________________
144
M. A. Dhaky
Jambū-jyoti
Annotations : 1. The 14 Pürva texts were believed to be the older and fundamental ägamus. To
all seeming, they were of the sect of Arhat Pārśva and some of them plausibly had covered the early phase of Nirgrantha scholasticism. These texts' cosmography and probably much of the basic Nirgrantha doctrines (including the theory of eight karmas) and the dogmatics, besides disciplinary rules and allied matters, predictably had permeated through-of course by then in a developed form-in some of the available earlier agamas, particularly their later chapters, and the younger agamas, of the saka and Kuşāna periods, as well as the āgamic works, all of the Northern tradition of Arhat Vardhamāna's Church. To a fair degree, this applies also to the much younger surrogate canon of the Southern tradition. As for the Niryuktis, these largely are composed in the Mahārāstrī Prakrit, are cast in the Āryā meter, and adopt the niksepa method of examination in determining the word's meaning intended in the given context. The German Jainologists ascribe these to c. 80 A. D. Muni Punyavijaya, however, regarded them still younger in date, composed as they must have been soon after the Valabhi Synod II (A. D. 503/516), and hence this date could be circa A. D. 525. Afterwards, however, he changed his view and ascribed them to the early centuries of the Common Era. However, I seem to think that his earlier determination is valid. The Mahārāstrī Prakrit does not appear even in the Sātavāhana inscriptions before c. 200 A. D. and the first available work in Mahārāstrī, the Tarangavaikahā of Padalipta sūri I also dates around A. D. 200
225. The Niryuktis do contain some older, but largely relatively later material. 2. Literarily 'omniscient by virtue of the complete knowledge of the sacred scripture.' 3. Since the Yāpanīya sect (mainly located in Karanataka) recognized the āgamas
including the 'Kalpa (Brhad-Kalpasūtra)' and the Vyavahāra,' both of which the Svetāmbara sect attributes to Bhadrabāhu, it is likely that, that sect, too, attributed these to Bhadrabāhu. (This, of course, is my feeling. There is, at the moment, no direct evidence to that effect.) These two different dates are given in some manuscripts of the Paryusanākalpa at the end of the "Jinacaritra” (which is the second of the three sections of the Paryuşanä-kalpa,) In some, the date given is V.N. 980; in a few others, according to another tradition, V.N.993. The first date apparently originates as per the Mathurā Synod's tradition; the other plausibly was due to the Valabhi Synod I tradition as earlier was suggested and, as I recall, by Muni Kalyānavijaya in one of his works. (It was, perhaps, his Vīranirvana Samvat aur Jaina
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
