________________
MAY, 1891.)
SACRED LITERATURE OF THE JAINS.
171
How can this use of the attribute sámáiya-m-áiyáim of the 14 puvvas be explained ? This use is found in no other places with the exception of angas 6 and 8, and here only in the parallel ase of the epithet in reference to the 11 angas, and in po instance where there is an isolated mention of the 14 puvvas. Hence it is too bold an assumption if we assert that a sámáiya. puvvam, instead of the uppdyapuvvam, once actually stood at the head of the 14 puvvas. On the other hand, it is probable that in anga 6 this epithet has been transferred from the angas to the puvvas, and that the generio signification of the word sám dia, and the greater antiquity which the statements in anga 6 probably possess in contrast to those in angas 4, formed the means of transition. This assumption is however a mere make-shift, since there is no further criterion for such a special inter-relation of both groups of texts.
The upangas, too, attest in several particulars the existence of anga 12. In up. 8 - 12, probably the oldest of the upanga texts, it is true, only 11 angas are mentioned. But in up. 1, 26 (Lenmann, p. 36) we discover a reference to the choddasapuvvi together with the duválasangino; and in the introduction to up. 4, [344) in v. 5, the dithivâa, and in v. 3, the puvvasuyam, are mentioned by name as the source of information of the author. It is furthermore worthy of note that up. 5 and 7 agree with the puvvas in the division into páhudas. According to up. 6 . they both appear to have been divided into vatthus at the time of this updiga. The tradition is desirous of establishing a close connection between the upanga and the ange in the present order of succession of each. Hence we may conclude that, at the period in which the existing corpus of the twelve upaigas was established, - that is, at the date of the redaction of the present Siddhanta, - there were in reality 12 angas, and that the digthivda consequently still existed or was considered as extant.
The ditthivåa or, as the case may be, the dayâlasangam ganipidagam is frequently mentioned in the other parts of the Siddhanta, which are united to the upd nga. These portions of the Siddhanta are in reality the storehouse of information about the ditthivka or duvâlasargam gaạipidagam. See the citations on p. 246 frota Avagy. and Anwyðgadv. With these may be associated the corresponding statements in chhedas. 2 and Nandt, in which we find several direct citations (see below) from the pavvas; and in fact the chhedas 3-5 are repeatedly called an excerpt from puvva 9, 3, 30, which is referred back even to Bhadrabahu !
On p. 223, 224 we have seen from several old versus memoriales, the source of which is unfortunately no longer extant, that the ditthivaa at the period of the existence of these verses was highly esteemed, inasmuch as it was designed for the highest gradation of intelligence, and was held to be the object of the study of the nineteenth year. Here we must not suppress the thought that the reason for this relegation of the ditth. to a late period of study, was because it may have been considered (345) dangerons for an earlier and less mature stage of advancement. Finally, appearing as too dangerous, it may have been dropped altogether.
It is exceedingly peculiar that the puvvas, which are a principal part of the ditthivda and represent a preliminary stage of the unga both according to tradition and, in all probability, to their Dame itself, are said to have proceeded from the mouth of the tirthakara and to have been collected by his ganadharas before the angas. The puvvas are mentioned in angas 6 and 8 as texts independent of, or even previous to, the 11 angas, but in angas 4, &c., are represented as forming but one of the five sections of the last anga. It was to be expected that they should be partly independent texts, and partly should stand at the beginning of the entire Siddhanta.
The key furnished by tradition points to the fact (of p. 214) that the knowledge of the diţthivda (or of that of the puova here identified with the ditthivaa) was limited to Bhadrababu alone even at the time of the Council of Pâtalipatra, which instituted the first collection of the
$ The causes oitad above'p. 244, 245, where was mention made of sAmfism-li jkva biziduained, do not belong in this gamngatioid, since the flrnt afigam and not the frat prvum was there referred to
The same probably holds good of the other tests above mentioned, which immediately preceded the dittkivka, and which are no longer extant.
