules of Shraman conduct were made liberal. Exceptions
to the rules of conduct were formulated, keeping in view the objective
of the preservation of the Shrut. Now more importance was attached to
the study of the Agams in the daily practices.
Though they did all
this, they could not remove the original deficiency: they did not
formulate an exception to the general rule that the teacher can teach
the Agams to his Shraman pupils and none other.
Hence, is there any
wonder if the knowledge of the Shrut disappears with the death of the
teacher in the absence of his Shraman pupils? Due to several reasons,
especially the severe penances and very hard ascetic life of a Jain
Shraman, their numerical strength has remained meager compared to that
of the Shramans belonging to the other ascetic orders, such as the
Buddhists. In such a situation, is there any wonder if the Agams
written down in Valabhi leave aside the Agams orally extant could not
be preserved?
Foot Note
19) pottaesu gheppamtaesu asamjamo bhavai/Dasavai Churni p.21
20) Kalam puna paduccha charanakaranattha avocchitti nimittam cha
genhamanassa potthae samhamo bhavai; Ibid p. 21.
In Buddhist history, it is well known that to establish order in the
preaching of Lord Buddha, the Buddhist monks convened three Councils
(Samgatis) in chronological order. Similarly, with a view to
establish order in the preaching of Lord Mahavir, Jain Acharyas
assembled three times and prepared three recensions of the preachings.
Whenever the Acharyas saw that the Shrut was waning and that there was
disorderliness into it, they assembled and established order in it.
The Order of the Jain monks assembled in Patliputra about 160 years
after Lord Mahavir’s death, and also after a terrible famine which
lasted for many years (21). At that time, the middle region of the
country (Madhyadesh) was under the sway of this severe famine, causing
the dispersion of Jain monks in various directions. Naturally, the
Anga Agams fell into a bad state.
The monks assembled after the famine, and asked one another what they
could recollect and thus collected and arranged eleven of twelve Angs.
But they found that nobody recollected the entire Drishti-vada, the
twelfth Ang. At that time Acharya Bhadrabahu alone possessed the
knowledge of Drishti-vada, but he had taken recourse to the yogic path
of a special sort and was in Nepal. So the Jain community requested
Acharya Sthulibhadra with many other monks to go to Bhadrabahu to
learn the text of the Drishti-vada from him. The Drishti-vada, being
the twelfth Anga Agam book, contained fourteen Purva-Sutras. Of those
monks, Sthulibhadra alone was successful in acquiring the knowledge of
it. After acquiring the knowledge of ten Purvas, he misused the
miraculous power earned through their use. When Bhadrabahu came to
know this, he stopped giving lessons to Sthulibhadra. After
beseeching by Sthulibhadra, he agreed to teach him the remaining four
Purvas, but he forbid Sthulibhadra to teach these four Purvas to
others (22).
As a consequence of this, there existed in the Order of Jain monks,
the knowledge of 14 Purvas up to Sthulibhadra.
After his death, the
Order possessed the knowledge of eleven Angs and only ten Purvas.
Sthulibhadra’s death (23) occurred 215 years (207 years according to
the Digambar view) after Lord Mahavir’s Nirvan.
As a matter of fact, even Sthulibhadra was not a Shruta-kevalin
because though he had learnt both the text and meaning of the ten
Purvas, he had learned simply the text of the remaining four Purvas.
The knowledge of the meaning of these four Purvas was not imparted to
him by Acharya Bhadrabahu.
Hence, according to the Swetambar view we have to say that after
Acharya Bhadrabahu’s death (170 years after Lord Mahavir’s death)
Shrut-kevalis disappeared from the arena of the Jain Order. After
him, there flourished no knower of the entire Shrut. The Digambar
maintain that the disappearance of Shrut-kevalis occurred 162 years
after Lord Mahavir’s death. Thus, there is a difference of only eight
years in the two views. The two traditions of the lineage up to
Acharya Bhadrabahu are as follows:
Digambar Tradition (24)
Years
Keval-Jnani Acharyas
Gautam-swami 12
Sudharma-swami 12
Jambu-swami 38
Shruta-kevalin Acharyas
Vishnu 14
Nandimitra 16
Aparajit 22
Govardhan 19
Bhadrabahu 29
162
Swetambar Tradition (25)
Keval-Jnani Acharyas
Sudharma (26) 20
Jambu-swami 44
Shruta-kevalin Acharyas
Prabhava 11
Sayyambhava 23
Yasobhadra 50
Sambhutivijay 8
Bhadrabahu 14
170
In short, of the twelve Angs composed by the Ganadhars, eleven Angs
bereft of the four Purvas were recovered by the Order assembled at the
first council. Because
though Sthulibhadra knew the text of the
entire Shrut, he had no right to teach the four Purvas to others.
Hence after him flourished knowers not of the entire canon but of the
eleven Angas and ten Purvas only, so there was a question of
preserving the Shrut contained in only these.
Division of the Agams on the Basis of View Points of Exposition, and
the Extinction of the Purvas:--
According to the Swetambars, the series of the Das-purvis (knowers of
eleven Angas and ten Purvas only) completely ended with the death of
Acharya Vajra. His death occurred in 114 Vikram Samvat (584 years
after Lord Mahavir’s death). But according to the Digambar, Dharmasen
was the last Das-purvis, and 345 years after Lord Mahavir’s death,
Das-purvis altogether disappeared from the arena of the Order. This
means that the Digambars place the disappearance of Shrut-kevalis
eight years earlier than the date when the Swetambars place it, and
the former place the disappearance of Das-purvis 239 years earlier
than the date when the latter place it. The essential point that
follows from this is that the process of the extinction of the Shrut
is somewhat speedy according to the Digambar view.
The two traditions of the lineage of the Das-purvis are as follows:
Digambar Tradition (27)
162
Visakh Acharya 10
Prosthil 19
Kshatriya 17
Jayasen 21
Nagasen 18
Siddhartha 17
Dhritisen 18
Vijay 13
Buddhilinga 20
Deva 14
Dharmasen 16
345
Swetambar Tradition (28)
170
Sthulibhadra 45
Mahagiri 30
Suhastin 46
Gunasundar 44
Kalak 41
Skandil (Samdilya)38
Revati-mitra 36
Arya-Mamgu 20
Arya-Dharma 24
Bhadragupta 39
Shrigupta 15
Arya-Vraja 36
584
After Arya-Vajra there flourished Arya-Rakshit, who remained
Yug-pradhan for thirteen years. Keeping in view that pupils could
have less developed faculties of intelligences, grasping, and
retention, he made four classification of the Agams, based on the four
points of view exposition (anuyog). Until his times each and every
Agam Sutra work was expounded from all the four viewpoints of
exposition.
Charan-karan-anuyog: (29)
Those Agams which expounded the ethical viewpoint are classified under
the heading of Charan-Karan-anuyog.
E.g., eleven Angas, also known as Kalik-shrut, Mahakalpa-shrut and
Ched-sutras.
Dharma-katha-anuyog:
Those Agams which expounded the religious story viewpoint are
classified under the heading of Dharma-Katha-anuyog.
E.g., Rishibhasitas.
Ganit-anuyog:
Those Agams which expounded the mathematical viewpoint are classified
under the heading of Ganit-anuyog.
E.g., the Surya-prajnapti.
Dravya-anuyog:
Those Agams which expounded the metaphysical viewpoint are classified
under the heading of Dravya-anuyog.
E.g., the Drishti-vada.
It was necessary for the Acharyas to expound each and every Sutra
work, employing extensively the viewpoints (Naya), so long as the
divisions of the Sutra works were not made on the basis of the
viewpoints of exposition. But it became unnecessary to employ those
viewpoints in the exposition of each and every Sutra work as soon as
the divisions of the Sutra works were made on the basis of the
viewpoints of exposition (30).
From what is said above, it is clear that the teaching and the study
of the Shrut must not have continued in the same manner as they had
continued before Arya-Rakshit and there must have crept into them
slackness to a considerable degree. So it was quite natural that the
canon should gradually fall into loss and corruption. It has been
said in connection with even Arya-Rakshit that he studied nine Purvas
and only 24 yavikas of the tenth Purva (31). Even Arya-Rakshit was
not able to impart to his pupils that much knowledge of the Shrut
which he himself had acquired. In the life story of Arya-Rakshit it
has been said that of all his pupils only Durbalik Puspamitra could
study nine Purvas in their entirety but he afterwards forgot the ninth
Purva in the absence of constant recitation on his part.
Gradually
there disappeared the experts on the tenth to first Purva, in that
order, and thus there arrived a time when there were none who knew the
Purvas. This was the situation in the year 1000 after Lord Mahavir’s
death(32). But
according to the Digambar view that situation occurred
683 years after Mahavir’s Nirvan.
It is mentioned in the Curni (33) on the Nandi Sutra that owing to the
famine which lasted twelve years, the Sutra works became extinct in
the absence of the activities of taking lessons, repeating them, and
pondering over them. In other words, during those unsettled times,
the monks neglected their regular studies of the Sutras; so the Sutra
works fell into oblivion. After this twelve year long famine, the
monks assembled in Mathura under the presidentship of Arya Skandil and
collected and arranged the Kalik Shrut on the basis of what they could
recall and recite. Since this vachan was done in Mathura, it is
called Mathuri Vachan. Some assert that the Sutras had not become
extinct but there had taken place disappearance of the principal
Anuyogadhars. At that time there existed only one Anuyogadhar,
Acharya Skandil. As he imparted knowledge of the anuyogs to other
monks in Mathura, the vachan came to be known as Mathuri. From this
it is clear that owing to the second famine the Shrut fell into a bad
state. This time the credit of the compilation and arrangement of the
Shrut goes to Acharya Skandil. Muni Shri Kalyana-vijayji maintains
that the period of Acharya Skandil’s Yugapradhanatva fell between 827
and 840 Vira Samvat. Therefore,
this vachan should have taken place
in this period (34). As a result of this vachan, the Agams were
written down.
Synchronous with the council at Mathura, Acharya Nagarjun convened a
council of monks at Valabhi and tried to collect and arrange the
Agams. Whatever
Prakirna works, in addition to a particular Agam work
and its anuyogs, were retained in memory by Vachak Nagarjun and the
assembled monks. Then they were written down and the recension was
prepared after having corrected lengthy portions according to the
context (35). As Nagarjun was the president of the is council, the
Vachan is called the Nagarjun Vachan as well.
Then a council of monks presided over by Kshama-Shraman Devardhi-gani
was held at Valabhi, 150 years after the councils presided over by
Skandil and Nagarjun at Mathura and Valabhi respectively. It was
decided to document all available Prakirna Sutras, and preserve the
Ang and other Sutras that were documented in the two former councils.
This will bring uniformity in Sutras as far as possible by resolving
the differences in Sutras. Of course, the most important differences
were documented in Curnis and Tikas.
This is the reason why we come across in the Sutras as also in the
commentary the phrases such as, ‘vayanamtare puna’ (according to
another recension), and ‘Nagarjuni-yastu-pathanti’ (the followers of
Nagarjun read the text as) (36). Several Prakirna works which were
available in one recension only were considered authentic in the form
in which they were available (37).
This task was accomplished 980 years after Mahavir’s
Nirvan. After
that event, the text of most of the Agam works available at present
was settled at this time.
If the list of the Agam literature that occurs in the Nandi Sutra were
regarded as the list of all the Agams documented in this council at
Valabhi, then we have to say that even after this documentation
several Agam works, especially many Prakirans, have become extinct.
Also Virastav and Pinda-niryukti Sutras are not mentioned in the Nandi
Sutra but which are still recognized by the Swetambars as Agam works.
Foot Note
21) Avashyak Churni, Part II, p. 187.
· 22) Titthogaliya 801-2. Also see ViranirvanaÄ
Samvat Jaina Kalaganana, p.94.
23) According to Acharya Kalyanavijayji, this refers not to
Acharya Bhadrabahu’s death but to the end of his
Yug©pradhanatva.
· See Viranirvana Samvat aur Jaina Kalaganana, foot note, p.62.
24) Dhavala, Vol. I, Introduction, p.26.
25) Indian Antiquary, Vol. XI, September, pp 245-246. See also
· Vira-nirvana samvat Aur Jain Kalaganana, p. 62.
26) Sudharma remained in the state of a Kevalin for eight years;
before that he was in the state of a chadmastha.
27) Dhavala, Vol. I, Introduction, p. 26.
· 28) Merutunga-Vicharashreni. Viranirvana. p. 64.
29) Avashyak Niryukti 763-777; Visheshavashyakabhasya 2284-2295.
30) Avashyak Niryukti 762; Vishesh 2279.
31) Vishesh. Tika 2511.
32) Bhagavati 2.8; Sattarisayathan 327.
33) Nandichurni p.8
· 34) Viranirvana. p. 104.
35) Ibid, p. 110.
36) Ibid, p. 116
37) Ibid, p.112.
Both the Swetambars and the Digambars unanimously agree on the point
that the Purva works have become extinct, as also on the point that
the contents of the Purva works have not become completely extinct.
There are several works which refer to the Purvas. As we shall see,
the Satkhand-agam and the Kashaya-prabhrit have been composed by the
Digambar Acharyas on the basis of the Purva works.
Now we present the Swetambar view on this point. According to the
Swetambar view, the Drishti-vada embodies of the entire sacred lore,
but for the benefit of the common people other works have been
composed in easily comprehensible style, incorporating in them the
Drishti-vad’s subject matter (38). Accepting this view, it is being
said that the Ganadhars first composed the Purva works and afterwards,
on the basis of these Purva works, they themselves composed the
remaining Angas (39). This view seems to be correct.
But we should understand this much, that prior to the composition of
Ang literature, whatever sacred lore was available in the form of the
Shrut became well known by the name of the Purva; and on the basis of
the Purva, keeping in view the teaching of Lord Mahavir, twelve Angas
were composed and the Purvas are included in one part of the twelfth
Anga. When the works came to be composed in the easily comprehensible
style on the basis of Purvas only, it was quite natural that the
interest in the study and teaching of the Purvas declined; and this
constitutes the reason for the extinction of the Purvas, first in the
chronological order.
This is simply a statement of the general principle. But with regard
to some works, long and short, it has been clearly said that their
composition is based on a particular Purva. Here we give a list of
such works, so that one can know that not only the Satkhand- agam and
the Kashaya-pahud, recognized as Agams by the Digambars, but so many
literature recognized as Agams by the Swetambars are also having their
source in the Purvas only.
1. The composition of Nisith-adhyayan in Maha-kalpa Shrut, of the
Acharang, is based on the 20th Pahud of the third Achara-vastu of the
Pratya-khyan Purva (40).
2. The composition of the Dasa-vaikalik Sutra is based on Purvas as
follows:
Dharma-prajnapti chapter - Atmapravad Purva
Pindai-sana chapter - Karmapravad Purva
Vakya-suddhi chapter - Satyapravad Purva
All other chapters - Pratyakhyan Purva
The author of the Dasa-vaikalik Sutra is Sayyambhava.
3. Acharya Bhadrabahu has composed the Dasa-sruta-skandha,
Brahat-kalpa Jit-kalpa, and Vyavahar Sutra basing them on the
Pratyakhyan Purva.
4. Parisah-adhyayan (chapter) of the Uttara-dhyan Sutra is taken from
the Karma-pravad Purva.
Also most of the karma theory composed in the non-agam literature were
also adopted from the Purvas, but as they are irrelevant to the
context, we do not take them in the review of our present discussion.
Foot Note
38) Vishesh. gathas 551-552; Brhat. 145-146.
39) Nandi Churni, p. 56; Avashyakaniryukti 292-293. Contrary to
this view, there is another view which maintains that first
of all the AcarAnga was composed and afterwards in due order
the remaining Angas were composed. AcarAnga Niryukti 8, 9;
AcarAnga Churni p.3; Dhavala, Vol I, p. 65.
40) AcarAnga Niryukti 291.
Now we shall see which works are at present, in practice, regarded as
Agams.
There is no difference of opinion among the sects of the Jains, on the
point that the basic source of the entire Jain literature is a group
of twelve Anga works composed by the Ganadhars. Also, the sects
mostly agree with regard to the titles of the twelve Anga works.
The twelve Anga works are as follows:
1. Acharang
2. Sutra-kratang
3. Sthanang
4. Samavay-ang
5. Vhakhya-prajnapti
6. Jnata-dharma-kathang
7. Upasaka-dashang
8. Antahkra-dashang
9. Anuttaroupa-patika-dashang
10. Prasna-vyakrana
11. Vipak Sutra
12. Drishti-vada
According to all the three sects, the last Anga work named
Drishti-vada has been the first to become extinct.
Extinction of the Agams (Shrut) according to the Digambar view:
The Digambars maintain that after the death of Lord Mahavir the canon
started becoming extinct gradually, and that in the year 68 after the
death of Lord Mahavir there was not a single Acharya who possessed
total knowledge of the Angas or Purvas; of course, there were Acharyas
who possessed the knowledge of some portion of ‘this or that’
Anga/Purva.
In the tradition of such Acharyas, there flourished Pushpadant,
Bhutabali, and Gunadhara; the first two composed the Satkhand Agam on
the basis of a portion of the second Purva named Agrayaniya, and the
third, Gunadhara, composed Kashaya-pahud on the basis of a portion of
the fifth Purva named Jnanapravad (41). Both these works have been
accorded a respectable place in the Agams in the Digambar tradition.
According to them the Angas have already been extinct.
The following are the time periods in chronological order, according
to the Digambars in which the Shrut gradually became extinct after the
death of Lord Mahavir (42).
3 Kevalins - Gautam, etc. (43) 62 years
5 ShrutaKevalins - Vishnu, etc. (43) 100 years
11 Dasapurvis - VishakhAcharya, etc. (44) 183 years
5 EkadasAngadharis - Nakshatra
Jasapal
Pandu 220 years
Dhruvasen
KamsAcharya
4 AcarAngadharis - Subhadra
Yasodhar
Yasobahu 118 years
LohAcharya
683 years
Though the Digambars contend that the fourteen Ang-bahya Agams,
naturally different from the twelve Anga Agams, were composed by
Sthavirs, they also believe that those Ang-bahya Agams too have become
extinct. The titles of these fourteen Ang-bahya Agams are as follows:
1. Samayik
2. Chaturvin-shatistava
3. Vandana
4. Pratikraman
5. Vainayiks
6. Kritikarma
7. Dasavaikalik
8. Uttaradhyayan
9. Kalpavyavahar
10 Kalpakalpik
11. Mahakalpik
12. Pundarik
13. Mahapundarik
14. Nisithik (45).
Upon examining the list of Ang-bahya Agams, accepted by the
Swetambars, it becomes quite clear that out of 14 Ang-bahya Agams,
many have been preserved.
Though the Digambars believe in the extinction of the original Agams,
they have given as much importance to some works as they gave to the
original Agams; having given these works the title ‘Jaina Veda,’ they
grouped them in the four anuyogs as follows:
Padma-puran (Ravisen),
Harivamsa-puran (Jinasen),
Adi-puran (Jinasen),
Uttar-puran (Gunabhadra)
Surya-prajnapti
Chandra-prajnapti (Jayadhaval).
Pravachanasar, (Kunda-kunda)
Samayasar,
Niyamasar,
Panchastikayasar
Tattvarthadhigam Sutra (Umasvami) and
commentaries on it composed by Samantabhadra (46),
Pujyapad, Akalarik, Vidyanand, etc.
Aptamimamsa (Samantabhadra) and
commentaries on it composed by Akalarik,
Vidyanand, etc.
Mulachar (Vattakera)
Trivarnachar,
Ratna-karanda-shravak-achar (47).
On examining this list, it becomes clear that the works written up to
the tenth century have been included in it.
Agam works of the Sthanak-vasi Sect:
According to the Swetambar Sthanak-vasi sect, all the Angas except the
Drishti-vada are extant. The Ang-bahya Agams maintain that only the
following twenty one works are extant.
* 12 Upangs,
* 4 Ched Sutras,
* 4 Mul Sutras,
* 1 Avashyak
12 Upangas -
1. Aupapatik,
2. Rajaprasniya,
3. Jivabhigama,
4. Prajnapan,
5. Surya©prajnapti,
6. Jambudvipaprajnapti,
7. Chandra©prajnapti,
8. Nirayavali,
9. Kalpavatamsik,
10. Puspik,
11. Puspachulik,
12. Vrisnidas.
In Shastroddhar Mimamsa, Acharya Amolakh-rsi writes that the
Chandra-prajnapti and Surya-prajnapti are both the upangas of
Jnatadharma. Bearing in mind this exception, one should join
Aupapatik, etc. with AcharAnga, etc. respectively.
4 Ched Sutras -
1. Vyavahar,
2. Brihatkalpa,
3. Nisitha
4. Dasashrutaskandha
4 Mul Sutras -
1. Dasavaikalik,
2. Uttradhyayan,
3. Nandi,
4. Anuyog.
1 Avashyak
Thus, in all 21 Angabahya Agam works are available at present.
The Shvetambar Murtipujak sect accepts these 21 Angabahya Agam works
in the very form in which they are accepted by the Sthanakavasi sect.
In addition to these works, the Shvetambar Murtipujak sect has
accepted some other works as Angabahya Agam, but the Sthanakavasi sect
regards them as either not authentic or extinct.
Like the Sthanakavasi sect, its subsect known as the Terahapanthi
accepts the existence (at present) and authenticity of 11 Anga works
and 21 Angabahya works only, not of the other works. In both these
sects, commentarial works (viz. Niryukti, etc.) are not accepted as
authentic.
Currently, the outlook of some Sthanakavasi monks has become liberal
on account of their inclination towards the history of Agam literature
and also on account of their engagement in the study of old
commentaries like Niryukti. They have started maintaining that the
authors of the Dasavaikalik, etc. were not Ganadhars but Sthavirs
like Sayyambhava, etc. But there are other Sthanakavasi monks
projecting a more sectarian outlook who have no faith whatsoever in
the commentaries on the Agams and rejects the study of Sanskrit
commentaries, and firmly believe that the authors of both the Anga
Agam and the Angabahya Agam were Ganadhars only, and not any other
Sthavir (48).
The Agam works of the Shvetambar Sect
As we have already stated, among the sects there is no difference of
opinion on the subject of Anga works. Hence, the already mentioned
twelve Angas accepted by all Jains, the only difference being that the
Digambars maintain that they became extinct in the already mentioned
chronological order while the Shvetambars maintain that only the last
Anga work has become extinct (49).
The Shvetambars assert that in the year 1000 after Lord Mahavira’s
death, only the the twelfth Anga Drishtivad which contained fourteen
Purvas has become extinct. They further contend that Acharyas
composed several works adopting subject matter from the Purvas so long
as the Drishtivad was extant, and that many such works are included in
Angabahya Agams and a few even in the Anga Agams.
The Digambars have accepted 14 works, the Shvetambars 34 works, and
the Sthanakavasis 21 works as Angabahya Agams.
The following is the list of extant 11 Angas and 34 Angabahya Agams,
according to the Shvetambar sect.
11 Angas - AcarAnga, etc
12 UpAngas - Aupapatik, etc.
10 Prakirnaks -
1. Chatuhsharan,
2. Aturapratakhyan,
3. Bhaktaparijna,
4. Samstrak,
5. Tamdulavaicharik,
6. Chandravedhyak,
7. Devendrastav,
8. Ganividya,
9. Mahapratyakhyan,
10. Virastav (50).
6 Ched Sutras -
1 Nisitha,
2 Mahanisitha,
3 Vyavahar,
4 Dasashrutaskandha,
5 Brihatkalpa,
6 Jitakalpa.
4 Mul Sutras -
1 Uttaradhyayan,
2 Dasavaikalik,
3 Avashyak,
4 Pindaniryukti (51)
2 Chulik Sutras -
1 Nandi Sutra,
2 Anuyogadvar Sutra.
Foot Note
41) Dhavala Vol. I, Introduction p.71; Jayadhavat, p. 87.
42) See Jayadhavat, p. 49.
43) ***
44) ***
45) Jayadhavat, p. 25; Dhavala, Vol. I, p. 96; Gomattasar,
Jivakand, 367-368.
46) Not available.
47) Jaina Dharma, p. 107; ÃHistory of Indian LiteratureÄ , Vol. II, p. 474.
48) ShastroddharaMimamsa, pp. 43, 45, 47.
49) Bhagavati 2.8; Titthogaliya 801; Sattarisayathan, 327.
50) The ten Prakirnaks are enumerated with some changes also;
for that refer to Canonical Literature of Jains, pp.45-51.
51) According to some Oghaniryukti too is included in the fourth
item. According to some others, Oghaniryukti is to be
enumerated in place of Pindaniryukti.
Age of the Composition of the Agams
As we have already seen, there is not only one work designated by the
term ‘Agam’ but a group of works composed by different
authors. Hence
we cannot assign the Agam to one and the same period of time. Lord
Mahavira started preaching in the year 500 before the Vikram Era.
Therefore no Agam work can be assigned to the date prior to this year.
On the other hand, on the basis of the final recension, the penning
down of the Agam works was accomplished in Valabhi in 510 V.S.
(according to Digambar view in 523 V.S.). So, no Agam work can be
assigned to a date posterior to this year (52). Keeping in view these
two limits - the upper and the lower - we have to consider the problem
of the age of the composition of the Agams.
The Angas are regarded as the works composed by the Ganadhars, but
even they are not uniformly ancient. Any body can well see that the
first and the second parts (called Shruta-skandhas) of the Achar-anga
Sutra differ widely with regard to their thought and
language. The
first part is more ancient than not only the second part but also any
of the Agam works. We cannot say that it is absolutely free from the
additions and alterations, but we can definitely say that very little
has been added to it as compared to other Agam works.
Even if what it contains is not the direct preaching of Lord Mahavira,
it is definitely very near to it. In such a situation, we cannot
assign the compilation of the first part to a date later than the year
300 before the Vikram Era. It is more probable that it had been
compiled in the first council which prepared the first
recension. The
composition of the second part should be assigned to a date later than
that of Acharya Bhadrabahu, because, when compared to the first part,
the second exhibits the product of a developed stage in the treatment
of rules and sub-rules of monastic conduct. Yet we cannot place it
after the second century before the Vikram Era; we can generally say
the same in connection with all the Anga works.
This does not mean
that whatever is compiled belongs to the date of compilation. The
content was ancient and it was continuously handed down from
generation to generation through a tradition from the Ganadhars
onwards. That content was compiled.
Nor does it mean that nothing new has been added to it after the
second century before the Vikram Era. In Anga works like the
SthangAnga, there occurs a mention of an event that even took place in
the sixth century after Lord Mahavira’s Nirvan.
But, apart from some
such mention, all the ideas contained in the Anga works are very
ancient. Owing to the influence of time and to the nature of their
Prakrit language, they went through changes according to the
principles of the development of language. This is because in ancient
times, their study was conducted not through written books but through
oral instruction. For
example, the Prasnavyakaran as we have it at
present differs, in content, from the work of the same title described
in the Nandi-Sutra. This
means that the Prasnavyakaran as we have it
today is not original but is a work entirely composed later on.
We have no means of knowing as to when after the Valabhi Recension
this original Anga work became extinct, and when the new
Prasnavyakaran; new in the sense of having altogether novel contents,
came into existence and took the place of the original
Prasnavyakaran.
We can say this much, that it had already been composed before the
date (beginning of the 12th century V.S.) of the composition of
Abhayadeva’s commentary.
Now, following chronological order, we should discuss the problem of
the age of the Upanga works. We definitely know the date of the
Prajnapan Sutra. Its author is Arya-Shyam also known as Kalaka-charya
(Nigoda-vyakhyata) (53). He had become Yug-pradhan in 335 Vira Samvat
and held that dignified position until 376 Vira Samvat. Hence, the
Prajnapan could be assigned to the period lying in between 335 V.N.
Samvat and 376 V.N. Samvat. That is, it could be regarded as having
been composed in between the year 135 and the year 94 before the
commencement of the Vikram Era. We do not know who the authors of the
remaining Upanga works are. But we cannot regard them as the works
composed by Ganadhars; they are works composed by other Sthavirs, and
they were not composed in the same period of time.
The Upangas Chandra-prajnapti, Surya-prajnapti and Jambudvip-prajnapti
are included in the Parikarma of the Drishtivad as per Digambar sect
(54). They are also mentioned by name in the Nandi Sutra by Swetambar
sect. Hence, these three works should belong to the period before the
seperation of Digambar and Shvetambar sects. Therefore, they should
not be placed after the commencement of the Vikram Era. Generally, we
can say the same thing in connection with all the remaining Upangas.
The present text of the Chandra-prajnapti is almost identical with
that of the Surya-prajnapti. This suggests that the original
Chandra-prajnapti text might have become extinct.
In connection with the Prakirnak works we can say that their
composition took place at different times, and the Valabhi council
that prepared the final recension of the Agams can be regarded as the
lowest limit.
Of the Ched Sutras, the Dasashrut, Brihatkalpa, and Vyavahar are well
known as the works of Bhadrabahu. Hence they cannot be placed later
than the year 170 after Lord Mahavira’s death; that is, they were
already composed prior to the year 300 before the commencement of
Vikram era. The other acharyas have written commentaries (Niryukti
and Bhasya) on the above ched-sutras; therefore, there has been no
scope for them to undergo any change.
The Nisitha Sutra is nothing but an appendix (chulika) to the Acaranga
Sutra. Hence, it too is ancient.
The Jitakalpa Sutra is composed by by Acharya Jinabhadra. It is the
summary work of Kalpa-Vyavahar and Nisitha Sutras. Hence it has been
accorded a place in the Ched class, after the Panchakalpa Sutra became
extinct.
The present Mahanisitha Sutra was saved from falling into oblivion.
by Acharya Haribhadra.
He recomposed the text in its present form but
its subject matter is ancient.
Out of the four works that are designated as Mul Sutras, the date of
the Dasavaikalik Sutra is definitely known. It is a work by Acharya
Sayyambhav who was given the dignified position of a Yug-pradhan in
the year 75 after Lord Mahavira’s death, and who retained that
position till his death in the year 98 after Mahavira’s death. This
means that the composition of this Dasavaikalik Sutra took place
between the years 395 and the year 372 before the commencement of the
Vikram Era. We can say this much, that the Chulikas that occur in it
have been added later on. Apart from this, there has been no
possibility of any other addition or alteration in the text.
The Uttaradhyan Sutra is not a work that was composed by one Acharya
at one time. Yet there is nothing that can prevent us from placing it
in the third or the second century before the start of the Vikram Era.
Being an Angabahya Agam, the Avashyak Sutra cannot be a work composed
by a Ganadhar. It should be a work composed by some other monk
contemporary of a Ganadhar. This work has its use in the daily
practices of a Jain monk. Hence, its composition should be regarded
as prior to even that of the Dasavaikalik Sutra.
It is stated in Ang
Sutras that monks should study Samayik-adhyayan and the eleven Angas
(Samaiyani Ekadasamgani). From this it becomes clear that, of all
Agam works, the Avashyak Sutra was taught first to the monks. This
fact indicates that its composition occured at the same time when Anga
sutras were composed. This means that it is proper to hold that it
had already been composed prior to the year 470 before the beginning
of the Vikram era.
Pinda-Niryukti is a part of Dasavaikalik-Niryukti.
Hence it is a work
by Bhadrabahu II. Therefore,
it should belong to the fifth or the
sixth century V.S.
Of the Chulik Sutras, the Nandi Sutra has been composed by
Devardhigani. Hence it should be assigned to the beginning of the
sixth century V.S.
It is difficult to decide the author of the Anuyogadvar Sutra. But
the Anuyogadvar Sutra was composed later than the Avashyak Sutra
because the former has applied its method of exposition (Anuyog) to
the later. It is possible that it has been composed either after
Arya- Rakshit or by Arya-Rakshit. However, its composition was
certainly accomplished before the commencement of the Vikram Era. It
is possible that afterwards some additions and alterations of some
chapters might have taken place.
Whatever we have said in this discussion on the age of the Agams is
not a final word. When we study each and every Agam work from the
standpoints of its matter and form and explore and examine fully all
the internal and the external evidences, we shall be able to complete
this discussion accurately, and determine the age of each and every
Agam work. Here we have attempted simply a general treatment.
Foot Note
52) Prakirnaks, like Chatuhsaran and Bhaktaparijna which are not
mentioned in Nandi, are an exception to this statement. It is
very difficult to decide as to when they were included in the
group of Agam works.
· 53) Viranirvana, p. 64.
54) Dhavala, Introduction, Vol. II, p.43
Subject Matter of the Agams (55)
Some Agam works deal with right conduct;
AcharAnga, Dasavaikalik, and so on.
Some Agams deal with preaching of Jain religion
Uttaradhyayan, Prakirnak, and so on.
Others treat of the contemporary conceptions pertaining to
cosmology, cosmography, astronomy, and related topics; they are
Jambudvip-prajnapti, Surya-prajnapti, and others.
The injunctive statement of atonements and the treatment of the
general and exceptional rules of Jain monastic conduct constitute
the principal subject matter of the Ched Sutras.
Some delineate the life story of the followers of the path propounded
by the Jinas;
Upasakadas-Anga and Anuttarau-papatikadas.
Still others intend to teach eternal wisdom and fundamentals of
religious conduct by narrating illustrative imeginary stories;
Jnata-dharma-katha.
The Vipak Sutra illuminates the fruits of auspicious and inauspicious
past deeds through illustrative stories.
The Bhagavati Sutra contains Lord Mahavira’s dialogues with others.
Like the Buddhist Suttanipata, the Bhagavati Sutra contains questions
and answers pertaining to various subjects.
Some treat of metaphysics. Foremost among them are Sutrakrit,
Prajnapan, Rajaprasniya, Bhagavati, Nandi, Sthan, Samavay and
Anuyogadvar.
Having refuted the metaphysical views prevalent in those days, the
SutrakritAnga propounds its own view. It refutes the materialist view
and proves the independent existence of a soul.
It establishes the
theory of many souls in place of the theory of one soul. It
demonstrates that body and soul are different.
It shows that there
are past deeds (Karma) and establishes that they have their fruits.
It refutes various views regarding the creation of the universe and
establishes that neither God nor any such individual has created it
but that it is beginningless and endless. Again, having refuted
Kriyavad, Akriyavad, Vinayavad and Ajnanavad, it establishes
Susamskrit Kriyavad.
Prajnapan extensively deals with the various states of a soul.
In Rajaprasniya, Kesi-Shraman of Lord Parshva’s tradition, while
answering a question put to him by King Pradesi of Shravasti, refutes
the view that the soul does not exist, establishes its existence, and
explains many points pertaining to a soul by illustrations and
arguments.
In many questions and answers contained in the Bhagavati-Sutra, many
philosophical ideas of Naya, Praman, and so on are found scattered.
The Nandi-Sutra is a good work dealing with the Jain view of the
nature and the types of knowledge.
The form of the SthanAnga and SamavayAnga is very similar to that of
the Buddhist Amguttara-nikay. In these two Agam works there occur
discussions pertaining to soul (Atma), matter (Pudgal), knowledge
(Jnan), Naya, Praman, etc. In the SthanAnga there occurs a
description of the dissenters that arose in Lord Mahavira’s doctrinal
and monastic discipline. There were seven dissenters who at different
times expressed their dissent regarding different points of Lord
Mahavira’s doctrines. They are called Nihnavs.
In the Anuyogadva Sutra, the method of arriving at the true meaning of
a word or a sentence is primarily set forth.
In other words, it
mainly deals with the Jain method of exposition (anuyog).
Occasionally it well treats of the Nayas and the metaphysical
verities.
Foot Note
55) See my article in Premi Abhinandana Franth
Commentaries on the Agams (56)
The commentaries on the Agams have been written in Prakrit and
Sanskrit. Those
written in Prakrit are known as Niryukti, Bhasya, and
Churni. Niryuktis and Bhasyas are composed in verses while Churnis
are in prose.
All the extant (present) Niryuktis have been composed by Bhadrabahu
II. He flourished in the fifth or sixth century V.S. In his
Niryuktis he has conducted philosophical discussions in an attractive
style. Whenever faced with an opportunity in the Niryuktis to write
about the Buddhists and the Charvaks he seized it, without fail. He
has proven the existence of a soul. He has penetratingly treated of
the topic of knowledge, and has philosophically expounded the
principle of non-violence. He was doubtlessly an expert in the method
of arriving at the true and multifaceted meaning of a word or a
statement. He laid the firm foundation of the Jain philosophy by
writing on the subjects of Praman, Naya, and Nikshep.
One should study the Bhasyas, if one wants to have a complete picture
of the full discussion on any particular subject that had been carried
on till the date of their composition. Among the authors of the
Bhasyas, Samghadasa-gani and Jinabhadra are famous. They belong to
the seventh century.
In his Vishesh-avashyak-bhasya, Jinabhadra has logically expounded the
ideas expressed in the Jain Agams. He has fully discussed the topics
of Praman, Naya, and Nikshep. Apart from these topics, he has
logically expounded the metaphysical and ethical varieties. We can
say that there is no philosophical topic which has not been discussed
by Jinabhadra.
In his Brahat-kalpa-bhasya, Samghadasa-gani has philosophically
discussed the general and exceptional rules of the Jain monastic
conduct. He too has occasionally written on the topics of Jnan,
Praman, Naya, and Nikshep.
The Churnis that are available to us belong to the seventh or the
eighth century. Among the authors of the Churnis, Jinadas Mahattar is
famous. He has written a Churni on Nandi Sutra and others as well.
Churnis briefly present, in prose, the subject matter of the
corresponding Bhasyas. Their special feature is the narration of
Prakrit stories similar to Jatak stories of Hindu literature.
The oldest Sanskrit commentaries on the Agams are those written by
Acharya Haribhadra. He
has been assigned to the periods between 757
V.S. and 857 V.S. Haribhadra had mainly given the Sanskrit version
of the Prakrit Churnis, thinking it proper to make use of his
knowledge of philosophy in this area. Therefore, we find in his
commentaries the presentation of all the philosophies as prima facie
views. He attempts to give a definite, crystallized shape to Jain
philosophy on the strength of his knowledge of philosophy.
After Haribhadra, Silamk-suri wrote Sanskrit commentaries in the tenth
century.
After Silamk-suri there flourished the famous Sanskrit commentator
Santya-Acharya. He wrote Brihat-tika on the Uttaradhyayan.
After him, there flourished the also well known commentator Abhayadev
who, living from 1072 to 1134 V.S., wrote Sanskrit commentaries on
nine Angas. These two commentators fully utilized the old
commentaries that were available to them, and have also independently
conducted philosophical discussions.
Here we should mention the name of Maladhari Hemachandra who was also
a Sanskrit commentator. He was a scholar of the twelfth century.
However, among the authors of Sanskrit commentaries on the Agams,
Malayagiri holds the supreme position.
If one wants to read
commentaries and philosophical discussions in lucid language, he
should select those written by Malayagiri. While reading his
commentaries, one experiences the joy of reading pure philosophical
work. He fluently and smoothly writes on all the subjects of Jain
philosophy, for example, Karma, ethics, cosmography,
astronomy, etc.
He presents the subject matter so clearly that there remains no desire
to consult other literature on the subject.
Like Vachaspati-Misra, Malayagiri presented various philosophical
views with such a logic that the reader would feel as if the writer
himself is the advocate and upholder of the view presented. He was a
contemporary of Acharya Hemachandra. Hence we should regard him as a
scholar of the twelfth century.
The Sanskrit and Prakrit commentaries were so voluminous and the
discussions on various topics had become so hard and heavy that it was
thought necessary to write brief commentaries which simply gave the
meaning of words.
Again, with the passage of time, Sanskrit and Prakrit lost their
position as spoken language and became simply literary languages
confined to a very group of learned scholars. When this was the
situation, other scholars started writing Balavabodha commentaries in
contemporary Apabhramsa, which is a Old Gujarati language.
These
commentaries are also known by another general name ‘Taba’.
There
flourished many scholars who wrote Balavabodha, or Taba, commentaries.
But of them we should especially mention the name of Dharmasimha-muni
of 18 century. He rejects the interpretation given in the old
commentaries and gives his own interpretation. However his
interpretation fits in well with the tenets of his own sect
(Loka-gacha) which had arisen in opposition to idol-worship.
See my article in Premi Abhinandana Franth
56) Ibid.