________________
An investigation of the earlier subject matter of ...
: 205
mark the early description of Sthānārga. There are only two options to resolve the controversy of ten and forty-five. Firstly, it is possible that the ancient edition of Praśnavyākaraṇa was containing ten chapters and the chapter of Rşibhāşita was divided in forty-five uddeśakas or the original Praśnavyākarana had forty-five chapters of present Rsibhāṣita because along with Rşibhāṣita, Mahāvīrabhāṣita and Ācāryabhāșita were already incorporated in it. It is also possible that some chapters out of the forty-five chapters of Rşibhāșita might have been classified in the form of uddeśakas within Rşibhăşita, some in Ācāryabhāṣita and some in Mahāvīrabhāṣita. It is significant that Samavāyānga clearly mentions forty-five uddeśakas instead of forty-five adhyayanas but it is likely that after its separation from Praśnavyākarana, it might have been placed in the form of forty-five chapters within a single text. There remains one more important question that Samavāyānga refers forty-four chapters of Rşibhāṣita whereas present Rșibhāșita has forty-five chapters"". Was the adhyayana named Vardhamāna not included there in earlier? Because no chapter of this name was included there in. One cannot definitely say whether it was not counted in Mahāvīrabhāșita or there were some other cogent reason behind it. It is significant that the chapter entitled "Utkatavādi" bears no information about any Rși, besides it propounds doctrines of Cārvāka. May be due to this reason it was not accepted in Rşibhāṣita. There exists an important point of distinction between the original readings of Samavāyānga and Nandisutra. Nandisutra'' clearly refers to forty-five adhyayanas in Praśnavyākaraṇa whereas Samavāyānga refers forty-five uddeśanakālas. It is possible that the term uddeśaka was in vogue up to the time of Samavāyānga and later on they were given new names of adhyayanas. Had it been popular to write adhyayanas by the period of Samavāyārga, definitely it would have been mentioned by Samavāyānga because there appears a clear reference to adhyayanas in context of the discussion regarding other Anga Agamas.
It is a vital question whether was there really any Praśnavyākarana composed with the subject like occult sciences or just Jain Education International For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
