Page #1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________
What were the contents of the Drstivāda ?
Jaina tradition is unanimous as to the complete and irretrievable loss of the twelfth Anga, the Destivada, at an early date-yet it is able to furnish surprisingly exact and detailed particulars about its divisions, subdivisions, and contents. A good deal of these statements are obviously fictitious : nobody is likely to believe that e. g. the Nanappavāya-puvva consisted of 9999999, or the Saccappavaya-puvya of 10000006 (or 10000060) words 1 But even apart from such monstrosities, it is quite generally speaking the very exactness and detailedness of the statements concerning an avowedly long lost text that renders those statements suspicious; as A. Weber aptly put it as early as in 18832, “one can indeed give very rich details if one consults only one's imagination". Actually Western scholars have come to regard the tradition about the contents of the Drștivada as spurious in that sense that, though the (partly unintelligible) titles of some sections and sub-sections may be genuine, the lost Anga did not contain what is ascribed to it by the canonical table of contents and by the claims of a great number of most diverse texts and subjects to be derived from or based on the Destivada; in the words of Schubring 3: The 12th Anga, under the title of a discourse on (heterodox) views'...... was an instruction to apology and quite naturally fitted closely in the doctrine laid down in Angas 1-11. In the course of time it was lost. Jacobi (SBE 22, XLV) explains this fact by saying that later generations thought the discourses of their early predecessors not to be important any longer. It is more likely that their preservation appeared to be undesirable since the study of such disputes was apt to arouse heretical thoughts and activities."
The traditional claims to descent from the Dşstivada include those of the (post canonical) Svetāmbar Karmagranthas and of their Digambar counterparts, the famous "Siddhanta" texts of Mudbidri, the Şakthandāgama and the Kasayaprabhịta. When
1) No less fantastic, completely unreal figures are given in Samavayanga and Nand, for the
existing Angas 1-11. 2) Indische Studien vol. 16, p. 358. 3) The Doctrine of the Jainas, p. 75.
Page #2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________
8
L. Alsdorf
these texts were at last made accessible through the indefatigable endeavours of Hiralal Jain, they were hailed by him on the title-page of his first edition as "throwing light for the first time upon the only surviving pieces of the lost Drstivada, the 12th Anga of the Jain canon." His opinion is shared by another leading Jain scholar of India, A. N. Upadhye. In a paper read at the XXVI International Congress of Orientalists in Delhi and entitled "The problem of the Purvas: their relics traced", he accepts the claim of the Mudbidri texts to be based on portions of the 2nd and 5th Purvas and ascribed the loss of these Purvas to the intricacy of their subjects: "The details contained in these works are highly elaborate and difficult and deal with the intricacies of the Karma doctrine.................Even from these relics, of which only one or two (allied) Mss. are preserved only in one locality, it can be justly surmised that such Purva texts were not studied on a very large scale, because they dealt with dry details of the Karma doctrine which were not of general interest and the study of which was even denied to many. In course of time the number of monks studying such texts gradually dwindled down; and when the Sangha pooled together the entire canonical literature, this minority of monks perhaps did not cooperate in this work with the result that even these relics of Purvas remained in isolation and were studied in a very small circle."
I must confess that I am not convinced by these arguments. The very intricacy of the Mudbidri texts speaks against, not for their high antiquity. In contents and style, they are typical products of later scholasticism. far removed from the much simpler language and spirit of old canonical texts. Further, though these Digambar Karman texts actually ceased to be studied in modern times and were kept secret, the same is by no means true of their counter-parts and very close relations, the Svetambar Karmagranthas (which have actually a number of stanzas in common with them), they were always known and accessible and never ceased to be read and studied though they are certainly no less intricate and technical than the Mudbidri texts. The intricacy and technicality of these late scholastic works can have nothing to do with the early loss of the ancient Destivada.
That any real knowledge of the contents of the 12th Anga had vanished at relatively early time is shown with particular clearness by a hitherto unnoticed passage of the Avasyaka Cürni, that extremely rich but as yet hardly tapped source of early medieval Jain scholarship. It seems interesting enough to be quoted in full and is offered. here as a modest contribution to the Drstivada problem. On p. 35 of the printed edition we read:"
1) For the contrast in style and spirit between old canonical and later scholastic texts of. my "Arya stanzas of the Uttarajjahay" (Academy of Mainz, 1966), p. 179 f., 184 ff.
2) Published by the sri Rsabhdevji Kegrimalji Svetambar Samstha Ratlam, Indore 1928.
Page #3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________
What were the contents of the Drstivāda ?
iyänim angapa vittham bāhiram co donn. vi bhanṇanti angapavttham Āyāro jāva Ditthivão, añangapavittham Avassagam tav-vairittam ca. A vasagam Sāmāiya-m-ādi Paccakkhana-pajjavasāņam; vairittam kāliyam ukkaliyam ca. tattha ukkaliyam aņegaviham, tam jahā : Dasa-veyaliyamm Kappiyakappiyam evem-ādi. kaliyam pi anegaviham tam jahā : Uttarajjhayņaņi evam-ādi,
ettha siso äha jaha : Ditthiväe savvam ceva vaomayaml atthi, tao tassa ceva egassa psruvaņam jujjai."āyario āha : "jai vi evam, tahavi dummeha-appàuya-itthiyadiņi ya kāraņāi pappa sesassa parävaņā kirai" tti. tattha bahave dummedhā asartă Ditthiyāyam ahijjium; appăuyana ya āuyam ne pahuppai; itthiyão puņa pāeņa tucchão gārava-bahulão cal ‘indiyão dubbala-dhilo. ao eyāsimje aises’ ajjhayaņā AruņovavāyaNisiha-m-äino Ditthivão ya te na dijjanti! tattha "tucchā nāma puvvăvarao vakkhāpe asamattā, 'gārava-bahulä' näma gavvamantio tti, cal'indiyão nāma indiyavaisaya-niggahe Bhüyävādam pappa asamatthāo, "dubbala-dhilo" năma calacittão iti mā tam suyapära laddhim uvajivissanti, tao tesim aises' ajjhaynaāni vārijjanti tti.
"Now will be taught Angapravista and (Anga) bahira. Angapravista is (the Angas from) Ācāra to Drstivada; non-Angapravista is Āvaśyaka and non-Āvaśyaka. The Āvašyaka begins with the Sämāyika and ends with the Prätyākhyāna; nonĀvašyaka is kälika ( to be studied during regular study hours ) and utkalika (to be studied outside regular study hours). Of these utkalika is a plurality (of texts) viz. Dasa vaikälika, Kalpikäkalpika and so on; kälika, too, is a plurality (of texts), viz. Uttaradhyāyana etc.
Here the disciple raises the following objection : 'The Drtsiväde contains the totality of speech (i. e. all that has ever been, or can ever be, expressed in words), therefore it would have been appropriate (for the Jina)to teach that alone 2 The Ācārya answers That is quite right; yet the rest (of the sacred texts, the srutajnāna) is taught for the sake of the dull-headed, the short-lived, the women, etc. In this (enumeration), there are many dull-headed people who are unable to study the Drstivada; of the short-lived, the life time would not suffice; and women are as a rule empty, given to haughtiness, sensual and inconstant; therefore the Pre-eminent Texts1 ) such as Arunovayāya, Ņisiha etc. and Destivāda are withheld from them. Here 'empty' means: unable to interpret coherently; 'given to haughtiness' means : arrogant; 'sensual' means; unable to restrain sensual passions in connection with the Bhutavada 3 ; 'inconstant means : fickle-minded; therefore they shall not
(3) Rhy
(1) Edition wro'g: vaogatam (being the "takara", ga misread for ma); cf. below the quotation
from Visesavsasyakabhsaya. (2) Cf, Hemacandra's rendering as atisayanty adhyayanani in his commentry on Visesavasya
kabnasya 552 quoted below. Bhuvavaya is one of ten names of the Ditthivaya enumerated, Thananga sutra 742; Abhayadeva explains very briefly: bhutah, sadbhutah, padarthas, tesam vado Bhutava dah. If this explanation is correct, the title Bhutavada stresses the refutation of the heretical drstis exclusively named in the ordinary title Drstivada. Cf. also the two longer explanation of Hemachandra ad Visesavasyakabhasya 551 quoted below.
Page #4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________ 10 L. Alsdorf profit from obtaining that(part of) srutajnana, For this reason the Pre-eminent Texts are forbidden to them." The above passage is versified by Jinabhadra in the two stanzas Visesavasyaka bhasya 551 f. and expatiated upon by Maladhari Hemacandra as follows: ............... Purvany abhidhiyante. tesu ca nihsesam api vanmayam avatarati; atas caturdasa-purvatmakam dyadasam evangam astu, kim sesanga-viracanena angabahya-sruta-racanena va? ity asankyaha : .. . jai - vi ya Bhuyavae savvassa vaomayassa oyaro nijjuhana, tahavi hu dummehe pappa itthi ya. 551 S a sesa-visesanvitasya samagra-vastu-stomasya bhutasya, sadbhutasya, vado, bhananam, yatrasau Bhutavadah; athava: anugata vyavittaprisesa-dharma-Kalapanvitanamm sabheda-prabhedanam bhutanam: praninam vado yatrasau Bhutavado, Drstivadah, dirghatvam ca takarasyarsatvat. tatra yady api Drstivade sarvasyapi vanmayasyavataro 'sti, tathapi durmedhasam, tad-avadharanady-ayogyanam mandamatinam, tatha sravakadinam striram canugrahartham niryuhara, viracana sesasrutasyeti nanu striram Distivadah kim iti na diyate ? ity aha : tuccha garava-bahula сal indiya dubbala dhije ya iya aises' ajjhayara Bhuyavdo ya no 'tthinam. 552 yadi hi Dristiyadah striyah katham api diyeta, tada cucchadi-svabhavataya aho aham, ya Drstivadam api pathami !' ity evam garvadhmata-manasasau purusaparidhava disv api pravritim vidhaya durgatim abhigachet, ato niravadhi-krpa-niraniradhibhih paranugraha-pravrttair bhagvadbhis tirthakrair Utthana-Samuttha-na srutadiny atisayavanty adhyayanani Drstivadas ca strinam nanu-janatah. anugrahartham punas tasam api kincic chrutam deyam ity ekadasangadi-viracanam saphalam. The passages quoted here might at first sight suggest that at the time of their composition the Drstivada still was a regular object of study for able-minded males; a more attentive reading will soon make it clear that on the contrary they merely testify to a firmly established if somewhat naive belief that "the Distivada contains everything" a belief obviously betraying complete ignorance of the real contents of the long-lost text and, on the other hand, conveniently permitting to derive from "the Destivada" or "the Purvas" any text or subject which it was desired to invest with canonical dignity. I know of no other paasage where the universality of contents of the Drstivada is claimed so openly and so bluntly, And this bluntness and naivety is no doubt the reason why, significantly; the great Haribhadra in his Avasyaka Tika omits our passage altogether : as in many other cases, he eliminates what he feels to be obsolete or what does not come up to his more exacting standard of refined scholarship; he may also have been reluctant to reproduce the somewhat scathing remarks about women, For the modern scholar, just what led him to reject the passage is apt to enhance its interest