Vaishali Institute Research Bulletin 2

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

Page 16

$ATKHANAGAMA AND PRAJỮAPANASTRA
1 (1) In the Prajñāpanā-sútra, after the benedictory verses, there are two interpolated Gāthas which, after offering salutation to Ajjasāma (Arya-Syama), mention that he was the 23rd in the Vácaka lineage and he presented this Śruta-ratna from the ocean of scriptural knowledge. From this, it is in ferred that Arya Syāma is the author of the Prajña panāsūtra.
(2) According to the Pattavalis, there flourished three Kalakacāryas, and it is the first Kalaka that was Syāmācārya.
(3) The death of the first Kalaka according to the Dharmasagarīya Patļāvali, but the birth of him according to the Kharatara-gacchiya Pațjāvali, falls in 376 years after the death of Mahāvīra.
Based on these three points, it is concluded that the Prajñāpanasūtra was composed by Syāmācārya in the fourth century of the Viranirvāpa era, i.e , about one hundred years before the Vikrama era, and accordingly some three hundred years earlier than Satkhandagama.
The above arguments may be scrutinised here:
(1) Not even the name of the Panpavapá-sutta occurs in those two interpolated Gathās. The gift of the Śruta-ratna made by Śyamacārya can imply some other Grantha-ratna. If Haribhadra cominents on them, calling them interpolatory, it proves only this much that during his time, in the th century A. D., Syāmācārya was already well-known. What evidence have we to ascertain by whom and at what time these were interpolated? The Gathās specify that Syāmă. cārya was the twentythird in the Văcaka lineage. Where is the discussion as to when this lineage started and what would be the period for the 23rd person in that line? The earlier genuine Gathā clearly says the Pandavapā was preached by the revered Jina for the spiritual (nivștti) benefit of pious saints; while the interpolatory Gathās speak of the highly gifted (durdhara, dhira, etc.) monk Syāmācārya donating some unspecified Śrutaratna to his pupils. Can the authorship speci. fied in the original and interpolatory passages be said to be the same?
(2) The tradition of the Patļāvalis is not ancient; the age of their composition and their authority are not beyond doubt; and they are mutually inconsistent as well. They do not clearly establish with whom of the three Kalakācāryas Syāmācārya should be identified. Based on these, Dr. U. P. Shaha expressed his inconclusive opinion (p. 232) that Syāmācārya mentioned eleventh in the line and Kalakacārya, destroyer of King Gardabhilla, became identical, if the first two Kalakas were regarded as one identical person. Thus to identify
acārva with Kalaka and then to fix his date are attended with many hurdles.