History of Jaina Monachism

Author(s): S B Deo
Publisher: Deccan College Research Institute

Page 42

HISTORY OF JAINA MONACHISM
37
ties here—which we will have to do later on when we study monastic practices—a few similiarities may be noted here regarding Mülācāra and some of the Svetambara texts.
(a) Some of the verses of Mūlācāra and Daśavaikālika are almost similar in wording. 99
(b) The improper times for study are similar in Mülācāra and the Thāṇānga.100
(c) In the Acāravṛtti on the text Mūlācāra, the commentator Vasunandin says that Vattakera the author of Mülācāra, 'intended to give in his work a brief summary of the Ayāranga for his pupils.'101
(4) It may be noted that many authors are claimed to be their own by both the Digambaras as well as by the Svetambaras, as for instance, Umāswāti (called by Digambaras as Umāswāmin), Siddhasena Divākara and others.
From these similarities, it may not be difficult to find out the earliest monastic practices common to both these sects which may reveal the fundamental similarity of these two branches of one system.
The 'Loss' of the Canon :
In the light of the above similarities and fundamental ethical identity, the Digambara tradition about the loss of the canon appears in a quite different facet. In the words of FARQUAHAR we may say that, "The truth seems to be rather this, that during the time when the differences between the two sects were becoming more sharply defined, the Digambaras took so little interest in the sacred books that the Svetāmbaras were able to manipulate them in their own interest. The canon bears clear traces of this process of redaction. If this be the truth, we can have no difficulty in understanding why the Digambaras 'lost the Canon. The traditional date for the loss, 2nd cent. A.D., just gives the time for the process after the schism."102 And the dates given for the written codification of the Digambara Canon by Puspadanta (A. V. 633-83) also stand in favour of the above view.103
99. Compare Mül. 10, 121-122 to Dév. 4, 7-8, etc.
100. As a matter of fact there are many other similarities which are discussed in Chapter 2, Part III.
101. WINTERNITZ, op. cit., p. 577; The commentator's date is, however, between 10th and 13th centuries: Ibid, note 2.
102. An Outline of the Religious Literature of India, p. 121. 103. WEBER, I. A. Vol. XVII, p. 282; GLASENAPP, op. cit., pp. 92-95.