Biology in Jaina Treatise on Reals

Author(s): N L Jain
Publisher: Parshwanath Vidyapith

Page 16

Biology in Jaina Treatise on Reals
(iii) There is mention of twelve classes of heavenly celestials in 4.3 in place of the traditional 16 in 4.19. (iv) The separate mention of time as a reality in 5.39 (and 5.22) indicating its disputed character despite the postulate of six realities. (of course, this indicates the boldness of the author to move on to definiteness). (v) The definition of 'spotted saints' (Vakuša) in 9.46 (TRV, P.636). connotes 'few clothism' also as one of the forms of 'sky-cladism' or 'knotlessism'. (vi) The definition of 'possession' (Parigraha) in terms of attachmental volition rather than physical possessions in 7.17 indicates virtual nonacceptance of non-possession as the essential restraint-promoting means. (vii) The mention of five causes of karmic influx and bondage as against two to six mentioned in many Digambara texts. (viii) The scholars point out many more cases with reference to the statements in the autocommentary.
Some other scholars have indicated the following concepts not tallying with the S-contentions : (i) The same point as in (i) above. (ii) The concept of seven-fold spirituality-based reals in 1.4 in place of nine or eleven indicated in many canons.
difference in the number of disquisition doors (8 in place of 9. 1.8). Laukantika celestials (8 in place of 9, 4.24) and causes of influx of physiquemaking karma of ford-builder-ness (16 in place of 20, 6.24). (vi) The life-span of Laukantika celestials is not in tune with Bhagavati (6.5). (vii) Discrepant descriptions about minor vows of householders in chapter VII and the number of ascetic model stages (Pratimas). (viii) Mention of five completions in 8.12 in place of six by tradition. (ix). The inclusion of nakedness' (Nagnya) in afflictions in 9.9 and 9.15. (x). There is also difference between the statements about the maximum acquirement of vocable knowledge by the first two types of knotless ascetics in the canons and the autocommentary (9.48). (xi). The description in autocommentaries of 2.17, 3.3, 3.9. 3.15, 4.26, 4.42 and 9.6 have also been shown to be canonically contradictory even by Siddhasena like 6.24, 9.17 and others.
In addition, many authors have referred to many more perceptual differences, shortening, lengthening or elimination of many aphorisms and their different meanings in S and D-version texts. This is a decisive factor for the better assessment of the authorship issue.
Thus, this aphorismic text seems to contain many concepts contradictory to the tenets of both the versions. On versional analysis, the comparatively lesser number of contradictions with D-version (8 against