Pristine Jainism

Author(s): S M Jain
Publisher: Parshwanath Vidyapith

Page 21

(18) : Pristine Jainism
Other saints have even relaxed these essential attributes. This is because of laxity and falling moral standards with passage of time. Surprisingly the meaning of the stanza of Kundakunda's Samayasāra on 'Nirjarā (dissipation of karmic matter) has been distorted. Even the enjoyment of sensuous material pleasures by persons endowed with rational belief (Samyagdarśana) only and not rational trinity of belief, knowledge and conduct, have been justified as instrumental for getting rid off karmic matter (Nirjarā).
Authenticity of Scriptures:
In lifetime of Tīrthankara Mahāvīra and subsequently till his omniscient successors (Kevali, Śruta-kevali) there was no tradition of written scriptures. Knowledge was passed on orally. Scriptures were written later on. The saints who wrote scriptures were not omniscient (Kevali) and therefore could not be as knowledgeable as omniscient beings (Kevali). Knowledge imparted by Mahāvīra Svāmī was very elaborate running into several hundred millions of stanzas classified into twelve branches of knowledge (Dvādaśānga). Last branch i.e. twelfth one (Anga) was divided into fourteen sub-branches (Purvas). It was Dharasenācārya, who first asked his disciples to reduce in writing the little part of immense knowledge he had been able to retain in his memory. He was not omniscient. He knew only a small fraction, only a part (Fourth Prabhṛta, Prakṛti) of one Chapter (fifth Vastu Adhikara) of one sub branch (Agrāyaṇī Pūrva). The elaborate treatises Satkhandagama, Dhavala, Jaya Dhavala, Mahā-Dhavala, Gommaṭṭasāra, Labdhisāra, etc are expansion of small part of vast knowledge, remembered by Dharasenācārya. Likewise, Guṇadharācārya remembered only third Prabhṛta (part) of tenth chapter (Vastu Adhikara) of one sub branch (Jñānapravāda Pūrva). Treatises like Pañcāstikāya, Samayasāra, Niyamasāra, Aṣṭapāhuḍa, etc are expansion of little knowledge retained by Guṇadharācārya. Thus the available Jaina literature is not what omniscient (Kevali) knew and said but only a fraction retained in memory and expanded according to capacity of writers, saints and circumstances they lived in. Therefore, the available knowledge is