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 83

Prākṛta Canons :
The contental disparity of Drstivada in both the sects suggests that while Digambaras did not give much importance to the 11-Angas, the Svetāmbaras were averse to the twelfth Anga. These and many other discrepancies require deeper elaboration. Though the Digambaras may not bother about them, as, for them, the canons are said to be lost and per chance what they have said about the magnitude should be assumed as just heresays and not authentic. However, as they are supposed-to-be-authentic and canon-like books of Akalanka and Virasena describe the details, the differences or contradictions require intensive examination.
61
There is large number of difference in the magnitude of size and contents of canons in the two major sections of Mahāvira's followers. How they may be called them as authentic? The criteria for the authenticity have been the following: (i) Composition by Tirthankaras, their chief as well as remote disciples (the disciple lineage could not be extended too far as there is a gradual loss of retentive power and attendant internally concentrated energy).
(ii) The absence of contradictory testimony-intellectual or otherwise for the canonical contents. This has been called the consistency of the descriptions.
However, we say that canons are not physically composed by the Tirthankaras. Their chief disciples listened the divine speeches, memorised and put the contents in technically abbreviated forms. A large amount of omissions and commissions in their contents and meanings due to gradual reduction of destruction-cum-subsidential knowledge-obscuring karma of later scholarly disciples who put them in their own way, is assumed. Shastri37 and Jaina38 have illustrated a large number of inter and intra-canonical contradictions and incompatibilities with current scientific facts. All these points suggest that a nontraditional evaluative method of their studies be evolved. The same contention is applicable to the secondary canons, though their contental details are not available canonically, still quite a