Yet one more factor may be noted
regarding the Svetambaras canon. Apart from the story of various
councils and redaction’s, the number of texts to be included in the
Agama has been a matter of fluctuations. Whereas the standard list
comprises forty-six texts grouped into Anga, uvangas, painnas
cheyasuttas, - mulasuttas and two miscellaneous texts, some scholars
give a list of as many as eighty-six texts comprising the canon. (Kapadia,
Canonical Lit. of the Jainas, p. 58.) Thus, leek of disciplined
historicity and precision of number prove a major stumbling block in
dealing with the development of Jaina monastic jurisprudence, the laws of
which are solely and basically incorporated in the canonical texts.
Well, this is the nature of the evidence
coming from the Svetambaras sources. As for the Digambaras,
as noted before, they disown the canon as enunciated by the Svetambaras,
and advocate the view that the canon was lost. It is irrelevant for us
here to discuss the stories and circumstances connected with this matter;
moreover they are well known. The Digambaras, on the other hand,
advocate a canon comprising Angus, angabahiras, anuyogas, the last
being divided into four subdivisions. It may be pointed out that the texts
incorporated into these groups cover a wide range of period. For instance,
the first category e.g. the Angus contain some texts which are akin
to those of the Svetambaras, as for instance, the
Nayadhammakahao. The second group comprises texts like Dasaveyaliya,
Uttarajjhyayana and Kappa-vavahara whose names are familiar in
the Svetambaras canon though their grouping is different. The third
group of annyogas contains texts belonging to scholars like
Kundakunda (1st century A.D.), Umasvati, Vattakera and
Samantabhadra (8th century A.D.). It will at once be realized that
the Digambaras canon comprises texts of widely different periods,
though it is not possible to assign each and every text in it to a
definite date.
The upshot of the whole matter may be
summarized now. We have seen that the canon of the Svetambaras was
finally redacted at the second council of Valabhi in about the 6th
century A.D. We have also seen that the Digambaras disown this
canon and instead propose a list of texts grouped under different
categories. Even then, some of the names of the texts of the canon of both
agree. Moreover, the contents of some, e.g. Mulacara and
Dasaveyaliya agree in some cases ad verbum. The Angas
are held in high esteem by both. Many of the details of monastic life and
jurisprudence—as will be seen later on—tally well in the texts of the
Digambaras and the Svetambaras. And lastly, several of the
authors like Umasvati, Siddhasena Divakara, and others who
have contributed to the making up of Jaina literature, are respected by
both these sects.
These, in short, are the salient
features of the nature of evidence at hand for the proper understanding of
Jaina monastic jurisprudence. The very points of similarity, as noted
above, do not imply a wide divergence in the nature of material for the
study of jurisprudence. It would thus be possible to study monastic
jurisprudence of the Jainas as a whole without any sectarian approach. The
following pages, therefore, attempt to present the overall picture of the
working of the internal organizational discipline of Jaina monastery. The
picture that will emerge is hoped to be completely non-sectarian and
unbiased. The author is fully conscious of the fact that the texts
available to him were mainly of the Svetambaras group. Yet the
details available have been checked from the Digambaras texts as
well, and wherever differences occur, they have been stated as
dispassionately as possible. I stand before you, not as a judge, but as
one who believe in paying homage to Jainism through its dispassionate
study.
IV. Jurisprudence: source texts
for it
Having seen the nature of the canon and
after expressing the nature of our approach, let us now take a review of
the actual texts that contribute most of the material for the study of
Jaina monastic jurisprudence.
As has already been noted, the canonical
texts form the core of the material for the study of Jaina jurisprudence.
Yet all the texts are not useful for this purpose. For our purpose the
most invaluable group of texts is that which goes under the name of the
'cheyasuttas' of the Svetambaras Jaina canon and those grouped
under 'carananuyoga' by the Digambaras.
As is well known, the
cheyasuttas comprise six texts as follows:
( 1 ) Nisihasutta
(2) Mahanistha sutta
(3) Vavahara sutta
(4) Dasasayakkhandha (or
Ayaradasao)
(5) Kappasutta (or Brhatkalpa),
and
(6) Pancakappa (or Jiyakappa).
Of these six, the Dash, Kappa
and Vavahara seem to be closely related to one another in
matter and treatment. They deal with various transgressions and the
punishments prescribed for these, in a very summary fashion. These texts
by themselves do not give any other background leading to the formulation
of the code of discipline. Neither do they give any information as to the
procedure of implementing a punishment against a transgressor. For these
details we have to depend solely on the cunnis and Bhasas
going with these which furnish us with the actual working of monadic,
jurisprudence in Jaina church.
Another point worth notice regarding
these texts is that their date is uncertain. Though the tradition holds
that Bhadrabahu, the sixth pontiff after Lord Mahavira was responsible for
the editing of these three texts on the basis of the information given in
the ninth Puvva (Rsimandalastotra, 166), the evidence is
inconclusive, for we do not know what items contributed to make the ninth
Puvva. Moreover, it is well known that there were more that
one Bhadrabahu known to the Jaina church history. However, as the case
stands, we are not in a position to look beyond the tradition in which
case we have to assign these texts to 4th/3rd century B.C. as this
particular Bhadrabahu is said to have flourished a couple of centuries
after Mahavira, —the exact date of his death being 170 years after the
Nirvana of Mahavira.
The date of Nisihasutta is again
a problem and it is not possible to be dogmatic about it. However, there
is a remarkable similarity between this text and the Vavahara sutta
as to the forms of punishment and the categories of transgressions.
Emphasizing the similarity between Nisiha and the Culas of
Ayarangasutta, Winternitz opines that both these texts probably had
a common source of origin. (Winterniz, Hil, pp.464-65).
As to the Mahanisiha, we are on
still more unstable grounds. The nature of the language and the mention of
Tantric practices and non-canonical texts in this work are
perplexing. On the strength of these points, Winternitz puts it to a
period later than that of Panda and Oha Nijjuttis and goes
to the extent of questioning its position as a text of the canon.
One point regarding
Dasasuyakhhandah referred to: above, may be worthwhile mention. Here
in this text is a portion designated as the 'samayari' dealing with
the rules of rain-retreat etc. This has been attributed to Bhadrabahu. Yet
when we find references to persons and church units posterior to
Bhadrabahu, we have to conclude that only the-portion of 'samayari'
might be attributed to Bhadrabahu, while the rest may be a later addition.
Pancakappa is not extant now. So
nothing can be said about it. The Jiyakappa, which replaces it, has been
attributed to Jinabhadra who is said to have flourished in about the 6th
century A.D. or a little prior to that. (Information kindly
supplied by Dr. Upadhye. It is thus clear that Jiyakappa
cannot be equated with other texts in chronology.
Even though basically most of the
information regarding monastic jurisprudence can be culled from these
texts, it does not mean that these are the sole repositories of such
information. For instance, the Thanangasutta also mentions various
payachittas and some transgressions. The Pined and the
Oha-Nijjuttis, which are sometime grouped with the cheyasuttas,
give abundant information regarding daily monastic life and the
transgressions connected with the requisites of a monk, whereas the rules
governing the formation of a unit of monks called the Gauche and
the working of it are incorporated in the Gacchayara Painnaya.
Email this page 
Philosophy
