Lord Mahavira Vol 02

Author(s): S C Rampuria
Publisher: Jain Vishva Bharati Institute

Page 67

Lord Mahâvîra
represent fragments procurable from the Buddhist records. Of the Jaina authorities, some are older or more authentic than others. By older authorities we mean of course the twelve Angas, and by later authorities the twelve Upangas and other works. In pursuing our present investigation, nothing perhaps would be wiser and safer than to draw our information chiefly from the twelve Angas, the last of which, the Dristivada, containing fourteen discourses or sections (purvas), has been löst.
58
The loss is great, because, as its name implies, this particular text, perhaps more than any other, contained a systematic criticism of pre-Jains philosophies. And yet we have reason to believe that the remaining eleven Angas, which still survive together with the Upangas and other extra-canonical works, cannot fail to give us a fairly definite idea of the content of the Anga now lost.
The existing Angas do not seem to have been put together at one time. Their growth was gradual. None the less, the date of composition of the main bulk of Jaina canonical literature must be placed between the life-time of Mahâvîra on one side, and the reign of Chandragupta Maurya (4th century B.C.) on the other. For, according to a well-founded tradition, the Jaina canon was fixed for the first time at the council held at Patna under the auspices of Sthulabhadra, who was prime minister to the ninth or last Nanda king. On the other hand, it will be wrong to suppose that Jaina literature sprang up suddenly, without a causal connexion with earlier processes, dating from the life-time of Mahâvîra onward.
We also have reason to suspect that the Angas, as we now have them, underwent considerable changes, here and there, at later redactions, or in the course of being handed down orally. The second Anga-the Sutra-Kritanga for instance, which is supposed to have been composed originally in Ardha-Magadhi, has in its present form a section'1 containing many Sanskrit words. Similarly, although the Samavayanga is generally enumerated as the fourth in the list of Angas, even a superficial acquaintance with the text will reveal that, a synthesis or summary as it is of all the Angas, it is really not the fourth but the very last Anga.
In view of such uncertainty of chronology, it would certainly be a mistake to accept the evidence of any particular text. The best we can do under the circumstances is first to conceive the