DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.29591#0019
Introduction
15
by Professor Jacobi that this dissension was in reality the origin
of the separation between the Svetambaras and the Digambaras,
although the final division did not take place till a later date, in
either 79 or 82 A. D. according to varying traditions.
If we now enter upon a somewhat closer examination of these
statements, we shall find in them several doubtful points, although
I see no reason for disbelieving the main features of the legend.
That the whole of the old canon should have become obsolete by
reason of the subdivision of the community, and that Bhadrabahu
should have been the only person who knew its main contents,
cannot, of course, be considered particularly credible; for a religious
community where only the head knows the sacred lore in its entirety
is certainly an absurdity. But that may be an exaggeration, such
as is by no means uncommon in these sort of legends. More serious
objection must be raised to the statement that only ten piirva's were
actually incorporated in the canon fixed by the Council of Pataliputra.
For we have seen above that not only the fourth ahga, but also
the Nandlsutra, a scripture of certainly more recent date, actually
knew the entire fourteen purva’s; and these were all incorporated
in the drstivacla, the twelfth ahga, of which we have reports from
a still later date. Moreover, the commentaries to the anga’s and
other canonical scriptures contain in some passages quotations
from the purvcis. And this shows, no doubt, that they were in
existence at a time much' later than that of the Council held in 300
B. C. This fact implies a flagrant contradiction of the tradition
stated above and cannot be accounted for otherwise than by the
supposition that the old scriptures really existed even after the
time of Bhadrabahu and Sthhlabhadra.
According to the tradition the scriptures throughout a long
period were handed down orally; no doubt written texts may have
existed at an early date, but to what extent that was so is wholly
unknown to us. It was not until some five centuries after the beginning
of our era, consequently about a thousand years after Mahavira, that
the standard edition of the Siddhanta, which is supposed to be the
present one, appeared. A famous teacher, Devarddhiganin, called
the ksamasramana, who saw that the sacred lore was in danger
of becoming obsolete — no doubt because of the scarcity of manu-
scripts — convoked a second great Council at Valabhi. This is
said to have taken place in 980 or 993 A. C., and seems to have
15
by Professor Jacobi that this dissension was in reality the origin
of the separation between the Svetambaras and the Digambaras,
although the final division did not take place till a later date, in
either 79 or 82 A. D. according to varying traditions.
If we now enter upon a somewhat closer examination of these
statements, we shall find in them several doubtful points, although
I see no reason for disbelieving the main features of the legend.
That the whole of the old canon should have become obsolete by
reason of the subdivision of the community, and that Bhadrabahu
should have been the only person who knew its main contents,
cannot, of course, be considered particularly credible; for a religious
community where only the head knows the sacred lore in its entirety
is certainly an absurdity. But that may be an exaggeration, such
as is by no means uncommon in these sort of legends. More serious
objection must be raised to the statement that only ten piirva's were
actually incorporated in the canon fixed by the Council of Pataliputra.
For we have seen above that not only the fourth ahga, but also
the Nandlsutra, a scripture of certainly more recent date, actually
knew the entire fourteen purva’s; and these were all incorporated
in the drstivacla, the twelfth ahga, of which we have reports from
a still later date. Moreover, the commentaries to the anga’s and
other canonical scriptures contain in some passages quotations
from the purvcis. And this shows, no doubt, that they were in
existence at a time much' later than that of the Council held in 300
B. C. This fact implies a flagrant contradiction of the tradition
stated above and cannot be accounted for otherwise than by the
supposition that the old scriptures really existed even after the
time of Bhadrabahu and Sthhlabhadra.
According to the tradition the scriptures throughout a long
period were handed down orally; no doubt written texts may have
existed at an early date, but to what extent that was so is wholly
unknown to us. It was not until some five centuries after the beginning
of our era, consequently about a thousand years after Mahavira, that
the standard edition of the Siddhanta, which is supposed to be the
present one, appeared. A famous teacher, Devarddhiganin, called
the ksamasramana, who saw that the sacred lore was in danger
of becoming obsolete — no doubt because of the scarcity of manu-
scripts — convoked a second great Council at Valabhi. This is
said to have taken place in 980 or 993 A. C., and seems to have