________________
THE AGE OF AGAMAS
87
case106). Lastly, Bhagavati maintains that a soul remains anāhāraka for one samaya, two samayas or three samayas but Umāsvāti says -- and so does Prajñāpanā -- that it remains so for one samaya or two samayas107; (the Digambaras will here side with Bhagavati as against Umāsvāti and Prajñāpanā). Then there is a case that deserves somewhat detailed consideration. We have earlier taken note of a standard formula which Bhagavati and Prajñāpanā use in describing the process of the reception of pudgala-particles on the part of a soul. This formula is to be applied to all cases of pudgala-reception but it says that the particles concerned are subtle as well as gross. Now in many cases (eg. in the case of karma-reception, it is in the very nature of things impossible for the particles concerned to be gross, and so in these cases the formula creates difficulty for the later commentators. But Umāsvāti when he discusses the question in the course of his exposition of the Karma doctrine explicitly says that the particles concerned are subtle not gross108. Similarly, this formula says that the particles concer. ned are anantarāvagāha and the natural meaning of the word is “immedi. ately adjacent to the soul)'. But the later standard position requires the meaning ‘co-existent (with the soul)' and so the later commentators give this very meaning to that word Now Umāsvāti replaces the word anantarāvagāha by ekakşetrāvagaha109. [In Bhagavati itself it is once argued that the particles concerned are not anantarāvagäha but ätmakşetrāvagaha110 and Umäsväti can claim to have followed this passage of Bhagavati. But the point is that the standing formula contains the word anantarāvagaha which Umāsvāti rejects in favour of ekakşetrāvagaha). All this suggests that there were at least three wordings of the Agamic texts, viz
(1) one that is preserved in the current Āgamic texts (2) one that was available to the early Digambara authors (3) one that was available to Umāsvati.
Of course, the possibility is always there that the current Āgamic texts have experienced corruption - through inadvertance or otherwise. For example, it is quite possible that the insertion of manaḥ paryāpti in the Āgamic list of paryaptis is a later corruption; similariy, the passage which lays down that the physical particles received by a soul must be atmakşeträvagaha not ananlaravagäha must be a later interpolation. And the discrepancy between Bhagavati and Prajñāpanā on the question of anāhāra needs an explanation. Be that as it may, the fact that Umāsvāti's text could be patronized by the Svetämbaras as well as Digambaras clearly proves that the Āgamic heritage available to the two sub-sects was substantially the same. That the Digambaras too were in possession of such a heritage - moreover, a heritage almost as rich as that possessed by the Svetambaras - goes without saying; what happened is that they - unlike their Svetāmbara colleagues -- bid good-bye to the wording of this heritage after it stood incorporated in the systematic texts of later times,
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
