________________
92
Amrita
called Vaikālika. Haribhadra only accepts the usually accepted explanation that it was written in the evening and tries to explain the text of the Nijjutti accordingly. After him both the forms of the title and its interpretation were settled once for all and all later writers follow him closely?.
Now all these explanations except the first obscure one of the Nijjutti are based upon the traditional story about the composition of the work. But even taking the story as it is, it is difficult to see how such a small detail, that the work was written in the evening, should give the title to it. This is much more striking in face of the fact that there was nothing abnormal about the time itself. It is true that the Uttarāddhyayana prescribes the first and the last watch of the day and night for study (XXVI. 12, 18) and the Cūrņi remarks that the work was composed in the third Porisi, a little earlier. But Sejjambhava could have well waited a little more, and it would have made little difference, as Managa was to live six months more. The suggestion of the Cūrni is more to the point. The story tells us that Managa was to live only six months and it was not possible for him to complete the study of the scriptures in the usual method which extended over a very long period. We know that the Pūrvas can be studied by a monk in the 19th year of his Paryāya and it was impossible for Managa to study them. This naturally led Sejjambhava to have selections from these works for the benefit of his shortlived son and he taught them to him irrespective of the time which are prescribed for the study of these works. As such the work would well receive the name Vaikālika. In this very sense we can understand the words of the Nijjutti veyāliyāe thaviya' (15). In fact, all these extractions from the Pūrva books were intended to bring the important contents of the works within the province of study of monks who cannot wait for the regular period of time prescribed for their study. In this connection one remark in the Prakrit story as preserved in the Cūrņi is instructive. For pointing out the motive of Sejjambhava to cull out these texts from the Pūrvas he remarks:
तं चोद्दसपुव्वी कहिं पि कारणे समुप्पन्ने निज्जूहइ । दसपुव्वी पुण अपच्छिमो अवस्समेव fooles 11
So, this rule has same value when we consider that the earlier monks were not allowed to violate the rules of study unless some specific cause was available. But when the knowledge of the Pūrvas began to grow scarce it was allowed for the few who knew them to make extractions from them with the intention of preserving whatever little they can. It can be easily seen that these statements confirm the view of Charpentiero that the Pūrvas were lost