Scientific Contents in Prakrta Canons

Author(s): N L Jain
Publisher: Parshwanath Vidyapith

Page 87

Prākṣta Canons : 65
stage and also existent partially as Digambaras contend, has a high antiquity with respect to tradition and contents in comparison to the existing Digambara pro-canons. It is not clear whether they form a separate category with respect to primary and secondary canons.
This is further astonishing that the Digambaras disregard the total loss of Angas. However, as Bhadrabāhu-I did not give substantial recitation of entire twelfth Anga, i.e. Drstivāda, the Digambaras presumed that it existed partially and it is more important than the Angas as it contained the archaic Pārsvan Purvas. Quite a good amount of Purva part has been in memory of many Digambara scholars upto 156 A. D. (215 A. D. ) who could commit the memorised material to writing in the form of books. The texts composed upto the second century A. D. or so by these communicative scholars are treated with canonlike authenticity and regard. The first two of these texts are given in Table 8 followed by some other similar but later texts. The composition period given is approximate and seems comparatively more justifiable. The Kundakunda period should be considered on the basis of its comparative contents and it should neither be stretched too far nor contracted too early out of love for unconfirmed logic and antiquity based devotion. He should be taken as post-Yapaniya ācārya. The above facts suggest that Dixit" is not justified in questioning the salvaging of Purva material in these texts on his fabricated basis. However, he may be right in his suggestion that contentally these texts were devised in such a way as to make the canonical studies superfluous and, therefore, contrary to the Svetāmbaras attitude of preservation of older texts unnecessary. That is why, despite their mention by later scholars like Pujyapāda, Akalanka and others, no reference is found due to their early repudiation, though Yāpaniyas did refer them.
It is seen from Table 8 that Digambara pro-canons are not only small in number but in size too. For example, Mūlācāra – a counterpart of Acārānga has half its size. But size is secondary