蚊熤志之种

 

INTRODUCTION

 

1. Age of the palm-leaf manuscript of Dhavala at Mudbidri

 

牋牋牋牋 In the introduction to Vol. 1 we had conjectured that the palm-leaf manuscript of Dhaval depsoited at Mudbidri was at least five or six hundred years old. We are now in a position to throw some more light on the subject of the manuscript tradition. At the end of Satprarupana after the colophon we find some text which, when reconstructed, yields three verses in Kanarese in praise of Padmanandi, Kulbhushana and Kulacandra respectively. The relation between these three notabilities has not been mentioned here, but there is no doubt that they are identical with the teachers of the same names mentioned in the Sravana Belgola inscription No. 40(64) as successively related to each other in a spiritual geneological order. There is similarity in the adjectives used for them at both the places. The inscription also tells us that the teachers belonged to the brilliant line of Desigana, a branch of the Nandigana of Mulasamgha which has owend, amongst others. Kundakunda, Umasvati, Samantabhadra Pujyapada and Akalamka. One of the pupils of Padmanandi was Prabhacandra who is said to have been the author of a celebrated work on Logic. He thus, appears to be identical with the author of Prameyakamala-martanda and Nyaya-Kumuda-candrodaya. This inscription is not dated, but the line extends upto the third generation beyond Kulacandra and there we find Devakirti Muni who, according to inscription No.39(63), attained heaven in 1163 A. D. The immediate successor of Kulacandra Muni was Maghanadi whose lay disciple Nimbadeva Samanta was also found mention in the Sukrabara Bastri inscriptin of Kolhapur as a Feudatory of the Silahara king Gandaradityadeva for whom there are mentions from 1108 to 1136 A.D. Taking all these factors into consideration we may safely conclude that the persons mentionded in the Satprarupana Prasasti flourished probably during the eleventh century A.D. The kanarese versed being obviously the intrpolations of the scribe who may have been the pupil of the last teacher, we might infer a copy of the Dhavala was made about this period.

 

牋牋牋牋 The Prasasti found at the end of the Dhavala Ms. Throws still more light on the subject. The text of this ling Prasasti is partly in Kanarese and partly in Sanskrit, and the Kanarese portion is very corrupt. But the fact tha temerges from it prominently is that the Ms. Of Dhavala was persented to the famous teacher subhacandra Siddhantadeva of the Banniyakere temple on the occasion of the completion of her Srutapancami vow by Demiyakka who was aunt of Bhujabalaganga Permadideva of Mandali Nadu. Subhacandradeva is said to have belinged to the Desigana. His line beings from Kundakunda and the other names of teachers mentioned are Griddhapiccha, Balakapiccha, Gunanandi, Devendra, Vasunandi, Ravichandra, Damanandi, Viranandi, Sridharadeva, Maladharideva, Candrakirti, Divakaranandi and lastly, Subhacandradeva, on scrutinizing these facts in the light of epigraphic references that are available to us, we find the Subhacandradeva to whom the Ms. Of Dhavala was given is identical with that Subhacandradeva whose death is commemorated in Sravana Belgola-inscription No. 45(117) of 1123 A. D. because the spiritual geneology of Subhacandra as given at the two places agrees entirely. We even find three verses that are common between our Prasasti and the inscription. The numbers of these verses in the inscription being 12, 13 and 21. The Banniyakere temple with which Subhacandradeva, the recepient of the Ms. Has been Associated, was built, according to Shimoga inscription No. 97 (Ep. Carba. Vol. VII) in 1113 A.D. In this inscription Bhujabalaganga Permadideva, also mentioned in our Prasasti, makes a grant to the temple and at the close of the record Subhacandradeva was associated was built in 1113 A.D., while he died in 1123 A.D. The Ms. Of Dhavala was, therefore, presented to Subhacandradeva by Demiyakka between 1113 and 1123 A.D.

 

牋牋牋牋 We also get some light about the donor of the Ms. From epigraphic records. Sravana Belgola Inscription No. 49 (129) is in commemoration of a lady variously named as Demati, Demavati Devamati and Demiyakka, who is said to have been a pupil of Subhacandradeva of Desigana and to have died by the Jaina form of renunciation on the 11th day of the dark fornight in Saka 1042 (A. D. 1120). In the inscritpion the lady is highly eulogised for her four forms of charity which included gifts of shastras or holy books, These mentions leave no doubt in our mind that this lady is the same as the door of the Dhavala Ms. The date of the gift is, therefore, brought within closer limits i.e between 1113 and 1120 A.D.

 

牋牋牋牋 The upshot of the above discussion is that we are confronted with three facts about Dhavala Ms. namely-

A copy of the Dhavala was made probably about three generations prior to the death of Devakirti Muni in 1163 A.D., i.e about 1100 A.D.

 

A Ms. Of Dhavala was presented to Subhacandradeva by lady Demiyakka sometime 1113 and 1120 A.D.

 

A palm-leaf Ms. Of Dhavala making mention of the above fact and indicating fact No. 1 exists at Mudbidri.

 

牋牋牋牋 The probability in my mind is that it was the present palm leaf Ms. At Mudbidri which was copied by a pupil of Kulacandra and presented by Demiyakka to Subhacandradeva. But the possibility of the object of Demiyakka抯 gift being a later copy of the first Ms. And the present Ms. Being still more subsequent copy of the second, mechanically reproducing the euligistic verses and the Prasastis of the former once, cannot be entirely precluded until the present palm-leaf Ms. At Mudbidri is thoroughly examined from all points of view internally as well as externally.

 

牋牋牋牋牋牋牋牋

 2. Is Vargana Khanda included in the available

牋牋牋牋牋牋牋牋牋牋牋牋牋牋牋牋牋牋牋牋牋牋牋 Mss. Of Dhavala?

 

牋牋牋牋 The six main division of the present work, on account of which is acquired the title Satkhandagama, were Jivatthana, Khuddabandha, Bandhasamitta-vicaya, Vedana, Vaggana and Mahabandha. We had already stated in the previous volume tha of these six Khandas, the last i.e. the Mahabandha exists in a separate manuscript and is not included in Mss, of Dhavala which contain all the remaining five Khandas, To this an objection was raised from one quarter that the available Mss. Of Dhavala contain not even five, but only the first four Khandas, Vaggana Khanda being also missing from them. This view was based upon a misinterpretation of one text and a wrong reading of another text found at the beginning of the Vedana Khanda and then support was sought for the view by a series of wrong co-relations and a number of allegations against the old reporters like Indranandi ant the recent copyist from Mudbidri Mr. These have been critically examined by me from every possible point of view on the basis of all availble material, with the result that my previous statements have been fully confirmed. The last word on this subject, as well as on others of a similar nature, however, could only be said when the Mudbidri Mss. Have also been thoroughly examined and the whole work has been critically edited.

 

 3. Authorship of the Namokara Mantra

 

牋牋牋牋 Panca-namokara Mantra is the most sacred formula of Jaina religion. It forms part of the daily prayer of all the Jainas whether Digambara or Svetambara. It has been regarded almost as an eternal revelation and the question of its authorship was never raised. It is this very formula that forms the benedictory text at the beginning of Jivatthana and the author of Dhavala throws important light upon its authorship. He divides sacred writhings into two kinds according as their benedictory text forms their integral part or not. Now, different benedictory texts are found at the beginning of the Jivatthana Khanda and that of the Vedana Khanda. But the author of the Dhavala places the first Khanda in one category and the other in the second category on the clearly stated ground that at the second place the benedictory text was not an integral part of the writings because it was not original composition of the author who had merely borrowed with the Jivatthana. This shows that in the opinion of the author of Dhavala, the Namokara formulas was the original composition of author who had merely borrowed it from elsewhere. But he regards the Namokara formula as integrally connected with the Jivatthana. This shows that in the opinion of the author of Dhavala, the Namokara formula was the original composition of Puspadanta the author of the Satprarupana which was the first part of Jivatthana.

 

牋牋牋牋 I tried to pursue the inquiry further and found that in the Svetambara Agama, Ajja Vaira is credited with having interpolated the formula in one of the Mulasutras. A survey of the Svetambara Pattavalis and equivalent mentions in the Digambara texts revealed a number of points of contact and of difference between them in the names and dates of various notabilities like Ajja Vaira. Ajja Mankhu or Mangu and Nagahatthi, associated with this sacred formula and with the study and preservation of portions of the lost canon. But a clarification of these and ultimate conclusions on the points raised must await further investigation and study.

 

 4. A comparative review of the contents

                                                 Ditthivada

 

牋牋牋牋 The twelth Jaina Srutanga Ditthaivada, according to the traditions of both the Digambaras and the Svetambaras, was irretrievably lost. But a brief resume of its contents is found in the literature of both the sects. The Digambara work Satkhandagama of Puspadanta and Bhutabali as well as Kasaya-pahuda of Gunadharacharya are claimed to be directly based upon. It would , therefore, be interesting to take a bire抯 eye view of the contents of this most important Jaina Srutanga, leading upto the portions that have been preserved.

 

牋牋牋牋 The Ditthivada was divided in to five parts, Parikamma Sutta, Padhamanioga, Puvvagaya and Culia, The Svetambaras place Puvvagaya first and Anuoga, with its subdivisions Mulapadhamanuoga and Gandianuoga, instead of Padhamanuoga, next in the above order. The two schools differ entirely in the matter of the subsections of the first part, Parikamma. The Digambaras name five Pannattis under it, namely, Conda, Sura, Jambudiva, Divasayara and Viyaha, while the Svetambaras count under it seven Senias, namely Siddha, Manussa, Puttha, Oagdha, Uvasampajjana, Vippajahana and Cuacua, each of which is again divided into fourteen of eleven sections like Maugapayaim, Egatthiapayaim, Atthapayaim, Padhoamasapayaim, Keubhuam, Rasibaddham, Egagunam Dugunam, Tigunam, Keubhuam, Padhoamasapayaim, Padiggaho, Samsarapadiggaho, Nandavattam and Siddhavattam. The nature of the subject-matter of these is shrouded in mystery. The Digambara subdivisions, on the other hand, are quite intelligible and their contents are also clearly stated. There is, however, one thing remarkable about the Svetambara subdivision that the first six divisions of Parikamma are said to be in accordance with the Jaina view which recongnised four Nayas, while the seventh was an addition of the Ajivikas who recongnised three Rasis or Nayas. It appears from this that the Ajivika view-point was also accomodated in the Jaina Agama and that at one time the Jainas recongnised only instead of seven Nayas.

 

牋牋牋牋 The second division of Ditthivada was Sutta which, according to the Digambaras, dealt, firstly, with the philosophy of the soul according to their own ideas and secondly, with the philosophical theories of others, such as Terasiya, Niyativada, Saddavada and the like. They also speak of eighyeight divisions of Sutta of which, they say, the names five Pannattis under it, namely, Conda, Sura, Jambudiva, Divasayara and Viyaha, while the Svetambaras count under it seven Senias, namely Siddha, Manussa, Puttha, Ogadha, Uvasampajjana, Vippajahana and Cuacua, each of which is again divided into fourteen or eleven sections like Maugapayaim, Egatthiapayaim, Atthapayaim, Padhoamasapayaim, Keubhuam, Rasibaddham, Egagunam, Dugunam, Tigunam, Keubhuam, Padiggaho, Samsarapadiggaho, Nandavattam and Siddhavattam. The nature of the subject-matter of these is shrouded in mystery. The Digambara subdivisions, on the other hand, are quite intelligible about the Svetambara subdivision that the first six divisions of Parikamma are said to be in accordance with the Jaina view which recognised four Nayas, while the seventh was an addition of the Ajivikas who reeognised three Rasis or Nayas. It appears from this that the Ajivika view-point was also accomodated in the Jaina Agama and that at one time the Jainas recognised only four instead of seven Nayas.

 

牋牋牋牋 The second division of Ditthivada was Sutta which, according to the Digambaras, dealt, firstly, with the philosophy of the soul according to their own ideas and secondly, with the philosophical theories of others, such as Terasiya, Niyativada, Saddavada and the like. They also speak of eightyeight divisions of Sutta of which, they say, the names have been forgotten. The Sevetambaras mention twentytwo subdivisions of Sutta and point out that they may be studied according to for Nayas, namely, Chinnacheda, Achinnacheda, Trika and Catuska, of which the first and the fourth Nayas are followed by the Jainas, while the second and the third are adopted by the Ajivikas. In this way, Sutta is shown to posscss eightyeight subdivisions. Here again, the mention of the Ajivika view-point and its accomodation are remarkable.

 

牋牋牋牋 Padhamanioga division of Ditthivada, according to the Digambaras, deals with Pauranic accounts. As mentioned before, the Svetambaras give the name of this division as Anuoga and subdivided it as Mula-padhamanuoga dealing with the lives of the Tirthankaras and Gandianuoga, dealing with the lives of Kulakaras and other distinguished persons in separate sections (Gandikas). Amongst these the account of the Citrantara Gandika is very astonishing and staggering.

 

牋牋牋牋 Puvvagaya was the most imporant division of Ditthivada because its fourteen subdivisions, known as Puvvas, contained, in fact, all the essential wisdom of the Tirthankaras. There is no substantial difference in the name or in the nature of the contents of the fourteen Prvvas in the digambara and the Svetambara accounts of them, except that the eleventh Puvva is called Kallana by one and Avanjham by the other, while there is also some difference in the exient (number of padas) of the twelfth Puvva, Panavaya. Both schools agree that some studied the entire sruta while others stopped at the tenth Puvva. This view, in a way, shows the significance of placing Anuoga or Padhamanuoga before Puvvagaya, for, otherwhise, those that stopped at the tenth Puvva could have no knowledge of Anuoga.

 

牋牋牋牋 The fifth and the last division of Ditthivada is Culia, which, according to the Digambara school, dealt with the sciences pertaining to Jala, Sthala, Maya, Rupa and Akasa. The other school has no account of the Culikas to give except that they were appendexes of the first four Puvvas and that their number was, in all, thirty four. But if they were appended to the Puvvas, it remains unexplained why a separate division for them was thought necessary.

 

牋牋牋牋 The Puvvas are said to have been divided into Vatthus and each Vatthu was subdivided into twenty Pahudas, their total number, according to the Digambara school. Being 195 and 3900 respectively. The Kammapayadi-Pahuda, of which the subject matter has been preserved with all its twenty four Adhikaras, in the Satkhondagama, was one of the 280 Pahudas included in the second Puvva Aggeniyam, Similarly, the Kasaya-Pahuda of Gunadharacharya is based upon one of the Pahudas included in the fifth Puvva Nanapavada. Nothing corresponding to these portions in age and subject-matter is yet found in the Svetambara literature.

 

5. Subject-matter, language and style.

 

牋牋牋牋 This volume is entirely devoted to the specification of the various soul qualities under different stages of spiritual advancement and under various conditions of life and existence, which have already been dealt with in a general way, in the first volume. It is entirely the work of the commentator virasena who takes his stand upon the foregone Sutras; but the idea of the twenty categories that form the basis of his treatment here is borrowed from elsewhere. He starts by quoting an old verse which names the twenty categories. The earliest work where we find the treatment of the subject under the same twenty categories is the Tiloya-pannatti. It is, however, still a matter for investigation as to who started the idea of the twenty categories first.

 

牋牋牋牋 We have tabulated the numerical specification on each page in order to show the subject at a glance and facilitate reference and the number of tables is in all 546. The various divisions and subdivisions leading to this high number would become clear by a glance at the table of contents.

 

牋牋牋牋 The language is throughout Prakrit except for a new Sanskrit passage in the beginning and by the very nature of the subject-matter which consists mostly of enumeration, the style is very indifferent to grammatical forms. In the enumerations of the soul-qualities words have frequently been used without inflections. In fact, abbreviated forms with dots are met with all over in the Mss. But since the Mss. Used by us were not unifrom on the point, we preferred to give the fuller forms and have also taken the liberty to complete the enumerations where omissions in the Mss. Were obvious. But we have not attempted to make the words inflected for fear of changing the entire character of the author style which is so natural in its own way under the circumstances.

 

牋牋牋牋 The number of older verses found quoted in this volums is thirteen, all in Prakrit. One of them (No.228, on page 788) is said to have been taken from Pindia a work which is otherswise unknown.

 

牋牋牋牋 As before, I have, in this brief survey, avoided details which the interested reader would find in the Hindi translation.