Scientific Contents in Prakrta Canons

SR No.: 001670
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: N L Jain
Publisher: Parshwanath Vidyapith
Publication Year: 1996
Total Pages: 608
Language: English
Classification: Book_English, Science, & Religion
File Size: 9 MB

Page 300

278 : Scientific Contents in Prākrta Canons
point by modern scholars who have mostly mentioned this difference. For equivalence, the two PA's must be equal. One could suggest that this difference could be accrued due to the two forms of Angula units – self and utsedha – the one being (AA) double of the other (UA). It could be surmised that the Digambara PA is based on UA scale while the other PA is based on AA scale. Candana Muni has also indicated that while canons base their quantitative statements on UA basis, the commentators based their explanations on AA basis. If both are taken on the same scale, the difference may vanish. From the example of Lord's body's height, it is the UA scale coined by the canonists. Thus, the Svetāmbara value converted to UA scale will give us the Digambara value of PA. Some calculations on this basis are given in table 3. If one takes the Svetāmbara value of PA, the results will be highly discrepant.
The treatment of current equivalence of UA by many scholars to suit a particular value of a parameter, presents a situation which was prevalent in the scientific world some 150 years ago when lack of standardisation produced confusion and choked growth of science at proper rate. The same is the case with atom when scholars of the orient are pitching on the indivisiblity which has been shattered. Jaina"? has pointed out some problems in this regard and suggested the description to be taken in historical perspective. However, there seems a tendency of some scholars to trace canonical origin for all the newly developed facts and to either overlook or keep mum over the scientific evaluation of a large number of canonical descriptions about the physical phenomena. Sometimes varied explanations are given for the same fact to make it scientifically consistent despite the fact that inconsistent or opposing results accrue from this trend. Some of the results of calculations based on current opinions regarding equivalent values of UA are shown in Table 3 which will substantiate the above statement. The calculations based on values of Lishk et. al. are most discordant. Table 3 will confuse one to decide the