________________
Nalini Balbir
On the other hand, it had already been underlined by A. Weber that, for the part concerned here, viz. the very last section of the Amga, the manuscripts considerably vary in the amount of data given38. I have not consulted any manus. cript. But the Samav is extensively quoted by later.authors who must have taken it as the standard because it was the only canonical source for F. Ts. Thus vari. ants affecting the Samav have also some bearing on them. The relevant portions as they are handed down in Siddhasena's T on Pravac (p. 81a) and the Lokaprakāśa add to the available editions, viv. Suttāgame (cf. 1.1.1); ed. with the Ț of Abhayadeva who remains completely silent on F. Ts (Bombay, 1918, p. 153b-154a); Ladnun ed.-- Angasuttāni, ed. Muni Nathmal vol. I. p. 651-652 is convenient as it contains variant readings. From F. T. I to 11 all agree except for the name of F. T. 6: the option between Devasguya and Devagutta in the Samav is also reflected in the later lists. In contrast, two traditions are available from F. T 12 to 24, depending on the interpretation of the expression savvabhāvavia Jine. They are bracketed together on the chart:
(7) Udae, (8) Pedhālaputte ya, (9) Potřile, (10) sattakitti ya, (11) Munisuvvae ya araha. (12) savdabhāvaviū Jine, (13) Amame, (24) Anantavijae iya.
(Samav, S I, 381, 27*)
In order to get the total required number of 24 F. Ts it has to be taken here as the proper name of a Jina. However, in the Lokaprakāsa quotation, alone, it has to be understood as a general qualification applied to the Arhats, for a new name, Bhadda, has been introduced as the F. T. 24 :
....(11) Munisuvvate ya arahā, savva-bhāva-vidū Jinel (12) Amame.../ (24) Bhadde ti ya (Samav as quoted Lokap. 567a, 3-5).
To some extent, the problem is solved in a similar way in the Titthogāli by the addition of Tiyya, or Tivvaya, as F. T. 24, but this name is not transmitted in any other text 84. Be that as it may, this fact certainly accounts for disagreements regarding the serial-number i. e. the position occupied by the F. Ts. in the lists: e. g. F. T. Amama is No. 12 or 13: the contradiction is pointed out in the Lokaprakāśa (557a, 10ff.); T. 17 is Samadhi or Citragupta, etc. Individual narrative accounts, which I shall try to analyze (1.1.2), will help to ascertain to what extent these differences are rooted in the literary tradition or which is the prevalent trend.
On the other hand, there is a clear demarcation-line between two groups of the texts at the level of the F. Ts' former lives : on one side we have the Samav, Pravac and Apāpābịhatkalpa, and on the other, the Kahāvali, Trișașți and Lokaprakāśa; hence the order followed in the chart in spite of the chronology : See, for instance, Pottiła against Udayi in No. 335; Kekasi and Reyali as Nos, 9 and 10.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
