Agam 15 Upang 04 Pragnapana Sutra Part 02

SR No.: 001064
Original Sutra Author: Shyamacharya
Author: Punyavijay, Dalsukh Malvania, Amrutlal Bhojak
Publisher: Mahavir Jain Vidyalay
Publication Year: 1971
Total Pages: 934
Language: Prakrit
Classification: Book_Devnagari, Agam, Canon, Metaphysics, & agam_pragyapana
File Size: 16 MB

Page 231

...[202]...
whether various pravādas (schools) (Purva' literature is described as representing a pravada) were really a fact or merely a fiction. But he opines that certain obscure names given to these pravādas go to corroborate the position holding them to be fiction.
But it is not possible for us to agree with him on his abovementioned view. It is so because regarding Drşțivada, its chapters, etc. and especially regarding the Pūrvas there is a trifling difference between the views of Svetāmbaras and Digambaras. This suggests that before the schism both the traditions possessed one common tradition following which both of them present the uniform facts regarding Drstivāda and Pūrvas. It is really difficult to understand why one should regard as false view or misunderstanding the statement (occurring in the Āgama works) that Anga and Angabahya works are based on either Drstivāda or a particular Pūrva. It is so because this statement occurs even in the Niryuktis and also in the works like Prajñāpanā. Moreover, the argument adduced to prove pravādas to be fiction is not at all convincing.
About the relation of Angas and Pūrvas the conclusion drawn by Dr. Schubring on the basis of a passage from Abhayadeva's commentary on Samavāyāngasūtra does not seem cogent. One thing he arrived at is that according to Abhayadeva Pūrvas do not constitute the basis of Anga works and the other thing he arrived at is that Pūrvas and Angas were two independent literatures and hence the former does not form the basis of the latter. We quote below the passage in point in order to decide whether his above-mentioned two conclusions are proper. We request the scholars to decide for themselves as to what the view of Abhayadeva himself is and also as to whether the conclusion drawn by Dr. Schubring on the basis of the passage does really follow from it.
"atha kim tat pūrvagatam ? ucyate-yasmāt tirthakarah tirthapravartanakāle ganadharānāṁ sarvasūtrādhāratvena pūrvam pūrvagataṁ sūtrarthaí bhāsate, tasmāt pūrvānīti bhanitāni/ganadharāḥ punaḥ śrutaracanaṁ vidadhana ācārädikramena racayanti, sthāpayanti ca/matāntarena tu pūrvagatasütrārthah pūrvam arhată bhāṣito ganadharair api pūrvagataśrutam eva pūrvañ racitam paścăd ācārādi / nanv evam yad ācāra-niryuktyām abhihitam,
3. Ibid, $ 38, p. 75 “Whether the pavayas of the Digthivāya (the 12th Anga)
were fiction or fact we do dot know." 4. Ibid, $ 38, p. 75" The names of two Aggeņiya......for their obscurity all
speak in favour of their fictitive nature.” 5. Ibid, $ 37, p. 74 "But he does not derive the Angas from the Puvvas....
Hence it follows that the two series were parallel to, not dependent on, each other."