Sacred Literature of Jains

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

Page 64

SACRED LITERATURE OF THE JAINS
The question now arises how are these differences to find a fitting solution ? It is self-evident, that, so far as the extraordinary character [291] both of our information in regard to the number of padas, and of the akkhāias in anga 6 is concerned, they are a fabrication of the author ; nor is it improbable that a similar explanation may hold good in the case of the special differences of detail. The carefulness of statement which we notice here, renders it, on the other hand, possible that the author has based his statements on those of his authorities, and that we have to deal with genuine discrepancies between two different texts. Abhayadeva declares here that he is unable to explain the contradiction202 in the case of angas 8 and 9 and in the case of anga 10 all that he does is to admit the existence of the conflict.103 But in his commentary on anga 10 he adduces (1) a further case of divergence
-an introduction at variance with the general character of the introductions in that it allots to the anga two suyakkhardhas, and (2) refers especially to the conflict between the pūrvācāryāḥ and the aidamyuginah. See below. Of primal importance for angas 8 to 10 (11) is the fact that the statements in arga 3,10 too render it [292) probable that these angas had then a text different from our own. The irreconcilability of title and contents show that in the case of anga 10 something must have occurred to cause the present condition of affairs.
As we have seen that there are important differences between the statements made here or in N. and the actual state of things in the eleven angas, so far as extent and division are concerned, we now discover that the same holds good as regards the statements now under examination, concerning the contents. These statements, which in N are much more brief than those in anga 4, are, it must be said, of so general a character and so colourless that their real contents can only be discovered with difficulty. They appear in a form that is purely stereotyped (see the common introduction in angas 2-5,204 and in 6-9 and 11,205) whereas there is no such similarity of contents between
202 On 8: dasa ajjhayana iti prathamavargāpeksayai' va ghatate, Nandya tathai 'va
vyakhyāt atvāt (see below); yathe (yac ce) 'ha path yate satta vagga ti tat prathamavargad anyavar gāpekasaya yato' tra sarve 'py asta varga Nam dvām api tathā pathitah ;...sar väni (adhyayanāni) cai'kavargagatani yugapad uddi yamte, ato ('tra) bhanit am; attha uddolā ity adi, iha ca daśo 'ddesanakalā adhi yamta iti na sya 'bhiprāyam adhigacchāmah;-and on 9: ihā 'dhyayanasamuho vargo daśā 'dhyayanāni, vargaś ca yugapad evo 'padiśyate, ity atas traya evo 'ddesanakala bhavařty evam
eva ca Namdāv adhiyate, iha tu dịśyate : dase 'ty, atrā 'bhiprāyo na jñāyate. 203 Yady api 'ha adhyayanānāṁ daśat văd dasai 'vo 'ddeśanakala bhavanti, tatha'pi
vācanämtarāpek şayā (cf. N) pañcacat värinsad iti sambhavyamte iti panayālisam
it y adi aviruddham (!). 204 Samaya, loya, jiva. 205 Nayarāim etc. N limits herein its treatment of the subject entirely to this common
introduction and gives nothing else in addition,