Indian Antiquary Vol 21

SR No.: 032513
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Richard Carnac Temple
Publisher: Swati Publications
Publication Year: 1984
Total Pages: 430
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 17 MB

Page 193

JUNE, 1892.]
SACRED LITERATURE OF THE JAINS.
183
(a statement that perhaps did not belong to the text originally) the mahâniś. consists of 8 ajjhayanas, each of which contains a certain number of uddesas, which is stated. But in our MS. there is no trace whatsoever of any uddesas. In the first ajjh. there are between the beginning and the end some §§ numbers (31, 33, and 16, 17 for which 36, 37 are to be substituted), [459] and at the end the number 49. These numbers do not, however, refer to uddesa sections, since these are generally of greater extent, as is proved in the case of our text from the number of udd. ascribed to ajjh. 2-7. We have no statement of the kind in the case of ajjh. 1. These numbers are nine for 2, sixteen for 3, eight for 4, ten for 5, two for 6, three for 7, ten for 8. Of the eight ajjhayanas only the first six are specially distinguished, four having special names, though only those ascribed to the first two ajjh. are in harmony with the contents. The sixth ajjh: closes on f. 70a; the remainder is characterized at the close (96b) as: piiyâ, perhaps biiyà, dvitîya, chûliya, so that two chûliyâ chapters are here indicated, 90 which, if added to the 6 ajjh., gives the desired number 8. In this faulty condition of the MS. it is worth while to note the statements of the three sâmâchârîs in reference to the mahân. Avi. treats of this subject (see pp. 447, 448) in discussing the chhêaggantha, and states that there were 8 ajjh. with 83 uddesas. The first ajjhayanam had then no divisions of this kind and was êgasaram; the second had 9, the third and fourth 16 each, the fifth 12, the sixth 4, the seventh 6, the eighth 20. The difference between this account and the information to be drawn from the MS. is very great indeed. (See above.) Svi. and V., on the other hand (see p. 448), separate the mahânisîham from the other chhêda texts, and treat, at the conclusion, of the jogavihi of the sacred texts after the païnnagavihi. [460] They too agree with Avi. as regards the number of ajjh. and udd. The seventh and eighth ajjh. are expressly called by V. chûlârâva (donni chûlâô, v. 64). Forty-three days are necessary to learn the mahin., têyâlîsâê dinêhim ajjbayanasamatti, but as two days are requisite for suyakkhamdhassa samuddesa and for anunna, the total number is 45. The chhêdas. 1, 3-5 required together only 30 days. See page 448.
A statement in Wilson Sel. W. 1, 341 (ed. Rost) is of particular interest: "Vajrasvâmî91 instituted the Mahânisitha-sect ;" and of equal interest are the remarks of Rajendra Lâla Mitra (p. 227) in reference to three different recensions (vâchanâ) of the Mahânisîtha. The question which is proposed in the introduction of chapter 22 of the Vichârâmṛitasamgraha substantiates the belief that the Mahâniśîtha is tolerably old. This question is: - how is it to be explained that the prayaschitta prescribed in the Mahânisitha is not practised? The answer to this includes chhêdas. 1, 3, 5, and reads:-adhunâ mamdasattvaiḥ kalpavyavaharanisîthamahânisîthâ dinâm êkatarasyâ 'pi gramthasya 'bhiprêyêna prâyaschittâni yathâ chaddodham (? 'vasodhum) na sakyamtê atas tê sarvagachheshu jîtavyavahârêna prâyaschittân(y) anucharamto driśyamtê.
The first mention of the mahânisiham, of which I am aware, is found in the enumeration of the anangapavittha texts in the Nandi etc., where the schol. on N. explains the word as follows: nisithât param, yat gramt hårthâbhyâm mabattaram tam mahâniśitham. [461] We have already mentioned (p. 445) that the gachhâyâra states that it is based upon the mahân. as its source.
The introductory words are the same as in anga 1 etc.: suyam mê âusam, tênam bhagavayâ êvam akkkâyam, and each of the ajjh. closes correspondingly with ti bêmi. Besides this, there is nothing which directly savours of antiquity with the single exception that the dialogue form between the bhagavant (who is addressed with (sê) bhagavaṁ and not with (sê) nam bhamtê) and Indrabhuti (Gôyamâ !) is retained. This form, however, ill suits the introductory formula by which the whole is attributed to the bhagavant himself.
The name of the text occurs shortly after the introduction, and is accompanied by laudatory epithets. This fact, together with the epithet mahâo in the name, makes it probable
The conclusion of the first châlâ is not directly marked off, but is to be placed on 80b, where a section closes
with bêmi.
91 Nominally 584 Vira, see pp. 219, 251, of. Avasy. 8, 41 fg. Ganadharasårdhas. v. 23 fg. In reference to the statement above, ef. pp. 463n and 464.