Jain Journal 2007 01

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

Page 10

Sagarmal Jain: How appropriate is the Proposition of Neodigambara School?
Here, the verb 'dharayanti' has been used in the plural form, which. indicates that he has referred to all 300 women and not only Kaikeyī. Here, the 86th parva neither mentions Kaikeyi's going to heaven nor does it say anything about her attaining liberation. He also does not mention as to what became of her after her death, while in Bharata's case he mentions his nirvāņa also along with his monastic ordination. Likewise when Sita's monastic ordination was mentioned, her going to heaven was also mentioned. Under such circumstances, why has Ravisena not mentioned anything about Kaikeyi's destiny after her death? If he did not want to mention her liberation, at least, he should have mentioned her going to heaven. Here, what can we make out of Ravisena's silence? If, according to Dr. Nagarajaiah, Ravisena was a Neo-Digambara and did not believe in attainment of liberation by women, he could have, at least, mentioned her going to heaven. Here, it appears that in order to support the Digambara view of nonliberation of women, the successive copyists or editors had removed the mention of her attaining liberation and added, "samyaktvam dharayanti sunirmalam" or they had completely removed a verse mentioning the liberation of Kaikeyī. Such have been the trends of the scholars with sectarian zeal. It is a well--known fact that the term 'sañjada', was removed from the 93rd aphorism of the first part of Satkhaṇḍāgama, because it supported woman-liberation. This question had caused quite an argument even amongst a number of Digambara scholars. This term is still not there in the first published edition of the Dhavala commentary on the Satkhaṇḍāgama and the copper plates thereof. This was subsequently restored in the second edition. Similarly, in the Jnanapiṭha editon of the Sarvārthasiddhi, a number of phrases from the earlier editions were changed. In my view, a similar incident has happened in this case also, and the portion concerning the liberation of Kaikeyi has been removed. Even then there are a number of facts, indicating it to be a work of the Yapaniya tradition, in this very section of this work. For example, the nuns have never been accepted as equal to the monks in the Digambara tradition, whereas at the end of the 86th parva concerning Kaikeyi three concluding verses clearly mention that Kaikeyī had torn the web of lay existence and gained
123