Jaina Ontology

Author(s): K K Dixit
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 45

32
JAINA ONTOLOGY
rather small some rather big in size). But in the body of the text these dialogues are arranged neither subjectwise nor lengthwise (only we can say that those collected towards the end - i. e, in chapters 21st-41st are unusually big- and, of course, couched in a higher technical terminology). Moreover, quite frequently does it happen that the question raised is answerd not directly but by guiding the reader to some particular passage in another Āgamic text (the name of the text and the location of the passage being fully given). The question naturally arises as to what is signified by all this. It can be reasonably surmised that the dialogues couched in a non-technical language are oldest in origin, those couched in a technical language but not unusually big are intermediate in origin, while the upusually big ones are latest in orign. But why should there be no order in the arrangement of the material and why
ould the reader be so often guided to other Āgamic texts? It seems that the art of conducting theoretical discussion at a purely theoretical level was mastered by the Jaina scholars only gradually. The very adoption of the dialogue style for the purpose is a proof for that. But gradually the dialogue aspect of the affair grew less and less important--though in an utterly nominal form it occasionally appears even in a text like Prajñāpanā wbich is otherwise a collection of theoretical discussions conducted at a purely theoretical level. To begin with the dialogues in question must have been more popular than technical, towards the end they became more technical than popular. And since different dialogues are from different hands it is not unlikely that a comparatively early author composed a relatively more technical dialogue while a comparatively late one a relatively more popular one. But as a general rule it must have been the case that popular dialogues predominated in the beginning, technical ones towards the end. This might also explain why the same type of questions repeat themselves again and again in the different part of the text, but may be it is partly due to the fact that the different parts of the text were composed in the different circles of Jaina scholars. First only something like the later circumstance can explain why a question appears repeatedly even in those cases where the reader is simply guided to another Āgamic text for an answer. In any case, for some reason or other it must have been felt that these questions need being raised in the different parts of the text and the reader's next curiosity is whether these questions originally followed by an independent answer, for the Āgamic texts mentioned in this connection are more or less recent-e. g. Prajñāpanā, Jivajivabhigama, Jambüdvīpaprajñapti, Aupa pātika, Rajaprašniya, Anuyogadvāra, Nandi. In view of the fact that in so many cases the original discussions have been retained even if they also appear in a later Āgamic text-and naturally appear there in a relatively more systematic and comprehensive manner-it seems reasonable to suppose that these questions have been inserted where they have been by later scholars and at a time when the concerned Agamic texts had already come into existence. Viewed in this