Vaishali Institute Research Bulletin 2

Author(s): G C Chaudhary
Publisher: Research Institute of Prakrit Jainology & Ahimsa Mujjaffarpur

Page 15

VAISHALI INSTITUTE RESEARCH BULLETIN NO. 2
presents a commentarial style employing the Anuyogadvaras. Here the Nikṣepas like Nāma, Sthāpanā, etc., as in the Niryuktis; Anuyogadvāras like Sat, Samkhya, etc., as in the Tattvārtha-sutra; and such terms like Prarūpapā, Nirdesa, Vibhāsā, etc., are used: all these are the characteristics of the Bhāşya style employed here. Further are employed Gati-anuvāda, Indriya-anuvāda, etc. too. (vi) The exposition of Alpa-bahutva, under the title Mahādandaka, in the Satkhandagama (VII. 79), is more systematic under 78 Padas with such predicates as 'vattaissāmo', 'kadavvo', while in the Prajñapana such predicates are not used and the exposition is loose presenting 98 Padas, some of which are primary and some secondary divisions. (vii) In the Prajñāpanāsätra, under Sthānapada, the description as to where, in the universe, living beings of various types dwell is loosely discussed at length, but the same in the Satkhandāgama (VII. pp. 299, etc.) is present in the order of Marganā sthānas, comparatively in short and in a systematic style. (viii) In the Prajñāpanā the Alpa-bahutva is described through 26 Dvāras, and therein the topics of Tiva and Aitva are intermingled in a haphazard manner. In the Satkhandagama, however, the same are systematically presented under fourteen Mārgapās. The names of Márgapās like Gati, Indriya, etc. are found here and there in the twenty six Dvāras of the Prajñāpanā-sūtra, but a clear-cut specification of 14 Mārganās is absent. The same holds good about the use of Sthiti, Sparśa, Kala, etc. (ix) The Prajñā pana sūtra has the same three Gathās (99-101, p. 25) which are found also in the Satkhandi. gama (XVI, Sūtras 122-24). In the Satkhavdagama these are introduced with the words 'lakkhanam bhanidam', which indicate that they are quotations. Some of their readings are correct in the Prajñāpanā, but incorrect in the Satkhandagama.
Taking into account the above points of agreement and difference, the authors of the Introduction of the Prajñāpanā-sūtra have expressed their opinion that on the one hand both the works agree in their inheritance of traditional doctrines and also, to a certain extent, in their method of treatment; but, on the other hand, in view of the classification of topics, the style, system and method of exposition and the use of technical terms, the Prajñāpanā is prior to and a work earlier than Satkhandāgama To strengthen this view, they have considered the age of the composition of these works As to the date of composi. tion of the Şaşk haņdagama, they have accepted the same as fixed in the Introduction of Volume One, namely 683 after the Nirvana of Mahāvīra or sometime in the second century of the Vikrama era. But, in fixing the date of Prajñāpanā, they have not found any undisputed historical facts and evidence; so they had to depend on certain indications of doubtful validity noted below.