History of Canonical Literature of Jainas

Author(s): Hiralal R Kapadia, Nagin J Shah
Publisher: Prakrit Text Society Ahmedabad

Page 88

71
appears that it was believed that if they were not to be so1 noted, it would not be so well preserved for the later generations.2 But it seems that though this purpose may have been served to some extent, it has added to our difficulties so far so the fixing of dates of certain persons, events and the like is concerned.
REDACTION OF THE JAINA CANON
(viii) Devarddhi Gani Kṣamāśramana in a way virtually became the author of the works codified under his supervision.3
(ix) This codification acted as a preventive from further modernization of the sacred works.
Before concluding this chapter I think it necessary to point out the pitfall to which some are likely to succumb, in case they confound this codification of the Jaina sastras with that of their composition by identifying these two different events. It will be a sheer folly, therefore, to believe that the dates of the compostions of the various sastras codified at Valabhi are none else but the date of their codification. This, folly, if committed, will not only amount to accepting at best terminus ad quem as the date of the sastras but taking it to be the same as terminus a quo. In short, the dates of the compostion of the various sastras codified are much earlier than the date of their codification though it is true that the dates of the new portions that may have been then incorporated in the śāstras are the same as that of the codification.
1. Had they noted the additions separately, they would have been obliged to mention their locations in the corresponding works, not by pointing out the pages and lines but by reproducing the necessary portion to which they were to be appended. Even such an attempt would not have been so very serviceable as embodying the required portion in the very work itself. For, the reader would have been then often obliged to refer to this appendix, which, if not by his hand, was likely to be neglected by him.
2. No Jaina author of the olden days was prepared to say that he was contributing something original; for, he believed that the omniscient did know whatever he said. Consequently he was satisfied if his work became helpful to the pupils concerned-no matter even if it was looked upon as a compendiun. This view, too, may have induced the council to take the step it did.
3. See p. 66, fn. 4.
4.
Dr. A. N. Upadhye in his introduction (p. 17) to Bṛhatkathākoša of Harisena writes: "Turning to Jaina literature, the Ardhamāgadhi canon, though recast into its present shape much later, contains undoubtedly old portions which can be assigned quite near to the period of Mahavira, the last Tirthankara of the Jainas."