History of Jaina Monachism

SR No.: 001727
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: S B Deo
Publisher: Deccan College Research Institute
Publication Year: 1956
Total Pages: 616
Language: English
Classification: Book_English, Principle, & History
File Size: 12 MB

Page 31

26
S. B. DEO accept the authorship of Bhadrabāhu for these texts, and ascribe them his date, till other decisive evidence is forthcoming.
One point regarding the Dasă (Daśāśrutaskandha) also called as the Āyāradasão, may be noted. That is regarding the eighth section in it which goes under the name of Kalpasūtra of Bhadrabāhu. In this connection WINTERNITZ opines that only the portion called 'sāmācārī' dealing with rules of rain-retreat may be ascribed to Bhadrabāhu, and the other portions like the biographies of Tirthankaras and the list of ganas, śākhās, kulas and their heads, some of whom are persons posterior to Bhadrabāhu, may be later additions.63
Regarding the Nisihasutta we fail to get any clue regarding its author or date. It may, however, be noted that the forms of punishment dealt with in it, viz. parihāra and the ārovaņā are common with the Vavahāra in many a detail. More than that, WINTERNITZ remarks, on the basis of many similarities between Nisīha and the Cūlās of Acāranga, that 'probably both these works originated in one and the same earlier source'.64 He, however, takes this work as a later one.65
The fifth Cheyasutta called as Pañcakappa, being not extant now, one cannot say what material it contained. Instead of this text, sometimes the Jiyakappa of Jinabhadra who was perhaps earlier than the sixth century A.D.,66 is added to the list of the Chedasūtras. From the possible date ascribed to him, we may not attribute the same antiquity to this text as in the case of the Dasā, Kappa and the Vavahāra.
The sixth text termed as Mahānisīha 'which perhaps took the place of an earlier canonical Mahā-Nisīha that went astray', 67 has also been taken by WINTERNITZ to be a 'still later work than these two Nijjuttis (i.e. Pinda and Ogha)'. He goes to the extent of arguing whether 'in reality (it) can.... be attributed to the Canon with correctness'.
The reasons put forward by him in support of the above statement are the nature of the language as well as the material in it. References to Tantric matters and non-canonical literature suggest a later date to this text.68
63. WINTERNITZ, op. cit., pp. 462-64. 64. Ibid., p. 464-65. 65. Ibid. 66. Dr. UPADHYE expresses this view in a private letter to me. 67. WINTERNITZ, op. cit., p. 465. 68 Ibid., p. 465.