Sacred Literature of Jains

Author(s): Ganeshchandra Lalwani, Satyaranjan Banerjee
Publisher: Jain Bhawan

Page 22

SACRED LITERATURE OF THE JAINS
part of anga 1 long formed an integral part of that anga before it was lost, as is at present the case, the nisihajjhayaņam, which originally belongs to the second part of that anga, has been removed thence and given an independent position, that is to say, it exists, according to all probability, as chedasūtra 1. Some verses, which originally had their place at the end of the first chapters of upangas 5 and 7, and which the scholium ascribes to that place, are now not extant. On the other hand, there is no lack of insertions : At the date of the fourth anga ($84) the fiftth had not yet attained the half of its present extent (84,000 instead of 184.000 padas). The addition of certain portions called cūlās (protuberances), is expressly recognized by tradition as having taken place partly in anga 5.(vivāhacūlā) partly in. angas 1 and 12 as also in mūlasūtra 3. In the case of chedasūtra 4 we have a certain instance of a growth out of manifold constituent parts. Besides, these changes, be they omissions or additions, there are traces of evident textual transformations. The statements in anga 3, 10 in reference to the contents of angas 8-10, are drawn from a text quite different from our own. Furthermore [231] the statements in reference to the extent and division of all the 12 angas, to be found in a detailed discussion of the subject partly in anga 4, partly in the Nandi, are oftentimes in unison neither with each other nor with the actual constitution of the text. Even the modern representation of the Vidhiprapā, dating from the commencement of the fourteenth century, shows extensive variations in the case of an anga 6. It is furthermore to be noticed that chapter 16 of the first part of anga 2, has a title which does not comport with the character of its contents. The same may be affirmed of anga 10, the commentary to which refers to a textual division no longer in existence; nor does this anga contain the same dialect as the others. Finally, the name of the second upānga does not harmonize with its trditional explanation, which, in turn, stands in no genuine relation to the contents of the upānga. In this latter case there exists perhaps some connection with a Buddhistic text of similar denomination, to which we may, in the last instance, ascribe some influenee in bringing about the transformation of the text. We have seen that the constituent parts of the text in general have been exposed to modifications of the most varied character; and the same, we can confidently assume, has been the case with the state of the text itself, The peculiar style of these works in the first instance is to be held responsible for this result. The massiveness and ponderosity especially of the presentation by means of continual repetitions and constantly recurring stereotyped forms, has often sorely tried the patience of the Jain clergy. All the precautions which were taken by the division of the text into granthas,