________________
aphorisms here and there to suit Dig. tradition. Equally contentious is assumption of Phoolchandji that it is Umāsvāti, author of TB only (and not of TS), made changes in original aphorisms of TS as given in SS in tune with Svet. tradition.
Can we view the entire matter in a new light, which may appear more consistent and convincing, based on historicity and without any sectarian undertones? This author wants to present a conjecture for consideration of the scholars of both the sects for their perusal, approval or refutation.
(1) All the early writings of Jainas - Śve. Agamas composed during a period starting immediately after Mahāvīra (527 B.C.) till its final editing in 5th C., Dig, works treated by them as Agama i.e. Satkhandagama and Kaşayapähuda (2nd/3rd C.), works of Jinabhadra, Yativṛṣabha (5/6th C.), etc. were written in Ardhamāgadhi language for Śve.s in Mahārāṣṭri Prākṛta and for Dig.s in Śauraseni Prākṛta. First Samskṛta work, besides TS, among Dig.s is SS of Pujyapada (5/6th C.) and among Śve.s is Dvātrimśatikā of Siddhasena Divakara (5/6 C.). Samskrta language regained its status during regime of Gupta dynasty and Jaina and Buddha scholars started composing works in Samskṛta language. This trend must have started from 5/6th C. which may be taken as the earliest date of writing of TS.
(2) Śve. Agamas were last edited in Valabhi Council of 450 A.D. ADS (Anuyogadvārasūtra) and other Āgamic works contain references to works of Jaina and non-Jaina scholars up to 5th C. A.D. Jinabhadra often quotes from various other Jaina sources. In all these there is no mention of either TS or Umāsvāti or Gṛddhapiccha. This indicates that TS must have been composed in 6th C. or later.
(3) Dig.s claim that all the 12 Angas are irretrievably lost except for a very small portion of 12th Anga Dṛṣṭivada which is available in the form of Ṣatkhaṇḍāgama and Kasāyapāhuḍa. Śve.s, on the other hand, claim that they were able to preserve 11 Angas through the convening of 3 Councils in 300 B.C., 300 A.D. and 450 A.D., when in the last the same were put in writing. Probably because of a very small portion of the same was not in consonance with their tradition, Dig.s totally rejected the Śve. Agamas. This process must have been crystallized before 10/11th C. as we find Pūjyapāda, Aklańka and Vīrasena quoting from certain Śve. agamas and a number of verses in Mūlācāra, works of Kundakunda etc. bearing very close similarity with those in Śve. Āgamas. Thus, if TS would have been a work of Śve. Acarya, Dig.s would have rejected it. On the other hand, if it would have been authored by a Dig. saint it would not have found acceptance with Śve.s. Hence TS must be a work from a saint- scholar who was acceptable to both sects, probably from an Acarya of Yapaniya sangh (as Premiji thinks) or from an Acarya hailing from a period when the relations between the sects were not fanatically strained.
अर्हत् वचन, 23 (3), 2011
63
