Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of the Canonical Literature of the Jainas c7: Chapter III. Redaction of the Jaina Canon

A History of the Canonical Literature of the Jainas c7

Language
English

Chapter III. Redaction of the Jaina Canon

c7.2

In ancient days in India, it was customary to transmit learning from generation to generation orally, and that this state of affairs continues down to the present times at least in the case of the olden type of *pāṭhaśālās*¹ which teach Jainism, Saṃskṛta or the like. This will show that it is not the want of knowledge of the art of writing to which this state of affairs can be ascribed. For, according to the *Jaina* tradition Lord Ṛṣabha who flourished in the 3rd *ara* (spoke) of the present *avasarpiṇī* period, taught this art of writing-18 *lipi*s² to his daughter Brāhmī with his right hand.³ The *Vaidika* Hindus, on the other hand, ascribe it to Brahman, the Creator of the Universe. Leaving aside these prehistoric items of a very remote age, and turning to a period only 4000 years preceding the present century, we can give ample proofs of the fact that India knew the art of writing in the remote past. Various scripts such as Brāhmī, Mohenjo Dero⁴ etc., bear full testimony to this. It however seems true that the art of printing was unknown in ancient days in India.

c7.3

¹ For a brief description see my paper on *The Jaina System of Education* (pp. 218-219) published in "*Journal of the University of Bombay*" (vol. VIII, pt. 4).

c7.4

² For exposition of these 18 *lipi*s see my paper on *Outlines of Palæography* (pp. 93-94) published in J. U. B. (vol. VI, pt. 6).

c7.5

³ Cf. the following line occurring in the *Bhāsa* on *Avassaya*:- “लेहं लिविविहाणं जिणेण बंभीइ दाहिणकरेणं” Abhayadeva Sūri's com. (p. 36ᵇ) on *Samavāya* (XVIII) and his com. (p. 5ᵃ) on *Viyāhapaṇṇatti*, *Triṣaṣṭi* (I, 2, 963), Amaracandra Sūri's *Padmānanda mahākāvya* (X, 79) and *Subodhikā* (p. 149ᵇ) may be consulted in this connection.

c7.6

⁴ Rev. H. Heras has written an article on "The Eastern Island script and the script of Mohenjo Dero". See A. B. O. R. I. (vol. XIX, pt. II, pp. 122-126).

c7.7

That the sacred works of the Jainas were not freely reduced to writing for several centuries and thus for this period the services of the art of writing remained practically unutilized for lightening the burden of the memory, requires a satisfactory explanation. In the case of the Vaidika literature, it may be argued that its sacred character was partly responsible for this; for, it was probably feared that the most sacred possession of the race might pass into profane hands, if the Vedas were committed to writing.¹ Furthermore, the necessary guidance for cultivating proper accent and intonation—a point of great importance could be had from the lips of an animate teacher and not from the pages of an inanimate book.² Over and above this, there was a danger of a scribe committing dittographic and haplographic errors and at times misreading the characters and thus transforming the original out of recognition.³ I do not think, it is any one of these considerations that weighed heavily in the minds of the Jaina saints and that prevented them from reducing to writing the sacred works of their school. On the contrary, it appears that their desire of strictly observing their noble and ennobling mahāvrata viz. *aprigraha* prevented them from resorting to writing. Moreover, those saints who kept Mss. were denounced. This is borne out by the Cuṇṇi (p. 21⁴) on *Dasaveyāliya*, the *Bhāsa*⁵ on *Nisīha*, the *Bhāsa*⁶ on *Kappa* etc. Further, penances were prescribed to those who wrote even one letter.⁷ But the times, as it were, willed it otherwise, and in course of time these rules had to be modified,⁸ so much so that permission was given for keeping any of the five types⁹ of Mss. pertaining to the *Nijjuttis* of *kāliyasuya*¹⁰, on find-

c7.8

1-3 See Dr. A. S. Altekar's *Education in Ancient India* (pp. 145-146). 4 "पोत्थएसु घेप्पंतएसु असंजमो भवइ" 5-6 "पोत्थग जिग दिहंतो वग्गुर लेवे य जाल चक्के य" 7 "जत्तियमेत्ता वारा मुंचंति बंधति व जत्तिया वारा । जति अक्खराणि लिहति व तति लहुगा जं च भावज्ञे ॥"—*Bhāsa* on *Kappa* 8 In the *Cuṇṇi* (p. 21) on *Dasaveyāliya*, it is said: "कालं पुण पडुच्च नरण- करणट्ठा अवोच्छित्तिनिमित्तं च गेण्हमाणस्स पोत्थए संजमो भवइ ।" 9 See my paper *Outlines of Palæography* (pp. 101-102). 10 In the *Bhāsa* on *Nisiha* (XII) it is observed: "घेप्पति पोत्थगपणगं कालिगणिज्जुत्तिकोसट्ठा"

c7.9

ing that the intellect, the grasping power and the retentive capacity were getting deteriorated.¹ Later on, it was found absolutely necessary to prepare a number of Mss. of the Jaina canonical literature. How this happened may be briefly described as under:—

c7.10

¹ In the Visehacuṇṇi on Nisiha, it is remarked: "मेहा-ओगहण-धारणादिपरिहाणि जाणिऊण कालियसुयणिज्जुत्तिनिमित्तं वा पोत्थगपणग घेप्पति । कोसो त्ति समुदाओ ।"

c7.11

It was in the time of Skandila Sūri that a famine² lasted for 12 years. Some say that it worked a havoc on the Jaina scriptures while others say that it so happened that all the principal Anuyogadharas except Skandila Sūri died in Northern India.³ So Skandila summoned a council of Jaina saints at Mathurā and made up the kāliyasuya by taking a note of whatever could be gathered from them.⁴ A similar attempt to this Māthurī⁵ or Skāndilī vācanā was almost simultaneously made by Nāgārjuna⁶ at Valabhī

c7.12

² In the Jaina literature we come across references about three twelve-year famines prior to this. They occurred in the time of Bhadrabāhusvāmin, Ārya Suhastin (c. Vira Saṃvat 291) and Vajrasvāmin respectively. The first of them was terrible; for, it made all the Munis except Bhadrabāhusvāmin forget Diṭṭhi-vāya (for details see Ch. IV). As regards the other two famines, it appears that it did not affect the knowledge of the Jaina scriptures in the case of the servivors. But these famines must have severely told upon the scarcity of food—an inference we can draw from the following lines occurring in the Cuṇṇi (pt. I, p. 404) on Avassaya:—

c7.13

³ Cf. the following lines occurring in the Cuṇṇi (p. 8) on Nandi:

c7.14

⁴ It appears that this happened sometime between Vira Saṃvat 827 and 840.

c7.15

⁵ As this vācanā took place in the Saurasena region, it is possible that the Saurasenī Prākṛta may have influenced it.

c7.16

⁶ His vācanā is known as Nāgārjuni or Vālabhī.

c7.17

"इतो य वइरस्वामी दक्खिणावहे विहरति, दुब्भिक्खं च जायं बारसरिसगं, सव्वतो समंता छिन्नपथा, निराधारं जातं। ताहे वइरस्वामी विण्णाए आहडं पिंडं तदिवसं आणेति"

c7.18

"बारसंवच्छरीए महंते दुब्भिक्खकाले भत्तट्ठा अण्णतो ठिताणं गहण-गुणणा-ऽणुप्पेहाऽभावतो सुते विप्पणट्ठे पुणो सुभिक्खकाले जाते 'मथुरा'ए महंते साधुसमुदए खंडिलयरियप्पमुहसंघेण जो जं संभरइ त्ति एतं संघडितं कालिसुतं । जम्हा य एयं 'मथुरा'य कथं तम्हा 'माहुरा वायणा' भण्णति । × × × अण्णे भणंति—जहा सुतं ण णट्ठं तम्मि दुब्भिक्खकाले, जे अण्णे पहाणा अणुपोगधरा ते विणट्ठा, एगे खंडिलयरिए संथे, तेण 'मथुरा'ए अणुपोगो पुण साधूणं पवत्तियो त्ति सा 'मथुरा वायणा' भण्णति ।"

c7.19

(modern Valā of Kathiawar).¹ Hemacandra Sūri, in his commentary (p. 207) on *Yogaśāstra* says that the *Āgamas* were got written by Skandila Sūri and Nāgārjuna Sūri.² Unfortunately it so happened that the version of one did not tally with that of the other in its entirety.³ So an attempt to improve this situatoin was however later on made by the council⁴ that met at Valabhī, under the able presidentship of Devarddhi

c7.20

¹ "अत्थि 'मथुरा'उरीए सुयसमिद्धो खंडिलो नाम सूरी, तहा 'वलहि'नयरीए नागज्जुणो नाम सूरी। तेहि य जाए बारसवरिसिए दुक्काले निब्बडभावओ विफुडिं (?) काऊण पेसिया दिसोदिसिं साहवो। गमिउं च कहवि दुत्थं ते पुणो मिलिया सुगाले। जाव सञ्झायंति ताव खंडुखुरुडीहूयं पुव्वाहिं। ततो मा सुय-बोच्छित्ती होउ त्ति पारद्धो सूरीहिं सिद्धंतुद्धारो। तत्थ वि जं न वीसरीयं तं तहेव संठवियं। पम्बुट्टाणं उण पुव्वावरावडंतसुत्तत्ताणुसारओ कया संघडणा।"—A Ms. of Bhadreśvara Sūri's *Kahāvalī*

c7.21

² "जिनवचनं च दुष्मकालवशदुच्छिन्नप्रायमिति मत्वा भगवद्भिर्नागार्जुन-स्कन्दिलाचार्यप्रभृतिभिः पुस्तकेषु न्यस्तम्।"

c7.22

³ "इह हि स्कन्दिलाचार्यप्रवृत्तौ दुष्मानुभावतो दुर्भिक्षप्रवृत्या साधूनां पठनगुणनादिकं सर्वमप्यनेशत्। ततो दुर्भिक्षातिक्रमे सुभिक्षप्रवृत्तौ द्वयोः सङ्घयोर्मेलपाकोऽभवत्। तद् यथा-एको 'वलभ्या'मेको 'मथुरा'याम। तत्र च सूत्रार्थसङ्घटने परस्परं वाचनाभेदो जातः।" —Malayagiri's com. (p. 41) on *Jōisakaraṇḍaga*

c7.23

⁴ This is thus the 3rd council that tried to restore the *Jaina* scriptures, and in a way it is the 4th, in case we admit that a council had met at Pāṭaliputra in the life-time of Sthūlabhadra. Some believe that the following rendering of the Hāthīgumphā inscription of the Emperor Khāravela suggests this:—

c7.24

"The four-fold Aṅga-saptika of 64 sections lost in the time of the Maurya king, he restores."—J. B. O. R. S. (IV, p. 236).

c7.25

In *A His. of Ind. Lit.* (vol. II, p. 431 n) it is said: "If Sten Konow (Acta Or. 1, 1922, p. 20 ff.) is right in his explanation of the Hāthīgumphā inscription of Khāravela, then this inscription would furnish a confirmation of the Jaina tradition regarding the Council of Pāṭaliputra and the Diṭṭhivāya, and King Khāravela (170 B. C. ?) would in that case have compiled a recension of the Aṅgas in 64 sections. Konow's explanation is ingenious, but very much open to doubt."

c7.26

Turning to the *Bauddha* literature, we find parallels to these *Jaina* councils. For instance as noted in *A His. of Ind. Lit.* (vol. II, pp. 4 and 5) 3 councils were convened in connection with the restoration and adjustment of the *Baudha* scriptures: The 1st council was organized by the immediate disciples of Lord Buddha and was held in the city of Rājagaha (modern Rajgir); the 2nd was held at Vesālī, 100 years after the *nirvāṇa* of Lord Buddha; and the 3rd was convened in the time of King Aśoka when the compilation of a real canon of the sacred texts of the Bauddhas was undertaken.

c7.27

Gaṇi Kṣamāśramaṇa, after the terrible famine which had lasted for 12 years, came to an end. At this council, all the important works of the *Jainas* then available were written down. This event is technically known as *pustakārohaṇa* of the *Jaina Āgamas* or ‘Redaction of the Jaina Canon’.¹ It appears that the Skāndiliyas who had attended this council believed that this Redaction of the *Jaina* canon could be dated as *Vīra Saṃvat* 980 whereas the Nāgārjuniyas said that the correct date was *Vīra Saṃvat* 993 (vide p. 64, ll. 4-6).² Thus this difference had its origin in the fact that some saints thought that 980 years had then elapsed since the *nirvāṇa* of Lord Mahāvīra, whereas others thought that 993 years had elapsed. Whatever may be the exact date, this Redaction of the Canon has been a momentous event in the *Jaina* annals. Its importance lies in the following particulars:—

c7.28

¹ “श्रीदेवर्द्धिगणि क्षमाश्रमणेन श्रीवीरदशीत्यधिकनवशत (९८०) वर्षे जातेन द्वादशवर्षीयदुर्भिक्षवशाद् बहुतरसाधुव्यापत्तौ बहुश्रुतविच्छित्तौ च जातायां......भविष्यद्भव्यलोकोपकाराय श्रुतभक्तये च श्रीसङ्ग्रहाद् मृतावशिष्टतत्कालीनसर्वसाधून् ‘वलभ्या’माकार्य तन्मुखाद्विच्छिन्नाविशिष्टान् न्यूनाधिकान् त्रुटितानुत्रुटितानागमालापाकानुक्रमेण स्वमत्या सङ्कलय्य पुस्तकारूढाः कृताः। ततो मुल्तो गणधरभाषितानामपि आगमानां कर्त्ता श्रीदेवर्द्धिगणि क्षमाश्रमण एव जातः।”—*Sāmācārīśataka* of Samayasundara

c7.29

² Cf. “वीरनिर्वाणसंवत् और जैन कालगणना” (pp. 118-119).

c7.30

(i) Not only were the works written formerly at Mathurā and Valabhī again written and codified, but some more were written. Of course, we have neither a complete list wherein these works are enumerated nor any source which mentions the order³ in which they were written.

c7.31

³ None seems to have fixed the order of the canonical works available at present. So I have taken up this problem. On a cursory examination I find that some of the *Uvaṅgas* etc. were written first and then some of the *Aṅgas*. See *Tattvarasikacandrika* (pt. 1, p. 49).

c7.32

(ii) A serious attempt was made to reconcile the differences in the two versions pertaining to the councils held at Mathurā and Valabhī.

c7.33

(iii) In cases where this failed, it was thought desirable to note the variants, either in the original *Āgamas* or their commentaries. In the former case, the variants were generally introduced by the words वायणंतरे पुण, of which a typical example is furnished by the following lines occurring in *Pajjosaṇākappa* (s. 147):—

c7.34

“समणस्स भगवओ महावीरस्स जाव सव्वदुक्खप्पहीणस्स नव वाससयाई विइकंताई, दस मस्स य वाससयस्स अयं असीमे संवच्छरे काले गच्छइ, वायणंतरे पुण अयं तेणउए संवच्छरइ इइ दीसइ”.

c7.35

In the latter case there was a reference to the Nāgārjunīya school.¹

c7.36

¹ “नागार्जुनीयास्तु पठन्ति-एवं खलु०”—*Ṭīkā* (p. 245) on *Ayara* “नागार्जुनीयास्तु पठन्ति-समणा भविस्सामो”—Ibid., p. 253 “नागार्जुनीयास्तु पठन्ति-जे खलु०” — ,, p. 256 “नागार्जुनीयास्तु पठन्ति-पुट्ठो वा०” — ,, p. 303 “अत्रांतरे नागार्जुनीयास्तु पठन्ति-सो ऊण तयं उवहियं०”—*Ṭīkā* (p. 64) on *Sūyagaḍa* “नागार्जुनीयास्तु पठन्ति-पलिभंथमहं वियणिया०”—Ibid., p. 64

c7.37

(iv) Practically the entire *Jaina* canonical literature was written according to the version of the Mathurā council, as a connected link. I use the word practically to denote that *Joisakaraṇḍaya* is based upon the Vālabhī version.

c7.38

(v) Several *vaṇṇas*² which were occurring in more than one *Āgama* were written out at full length only once, and then they were not reproduced *ad verbatim*, a second time, but only a reference was made to them

c7.39

² *Vaṇṇa* (Sk. *varṇaka*) means a description. This word is placed after any one of the following words or the like of which the description is to be supplied from the foregoing portion or another work:—

c7.40

A city, a sanctuary, a great forest, trees, a dais of earthen blocks, Jambū, Mahāvīra, a king, a queen, a dream, a gymnasium and the physical exercises, a bath-house, an audience-chamber, a palace and a procession.

c7.41

It may be noted in this connection that at times legends related after a stereotyped pattern are often represented in the *Jaina* canon as a mere skeleton which the reader is left to fill in with set words and phrases like clichés. As observed in *A His. of Ind. Lit.* (vol. II, p. 450, fn. 3) “we find something similar in the canon of the Sarvāstivādins.” Furthermore, there on p. 280, fn. it is said: “Clichés of the same kind, also occur in the Bengali poems, s. Dinesh Chandra Sen, *History of Bengali language and literature*, p. 585 f.”

c7.42

by writing the word *vaṇṇaü*¹, by indicating their source,² by alluding to a parallel person³ or an object, by mentioning the words occurring in the beginning and the end⁴ or by writing the word *jāva*⁵, a stenographic symbol.⁶ The *ālāvagus*, too, were similarly treated.

c7.43

(vi) The former practice of referring to a third party all the controversial questions, was set aside,⁷ and the codified works were thence forth looked upon as final authorities.

c7.44

⁷ See *J. S. E.* (pp. 226, 227 and 246).

c7.45

1 Cf. "तेणं कालेणं तेणं समएणं 'चम्पा' नाम नयरी होत्या। वण्णओ। 'पुणभद्दे' चेइए। वण्णओ।" —Dr. P. L. Vaidya's edition of "*Uvāsagadasāo*" (I, 1) 2 "तए णं से भगवं गोयमे 'वाणियगामे' नयरे, जहा पण्णत्तीए तहा"—*Ibid.*, (I, 79) 3 Cf. "तं सेयं खलु ममं कहं जाव जलन्ते विउलं असणं ४, जहा पूरणो"—*Ibid.*, (I; 66) 4 Cf. "तेणं कालेणं तेणं समएणं अज्जसद्दम्मे समोस रिए जाव जम्बू पज्जुवासमाणे एवं वयासी।" —*Ibid.*, (I, 2) 5 In the Pāli literature, the use of *peyyālum* serves almost a similar purpose as *jāva*; for, it is there used for curtailing the recurrence of identical passages. Vide Dr. P. L. Vaidya's intro. (p. x) to "*Uvāsagadasāo*".

c7.46

In *Ayāra* and *Ovavāiya*, descriptions are not curtailed unless they are once given there. *Uvāsagadasā* furnishes us with a strange case; for, in its § 59 we have *java*, and what is thus curtailed, is given in full *later on* in §§ 206-208.

c7.47

6 The idea of lessening the trouble in writing and perhaps of saving in materials like paper or palm, seems to have given rise to these artifices and some more to be just noted-the artifices which may have been resorted to, at the time of this redaction or subsequently when manuscripts were written. The additional artifices are as under:—

c7.48

(a) Instead of writing the entire form of the gerund when it is preceded by the very verb of which it is a gerund, only the number 2 along with *ttā* is written after the verb concerned. See (b), III.

c7.49

(b) Sometimes only a number such as 3, 4, 5 or so occurs after a word. This suggests an association of similar ideas or topics, or at times it refers to a part of the usual formula. In order that this may be fully grasped I may quote the following examples:—

c7.50

(i) "तए णं अहं संकिए ३"—*Uvāsagadasā* (I, 86) and "अवसेसं सव्वं हिरण्ण-सुवण्णविहिं पच्चक्खामि ३"—*Ibid.*, (I, 17)

c7.51

(ii) "तं सेयं खलु ममं कहं जाव जलन्ते विउलं असणं ४"—*Ibid.*, (I, 66)

c7.52

(iii) "तं मित्त जाव विउलें पुप्फ ५ सकोरेइ"—*Ibid.*, (I, 66), "धम्मकंखिया ५ धम्म-पियासिया ५"—*Ibid.*, (II; 95) and "पासइ, २ ता आसुरत्ते ५"—*Ibid.*, (II; 99)

c7.53

(iv) "इड्ढी ६ लद्धा ३"—*Ibid.*, (II; 113) and "सुरं च ६ आसाएमाणी ४ विहरइ"—*Ibid.*, (VIII; 244)

c7.54

(vii) Important events and incidents which were subsequent in origin to those noted in the original works and which were even at times almost contemporaneous with the sitting of the council held for the Redaction of the *Jaina* canon, were embodied in words by this council.¹ It incorporated them in the works composed long ago, even at the cost of anachronism.² For, it appears that it was believed that if they were not to be so³ noted, it would not be so well preserved for the later generations.⁴ But it seems that though this purpose may have been served to some extent, it has added to our difficulties so far as the fixing of dates of certain persons, events and the like is concerned.

c7.55

(viii) Devarddhi Gaṇi Kṣamāśramaṇa, in a way, virtually became the author of the works codified under his supervision.⁵

c7.56

1 Some may be inclined to suggest that this council has nothing to do with this embodiment as this came from the very pens of the original authors of the corresponding works—the authors who could foresee what was going to happen in future. But it seems that such a suggestion can hardly carry any weight at least in these days.

c7.57

2 It appears that the question of anachronism is not of so vital importance to a *Jaina* as the soundness and veracity of what he accepts as a part and parcel of Jainism. Whatever is said or written by a *Gītārtha*, is looked upon by him with as much authority as an *Āgama*, provided that *Gītārtha* is really so. Such being the code of Jainism, the council may not have hesitated in making necessary additions.

c7.58

3 Had they noted the additions separately, they would have been obliged to mention their locations in the corresponding works, not by pointing out the pages and lines but by reproducing the necessary portion to which they were to be appended. Even such an attempt would not have been so very serviceable as embodying the required portion in the very work itself. For, the reader would have been then often obliged to refer to this Appendix, which, if not by his hand, was likely to be neglected by him.

c7.59

4 No *Jaina* author of the olden days was prepared to say that he was contributing something original; for, he believed that the omniscient did know whatever he said. Consequently he was satisfied if his work became helpful to the pupils concerned—no matter even if it was looked upon as a compendium. This view, too, may have been induced the council to take the step it did.

c7.60

(ix) This codification acted as a preventive from further modernization of the sacred works.

c7.61

Before concluding this chapter, I think it necessary to point out the pitfall to which some are likely to succumb, in case they confound this codification of the *Jaina śāstras* with that of their composition by identifying these two different events. It will be a sheer folly, therefore, to believe that the dates of the compositions of the various *śāstras* codified at Valabhi are none else but the date of their codification. This folly, if committed, will not only amount to accepting at best *terminus ad quem* as the date of the *śāstras* but taking it to be the same as *terminus a quo*. In short, the dates of the composition of the various *śāstras* codified are much earlier than the date of their codification though it is true that the dates of the new portions that may have been then incorporated in the *śāstras* are the same as that of the codification.

c7.62

There is another pitfall one should be beware of. Some of the *Digambaras* maintain that all the canonical treatises got forgotten during the 12 years of famine in the reign of Candragupta Maurya, and the canon as shaped at Pāṭaliputra by the *Śvetāmbaras* is at best a patch-work and is not genuine. They believe that the end of the *Vīra Saṃvat* 683 or so marks the complete extinction of the *Jaina* canon. This sounds very strange; for, one can understand if some works or their parts get forgotten in course of time, in adverse circumstances; but a sweeping remark that not even an iota of the *Jaina* canon survived the year *Vīra Saṃvat* 683 or so passes comprehension, unless it may be due to a miracle or a catastrophe of terrible intensity. So far as I know, there is no record or reference to any such thing in the annals of the Indian History.¹

c7.63

There is no mention of any overflowing of the banks by some gigantic river or that of the shores by the Arabian sea or the Indian ocean leading to the submersion of the country all around and the consequent death of each and every one who knew the *Jaina* canon in part or entirety. No deluge is referred to as submerging this sub-continent. There is no reference to any volcanic eruption of which the lava reduced the surroundings to nothing. No conflagration laying its cruel hands on the country inhabited by the *Jainas*, No migration of the *Jainas* is referred to as leaving this land for some other country as was the case with the Zoroastrians who left their native land as suggested by scholars, on being persecuted by the followers of a different faith. Even then, they do possess at least some fragments of their Holy scriptures.¹ Moreover, there is no mention of any political or social revolution-a cataclysm that seriously disturbed the atmosphere. Even granting that any one or more of the catastrophes here alluded to or the like may have befallen the unlucky, how is it that it could produce such a terribly adverse effect only so far as the knowledge of the *Jaina* canon was concerned, whereas it failed to produce any perceptible effect on the Holy scriptures of the non-*Jainas* who were the co-inhabitants of the *Jainas*?

c7.64

¹ Cf. *History of Zoroastrianism* by Dastur Dr. M. N. Dhalla (Oxford University Press, New York). In its review published in the moffusil edn. of the "Times of India" dated 15th oct., 38 it is said: "The History of Zoroastrianism falls into three well-defined linguistic periods: The Gathic, the later Avestan, and the Pahalvi. Its beginning is lost in the mist of forgotten ages, and the scriptures that have survived are only blurred and broken fragments."-P. B. V.

c7.65

Without any further dilation, I may add that this idiosyncrasy to which some of the *Digambaras* seem to have fallen a prey-the view that the lamp of the *Jaina* canon ceased to burn and illuminate from *Vīra Saṃvat* 683 or so is a thing I shudder at. It has deprived us of the valuable legacy we could have got, by way of the preservation of at least some part or parts of the *Jaina* canon and its enrichment by way of its exposition at the hands of eminent *Digambara* scholars like *Akalaṅka* and others.

c7.66

As regards the allegations viz. (1) that the *Śvetāmbara* canonical literature is a patch-work and (2) that it is not genuine, I do not think it worth while to refute them; for, it appears that Vincent Smith's *The Jaina Stūpa and other Antiquities of Mathurā*

c7.67

is mentioned to have occurred. No earthquake on a huge or small scale is referred to as having brought about the ruins of the *Jainas*. Nowhere the crust of the earth seems to have given way and swallowed all it could lay hand on.

c7.68

and the learned opinions of Indologists can very well serve the necessary purpose.¹ Moreover, I do not intend to enter into a controversy in this connection; but at the same time I am prepared to hear convincing arguments that may be advanced to support the allegations, and if satisfied, I shall identify myself with persons making these allegations. But, at least for the present I hold a contrary view, though I admit that some passages here and there appear to wear a colour of a patch-work. Under these circumstances, I shall therefore sum up this discussion by quoting the following lines from the late Prof. Jacobi’s introduction to *The Sacred Books of the East* (vol. xxii, p. xxxix):—

c7.69

¹ Cf. *A His. of Ind. Lit.* (vol. II, pp. 484-485).

c7.70

“Devarddhi’s position relative to the sacred literature of the Gainas appears therefore to us in a different light from what it is generally believed to have been. He probably arranged the already existing MSS. in a canon, taking down from the mouth of learned theologians only such works of which MSS. were not available. Of this canon a great many copies were taken, in order to furnish every seminary with books which had become necessary by the newly introduced change in the method of religious instructions. Devarddhi’s edition of Siddhânta is therefore only a redaction of the sacred books which existed before his time in nearly the same form. Any single passage in a sacred text may have been introduced by the editor, but the bulk of Siddhânta is certainly not of his making. The text of the sacred books, before the last redaction of the Siddhânta did not exist in such a vague form as it would have been liable to if it were preserved by the memory of the monks, but it was checked by MSS.”

Linked texts (15)