Jain Journal 1992 07

Author(s): Jain Bhawan Publication
Publisher: Jain Bhawan Publication

Page 29

24
The question now arises how are these differences to find a fitting solution? It is self-evident, that, so far as the extraordinary character [291] both of our information in regard to the number of padas, and of the akkhaias in anga 6 is concerned, they are a fabrication of the author; nor is it improbable that a similar explanation may hold good in the case of the special differences of detail. The carefulness of statement which we notice here, renders it, on the other hand, possible that the author has based his statements on those of his authorities, and that we have to deal with genuine discrepancies between two different texts. Abhayadeva declares here that he is unable to explain the contradiction202 in the case of angas 8 and 9 and in the case of anga 10 all that he does is to admit the existence of the conflict.203 But In his commentary on anga 10 he adduces (1) a further case of divergence --an introduction at variance with the general character of the introductions in that it allots to the anga two suyakkhamdhas, and (2) refers especially to the conflict between the purvācāryāḥ and the aidamyugīnāḥ. See below. Of primal importance for angas 8 to 10 (11) is the fact that the statements in anga 3,10 too render it [292] probable that these angas had then a text different from our own. The irreconcilability of title and contents show that in the case of anga 10 something must have occurred to cause the present condition of affairs.
JAIN JOURNAL
As we have seen that there are important differences between the statements made here or in N. and the actual state of things in the eleven angas, so far as extent and division are concerned, we now discover that the same holds good as regards the statements now under examination, concerning the contents. These statements, which in N are much more brief than those in anga 4, are, it must be said, of so general a character and so colourless that their real contents can only be discovered with difficulty. They appear in a form that is purely stereotyped (see the common introduction in angas 2-5,204 and in 6-9 and 11,205) whereas there is no such similarity of contents between
202 On 8: dasa ajjhayana tti prathamavargapekṣayai' va ghatate, Namdya tathai 'va vyakhyātatvāt (see below); yathe (yac ce) 'ha pathyate satta vagga ti tat prathamavargad anyavargāpekaṣaya yato' tra sarve 'py asta varga Namdvam api tatha pathitaḥ...sarvani (adhyayanani) cai'kavargagatani yugapad uddisyamte, ato (tra) bhanitam; attha udd'la ity adi, iha ca daso 'ddesanakala adhiyamta iti na syā 'bhiprayam adhigacchamah;-and on 9: iha 'dhyayanasamuho vargo dasa 'dhyayanani, vargas ca yugapad evo 'padisyate, ity atas traya evo 'ddes anakala bhavamty evam eva ca Namday adhiyate, iha tu disyate: dase 'ty, atra 'bhiprayo na jñāyate.
203 Yady api 'ha adhyayanānām daśat vad dasai 'vo 'ddeśanakala bhavamti, tatha'pi vacanāntarāpekṣaya (cf. N) pamcacatvärinsad iti sambhavyamte iti panayalisam ity adi aviruddham (!).
204 Samaya, loya, jiva.
205 Nayaraim etc. N limits herein its treatment of the subject entirely to this common introduction and gives nothing else in addition.