Vaishali Institute Research Bulletin 2

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

Page 20

ŞAȚKHAŅDĀGAMA AND PRAJNAPANĀSŪTRA than the Șatkhandāgama. The age of Satkhandagama is 683 years after the Nirvana of Mahavira, i.e., about 200 years of the Vikrama Era; and it is accepted by all. It also stands proved that the inscription, etc., discovered in the Baba Pyara Caves near Girnar or Junagad belong to this period; and possibly it is the same Candragupha in which Dharasenācārya used to dwell, and he might be the same Dharasena whose demise, according to Sallekhanā, is indicated in the record there.
On the other hand, nothing definite can be said about the author of the Prajñapanā-sūtra. The Acāryas of the Satkhapdāgama tradition do not seem to be aware even of his name: for, if they were, how Vírasena, the author of the Dhavala, who has mentioned twelve Angas and fourteen Anga-bahya texts like the Daśavaikaikalika, Uttarādhya. yana, Kalpa, Vyavahāra, Niśitha ; etc. (Şațkhaqdagama Vol. I, p. 96), could fail to take note of such an important text like the Pappa vapā. In view of its linguistic features the Panpavapă cannot be dated earlier than the 2nd or 3rd century of the Vikrama era. Incidentally it may also be noted that the Satkhandagama inclines more towards softening the intervocalic surds (like k and t) than dropping them ; according to experts, softening is linguistically an earlier stage than eliding them. This much can be definitely said that the Pannavanā is earlier than its first cominentator Haribhadra (9th century of the Vikrama era). And if, on account of its mention in the Nandisūtra, it is to be eaclier than the Valabhi redaction, then it may be assigned to a period earlier than Vira Nirvana Samvat 993 (Vikrama Samvat 523). Another question has to be answered. Why is it that the Prajñāpanā, considered to be so important in view of its contents and assigned to such an early date by the editors, is put under the calegory of Upanga, a division which is quite late and of artificial connection with Augas. The Upanga division came into existence perhaps after the Valabhi redaction; and the works under it contained extraneous and residuary traditional matter not included under Angas. This, to a great extent, explains the relatively discursive contents, collected and compiled by Arya Syāma: ie, all the material is not thought out by himself (see p. 229, Introduction). In fine, the Prajñāpanā, though it contains a good deal of old material not properly preserved, its present form cannot be dated earlier than the Valabhi Council when it was put under the category of Upanga and interpolatory verses became a source for the name of its so-called author.