Nandisutt and Anuogaddaraim

Author(s): Devvachak, Aryarakshit, Punyavijay, Dalsukh Malvania, Amrutlal Bhojak
Publisher: Mahavir Jain Vidyalay

Page 172

... (27 J...
The pustaka-lekhana (penning down) of the Agamas which was undertaken by Devardhi was based on the last recension. This is a fact. But the scholars do not take into consideration this fact while tackling the problem of the age of the Āgamas and declare that all the Agamas have been finally settled in the time of Devardhi and hence the time of Devardhi constitutes the lower limit of the period of the composition of the Āgamas. This is not fair. While discussing the problem of the age of the Agamas, one should exclude from purview the angabahya works. In the case of the angabāhya works, those the age of whose authors is definitely known should be assigned to that period and those that are quoted in other works whose age is definite should be held anterior to the latter; and if there be found some interpolations in the work, one should not commit the blunder of attributing the age of these interpolations to the entire work.
Though the Angas are considered to be the works of the ganadharas, many things have been added to them at various times. Apart from these additions, the age of the original Angas is identical with that of Lord Mahāvīra. That is to say, the preachings of Lord Mahāvīra began some 500 years before the commencement of Vikrama Era. He preached for thirty years. Then come the twelve years of Gautama and next twelve of Sudharma. The total number of these years is thus about 50 to 60. We can therefore say that the composition of the Angas might have been completed sometime about 450 years before the commencement of Vikrama Era; and it is almost certain that this composition received final touching in the Păţaliputra recension. From this view-point if we assign the first śrutaskandha of the Ācāränga to the period 300 years before the commencement of Vikrama Era, it would not be improper. Evidences coming from the thought and language of the Acārānga prove that it stands very near to the age of the preachings of Lord Mahāvīra. And there is no reason why one should discard the age suggested here.
The fact that the second śrutaskandha has been added afterwards is conceded by the Niryukti. And this second śrutaskandha is the work of some sthavira. On this basis if we consider the age of Bhadrabāhu to be the lower limit of its age, we naturally come to the conclusion that it might have been added to the first before 160 Vira Nirvana, that is, we cannot, in any circumstance, place it after 200 years before the commencement of Vikrama Era.
Additions and alterations here and there might have taken place in the Angas other than the Acaränga. But on that account to ascribe to them the date as late as that of Valabhi Recension is not legitimate and proper.
A.7