Disclaimer: This translation does not guarantee complete accuracy, please confirm with the original page text.
When a woman can attain the highest spiritual position of a Tirthankara, and can acquire Kevala Jnana, then wise people should contemplate with an impartial perspective on the weaknesses pointed out for the study of Drashtivad, and the weaknesses due to which women were not considered eligible for Drashtivad. In my view, the knowledge of the previous literature was attainable. To acquire that knowledge, only study and reading were not enough, some specific practices were also mandatory for the seeker. For those practices, the seeker had to stay alone in a secluded and peaceful place for some time. The physical body of women is not such that they can stay alone in seclusion and perform long practices. From this perspective, the study of Drashtivad was prohibited for women. This is more rational and logical. In my view, this is also the reason for the non-availability of the Aharaksharir of women. Based on the Anga texts compiled by the Ganadharas, other sthaviras later created texts, which are called Angabahya. Anga and Angabahya, these Agam texts are the fundamental pillars of the reign of Bhagwan Mahavira. They are the key to Jain conduct, the unique treasure of Jain thought, the dignity of people's culture, and the glory of Jain literature. It should be remembered that the process of including Angabahya texts in the Agam has not been the same in both the Svetambar and Digambar traditions. In the Digambar tradition, the number of Angabahya Agams is very small, but in the Svetambars, this tradition continued for a long time, which resulted in a larger number of Angabahya texts. It is very important that the various studies of Praavashyak, Dashavakalik, Uttaradhyayanasutra, and Nishita, etc., are equally accepted in both traditions. The Svetambar scholars believe that the original form of Agam literature has been lost to a great extent, but not completely, it still remains. In the three compilations of Angas and Angabahya Bhagams, there has definitely been some change in its original form. Later events and deliberations have also been included. For example, the description of seven Nihnvas and Navaganas in the Stananga. The subject hinted at in the Prashnavyakaran is not available at present, however, most of the Agams are original, completely original. From the perspective of language and style of writing, it is very ancient. Present-day linguists consider the first Shrutaskandha of Acharanga and the first Shrutaskandha of Sutrakrutanga to be two thousand five hundred years old. They also consider Stananga, Bhagavati, Uttaradhyayanasutra, Dashavakalik, Nishita, and Kalpa to be ancient. There is no doubt that the original of the Pragam is still preserved. From the perspective of the Digambar tradition, the Anga literature has been lost. Therefore, they created new texts and considered them as evidence like the Agams. The Digambar tradition does not consider the Pragam literature of the Svetambars as evidence, and the Svetambar tradition does not consider the texts of the Digambar tradition as valid, but when I contemplate with an impartial perspective, it is clear that there is no significant difference in the original perspective of the Pragam texts of both traditions. The philosophical views, Jiva views, Karma views, Lok views, and Jnana views are the same in both Pragam texts. There is no difference from a philosophical perspective. Even if we contemplate from the perspective of the conduct tradition, there is no significant difference even though there are some differences regarding the use of clothes. The texts of the Digambar tradition emphasize nudity, but in practice, the number of naked monks has been very small, and the number of Digambar Bhattarakas, etc.