Canonical Literature Of Jainas

SR No.: 022774
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: H R Kapadia
Publisher: Hindi Granth Karyalay
Publication Year: 1941
Total Pages: 286
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 26 MB

Page 54

II ]
CLASSIFICATIONS OF THE ĀGAMAS
have been composed during the life-time of a Ganadhara;' for, a work dealing with exceptions to the general rules for asceticism can have its origin almost side by side with the work embodying the general code. Even then if we were to assume for the time being that such a work owes its existence to a degenerated state of affairs that may have prevailed in the Jaina clergy after the nirvāṇa of Lord Mahāvīra, it is in no way later than the date for the Āvassayanijjutti.
As recorded in the Mahānisīha available at present, it is so to say a patch-work; for, several Sūris had a hand in giving it a final shape, since the Ms. of this work was awfully worm-eaten.?
It seems rather strange that even in Viyārasāra where a list of 45 Suttas (together with Pañcakappa, Jiyakappa, Pindanijjutti, Ohanijutti, Nijjuttis, Bhāsas and Cunnis) is given, there is no mention whatsoever of Mahānisīhu. Furthermore, here there is not i single work spoken of as a Cheyasutta, though the following works well-known as Chcyasuttas are noted as under:--
"कप्प २५ निसीह २६ दसासुय २७ ववहारो" Can we hereby infer that the order and the number of the Cheyasuttas were not fixed for a pretty long time ?
We may end this topic by noting one more point. Is Mahākappasuya which is mentioned in the Avassayanisjutti (v. 777), a Cheyusutta? If so, why is it not mentioned along with other Cheyasuttuos such as Kuppa3 etc ? Besides, does not this very verse lead us to believe that at least two to three Cheyasuttets existed prior to the composition of Avassayanijjutti ?
Mülasutta-I have not come across any Prāk’ta or Samskrta work of sufficient antiquity" where the word Mīlasutta or Mülasuya 1 Can we infer from fn. 1 of p. 37 that Nisiha is the oldest ? 2 See D. C. J. M. (vol. XVII, pt. II, pp. 32-33). 3 This cannot be identified with Mahākappasuya; for, the latter is ukkaliya,
whereas the former kāliya. Vide p. 24, fn. 3. The late Prof. Weber in his Indische Studien (XVII, 41 ) has said that the term Mülasutra does not occur anywhere in the canon; but it is however found in Avassayanijjutti (XI, 61). But this is his slip; for, there the expression mülasuttagăhă is used in contrast with the gathās of the Nijjutti,