Jaina Ontology

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

Page 92

THE AGE OF ĀGAMAS
79
scripture; but they go on to add that all this text-mass was gradually lost to memory -- the process continuing till 683 years after the death of Mahāvīra. By this date – so proceeds their version of the case -- the texts in question were all completely forgotten and then somehow was composed Şakhandāgama by way of salvaging at least some part of the contents of these texts. It is difficult to believe the story as it stands, for if by the time of the compostion of Satkhandāga ma the old Āgamic-texts were in fact totally forgotten then it was in the very nature of things impossible for it to salvage any part of their contents. What seems to have happened is that in the times of Satkhandāgama the Jaina authors had devised to compose such texts as would render superfluous a study of the old Agamic texts like Bhagavati, Prajñāpanā, Jivābhigama, and this was true of the Svetāmbara as well as Diga mbara authors. Thus a Svetāmbara student could feel that his theoretical needs were fully sutisfied by the texts like Anuyogadvāra, Nandi, Avašyaniryukti, Tattvārthasūtra along with Bbāsya, a Digambara student could feel that the same was done by the texts like Şakhandāgama, Kaşāyaprabhịta, Mūlācāra, Tattvārthasūtra along with Sarvärthasiddhi. The only difference - in its own way remarkable -- was that the Svetāmbara camp thought it proper also to preserve the wordings of the old Agamic texts while its Digambara counterpart refused to shoulder such a responsibility. All this accounts for the so striking a similarity that obtains between the theoretical views of the Svetāmbaras and Digambaras in spite of the fact that the former uphold and the latter repudiate the authority of the now current Agamic texts. In any case, Şarkhandāgama bears a clear imprint of being a product of the third stage of the Age of Agamas. For example, the neat employment of the doctrine of 14 mārganā. sthānas, 14 gunasthānas and 14 jīvasthanas which is so distinguishing a feature of its sections I, II, III and VI was impossible at an earlier date: the same can be said about the neat employment of the doctrine of anuyogadvaras, nikşe pas and nayas that finds place in its section IV and V.
Then we have to look at Satkhandāgama in its capacity as a karma. text. Certainly, the first thing that a reader finds striking about this masterpiece is its so much preoccupation with the details of the karma-doctrine, details of which there was no hint in the old Āgamic texts, But a closer study reveals that the Şakhandagama version of the karma-doctrine is in many ways rather elementary when compared with the one available in the later karma texts-e.g. in Dhavalā which is Virasena's commentary on Satkhandāgama itself and in Pancasangraha which is an independent karma-text by the Svetambara Candrarşi. Thus the later authors conduct their treat. ment of Karma in the form of three exactly parallel divisions entitled bandha, udaya and sattā; but the problem of satta is unknown to Şakhandāgama while its account of udaya (offered under the title vedana - an old