Sruta Sarita

SR No.: 001940
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Jitendra B Shah
Publisher: Shardaben Chimanbhai Educational Research Centre
Publication Year: 2001
Total Pages: 310
Language: English, Prakrit, Hindi
Classification: Book_Devnagari & Articles
File Size: 18 MB

Page 62

PRAJÑĀPANĀ AND ȘAȚKHAŅDĀGAMA
occasionally we come across the questions and answers.
Prajñāpanāsūtra which is of the nature of compilation is a work of one Ācārya. But the case with Satkhandāgama is different. Prajñāpanā contains no Cūlikā. But in Satkhandāgama Cūlikās have been added. We know not as to who made this additions and when. But the term Cūlikā itself suggests that it is a later addition. The similar thing has happened even in case of Āgamas like Daśavaikālika.
Prajñāpanāsūtra is written in the style of original Sūtra while Satkhandāgama employs commentarial or expository style in addition to it. In the Satkhandāgama many a time the discussion is conducted through 'entrances' to exposition; this suggests commentarial style. That is to say, after having suggested the entrances to exposition by the words 'aniogaddārāņi' the exposition is conducted through all those 'entrances one by one'. Moreover, the terms like Krti, vedanā, karma are explained through the method of Niksepas, viz. nama, sthāpanā, dravya and bhāva. In doing so it has clearly followed the style of exposition found in the Niryukti of Jaina Āgamas4. The employment of terms like 'anugama's, 'samtaparūvanā”, 'niddesa", "vihāsā” (= vibhāṣā) also points to its commentarial style. Everywhere in Satkhandāgama a discussion on those particular marganādvāras (topics of investigation) begins through the words 'gadiyanuvādena', 'imdiyanuvādena', 'kāyānuvādena' etc. This system is rarely found in the Prajñāpanāsūtra. Only two words 'disānuvādena' and khettänuvādena 10' occur in it. But the word 'gatyanuvādena' has not been employed in the discussion on gati, etc.
Over and above the similarity of treatment we find, at various places, similarity of expression in both the works. This suggests that they had a common tradition as their basis. By similarity of treatment is meant the agreement on different points and it is easily noticed at many places in both the works. Hence it is not necessary for us to note all such places where the similarity of treatment is found. But we should note the places where the similarity of expression occurs.
Generally we can say that both the works are composed in prose but they contain găthās also. Out of these gāthās some, it seems, should be traditional sangrahaņī gāthās. Gāthās 99-101 of Prajñāpanā occur in Satkhandāgama. The gāthās as found in șațkhandāgama are as follows :Book XIV
Sū. 121 "tattha imam sahāranalakkhanam bhanidam —