________________
Tirthamkaras of the Future
(iii) Nemicandra, Pravacanasäroddhāra, "ga. 458-470. (iv) Hemacandra, Trișașțifalākāpuruşacarita, X, 13, 187-200.25 (v) Bhadreśvara, Kahāvali, "ms S2”, uttarārdha, fol. 238a (ca. 12th cent.),
in Prakrit. 36 The text is sometimes very corrupt, but collation with other Svet. texts may help to improve the readings. However, I have tried to keep the names as they are read.
(vi) Jinaprabhasūri, Apāpābịhatk alpa, in Prakrit prose, p. 47, 7-21 in Vivi
dhatirthakalpa, also called Divalikalpa (14th cent. A.D.)27. The account of utsarpiņi-mythology is narrated by Mahāvira as an answer to Goya
ma's question. (vii) All the existing tradition is stored up, as it were, in Vinayavijaya's Loka
prakāía (sam. 1708 - 1651 A.D.): sarga XXXIV, p. 552b, 18-557 b, 17 (v. 292-406128 Hence the value of this composite work which supplies quotations of isolated statements relevant to individual F. Ts.29 as well as entire passages occurring in the Apāpābịhatkalpa (on p. 556b), and the Samav (p. 557a). The Pravac is referred to as having identical contents : Pradacanasārodhāre 'py evam dršpate (but op. below). Where appropriate, f. Ts' names and those of their corresponding former births are accompanied with versions of the stories already known from Thăn Ț etc. (cf. 4).
But no new narrative not already known from earlier sources is adduced. (viii) Stotra literature also hands down this type of double list based on one
or the other of the above mentioned works : e. g. Bhāvi-caturvimšati-Jinastapana in Sanskrit by Dharmaghosa-sūri?0; avati coviši nū caityavandana 81 in Gujarati, etc. These hymns are naturally less numerous than those to the avasarpiņi-Ts. considered together or individually.
1.1.3. collation of the Svetāmbara data; notes about the chart (4)..
The textual documentation regarding utsarpiņi-Ts. is undoubtedly cha racterized by variations and discrepancies, in spite of a general unity. The Jaina writers are fully aware of such disagreements. Actually the absence of a well established tradition, and the contradictions between treatises are
adduced as justification for the future Jinas not being dealt with in detail : ete (i. e. Jināh) ca tathāvidha-sampradāyabhāvāt sāstrantaraih saha visamvāditvā ca na višesato vivstāḥ (Pravac Ţ, p. 112a) 32.
They are not only noticed between different works, but in the case of samayeven within the same work. The Pravac Ţ again takes note of it : evam agre 'pi näma-vişaye yatra kva cit samavāyāngadibhir visamvādo drsyate tatra matantaram avaseyam (p. 8la).
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
