A History of the Canonical Literature of the Jainas c5.50

c5.50

And hence the knotty problem before us. Is this difference really an outcome of some deliberate understanding or is it purely accidental, and as such it has no such significance as we may be inclined to attribute? In other words, did this difference arise because in course of enumerating the sections of *Diṭṭhivāya*, no special attention was paid to their order—the order being then looked upon as immaterial and enumeration the main goal to be achieved? I do not know, if there is any source which throws light upon this problem. So I may try to solve this problem, by assuming for the present that these orders represent two different views regarding the composition (*racanā*) and the subsequent arrangement (*sthāpanā*) of the five sections of *Diṭṭhivāya* with a view to facilitate their study. I have not come across any reference explicit or implicit wherefrom we can deduce that it was rather some other section of *Diṭṭhivāya* which was first composed and not *Puvvagaya* comprising 14 *Puvvas*. It is true that there is a possiblity to construe that the composition of the 14 *Puvvas* is not to be taken in quite a literal sense; but it, after all, refers to the composition of *Diṭṭhivāya* in its entirety, though 14 *Puvvas* are specifically