________________
An investigation of the earlier subject matter of ...
i 205
mark the early description of Sthānănga. There are only two options to resolve the controversy of ten and forty-five. Firstly, it is possible that the ancient edition of Praśnavyākarana was containing ten chapters and the chapter of Rşibhāșita was divided in forty-five uddeśakas or the original Praśnavyākaraṇa had forty-five chapters of present Rşibhāșita because along with Rşibhāṣita, Mahāvīrabhāșita and Ācāryabhāșita were already incorporated in it. It is also possible that some chapters out of the forty-five chapters of Rşibhāṣita might have been classified in the form of uddeśakas within Rşibhāșita, some in Ācāryabhāșita and some in Mahāvīrabhāșita. It is significant that Samavāyānga clearly mentions forty-five uddeśakas instead of forty-five adhyayanas but it is likely that after its separation from Praśnavyākaraṇa, it might have been placed in the form of forty-five chapters within a single text. There remains one more important question that Samavāyānga refers forty-four chapters of Rşibhāșita whereas present Rşibhāșita has forty-five chapters"". Was the adhyayana named Vardhamāna not included there in earlier? Because no chapter of this name was included there in. One cannot definitely say whether it was not counted in Mahāvīrabhāṣita or there were some other cogent reason behind it. It is significant that the chapter entitled "Utkatavädi" bears no information about any Řși, besides it propounds doctrines of Cārvāka. May be due to this reason it was not accepted in Rşibhāṣita. There exists an important point of distinction between the original readings of Samavāyānga and Nandisūtra. Nandīsūtra' clearly refers to forty-five adhyayanas in Praśnavyākarana whereas Samavāyānga refers forty-five uddeśanakālas. It is possible that the term uddeśaka was in vogue up to the time of Samavāyānga and later on they were given new names of adhyayanas. Had it been popular to write adhyayanas by the period of Samavāyānga, definitely it would have been mentioned by Samavāyānga because there appears a clear reference to adhyayanas in context of the discussion regarding other Anga Āgamas.
It is a vital question whether was there really any Praśnavyākarana composed with the subject like occult sciences or just
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
