Agam 45 Chulika 02 Anuyogdwar Sutra

SR No.: 006568
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Nathmal Tatia
Publisher: Research Institute of Prakrit Jainology & Ahimsa Mujjaffarpur
Publication Year: 1970
Total Pages: 312
Language: English
Classification: Book_English, Agam, Canon, & agam_anuyogdwar
File Size: 18 MB

Page 18

( xvii)
that only a part of the Agama (the Ayaramga, etc.) is bhavaśruta which is absurd. The bhavaśruta is one composite whole and cannot be conceived as only a part of jñana, darśana and caritra-the trio which makes up the śruta. Moreover, if the particle 'no' is taken to mean 'partial affirmation' which is entailed by 'partial negation', then even a person who has been designated as agamao bhavasuyam should also be regarded as no-agamao bhavasuyam, because it is not possible for anybody to be attentively conscious of the entire Agama. It is admitted that usually the particle 'no' is used in the following five senses: (1) a part, e. g. no-ghata means a part of ghata; (2) other than that, e. g. no-ghata sometimes means pata, etc.; (3) substance, e. g. no-ghata sometimes refers to an independent object which was a part of a ghata previously; (4) negation of an act, e. g. 'no pacati' means 'he is not cooking'; and (5) negation of a state, e. g. 'no-sayyate' means 'not in the state of slumber'. But a word should be explained, asserts Jinabhadra, with reference to the context; the particles are indeed capable of expressing an infinite variety of meanings, and therefore, the sense of 'mixture' should be considered consistent (with the usage). 2
Acarya Jinabhadra however is prepared to accept the particle 'no' to denote 'a part' if the term suya is restricted to mean a part of the undivided spiritual trio of jñāna, darśana and kriya, because in that case the terms no-agama and bhavasuya will have even
connotation.
Some Acaryas explained no-agamao bhāvasuyam as śrutopayoga (attentive scriptural consciousness) accompanied with sabda (words uttered). But as sabda is davvāgama and śrutopayoga is bhāvāgama, the mixture of the two is all the more agama, and not no-agama as it is intended to be by these Acaryas. The additional factor, viz. sabda cannot account for the designation of no-agama, because sabda, being agamao davvasuyam, cannot be no-agama (that is, anagama). There were some other thinkers who interpreted no-agamao bhavasuyam as 'the śruta which is not sheltered by any person'. But this is considered untenable, because if the śruta, even when it is sheltered in a
1. Ibid, 887.
2. Ibid., 889: saccamayam desaisu tahavatthavasena saddaviniogo /
amiyattha ya nivāyā jujjai to misabhave vi /
3.
4.
VBh (A), 885 (Auto-Commentary): avises ita-jñāna-darśana-kriyopayogaikadesatvac chrutasya no-agamata iti no-sabdo desavacano 'pi syat.
V Bh (A), 886-887,