________________
IV)
THE EXTINCT AGAMAS OF THE JAINAS
case by that of the Anuoga in its entirety, and this cessation must have finally led to its loss. The loss of the remaining Puvvas gives rise to a parallel case for the loss of the corresponding Anuoga.
Turning to the Culiyās, we find that though they are said to belong to the Puvuagaya and to be exact to the 1st four Puvvas only, their nature as expounded in Nandīcunni (p. 61) makes us believe that they had something to do with other sections, too'. Further, their study seems to have been preceded by that of the 1st four sections in case we endorse the opinion? expressed in the Nandīcunni that they are given the last place not only regarding the arrangement of the 5 sections but their study, too. This means that the Cūliyās got forgotten or became extinct by the time Sthūlabhadra died.
With these words about the order of the loss of the different sections of Ditthivāya, I shall now resume the question about the nature etc. of the remaining extinct works, and shall accordingly commence with the works of the käliya suya.
Khuddiyā-Vimānapavibhatti-This is an ajjhayana dealing with the vimānas which may or may not have entered avalikā. It is the 1st ajjhayana of Sankhevitadasā (vide p. 55, fn. 2). From Samavāya (s. 37, 38 and 40) we learn that this ajjhayana had' at least 3 raggas, the 1st having 37 uddesanakālas, the 2nd 38 and the 3rd 40 respectively. This wjhayana used to be prescribed as one of the text-books to a Sādhu whose dīksāparyāya was of 11 years.
Mahalliyā-Vimanapavibhatti-This work has the same subjectmatter as the above one, the only difference being that it treats it at a greater length. This is the 2nd ajjhayana of Sankhevitadasă ( vide p. 55, fn. 2). From Samavāya (s. 41-45 ) it can be seen that this work had at least 5 caggas, the uddesanakālas of which were 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45 respectively. This ajjhayann was also one of the text-books for a Sadhu of 11 years' standing.
1-2 "' ' f fagi fafara qfH-37-409-491971i7 fora,...75974 format 99
Faqafi ofan afectifa 9." The earlier portion of this seems to be erroneous; for, Malayagiri Sūri in his com. (p. 246 ) quotes it as under:
"दिद्विवाए जं परिकम्म-सुत्त-पुवा-ऽणुयोगे न भणियं तं चलासु भणियं."
