DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.29591#0027
Introduction
23
much the same thing) had been wilfully rejected by the Svetam-
baras themselves. For there are certainly many instances of cano-
nical scriptures having been altogether lost; but I am at a loss
to discover any sacred text containing the main doctrines of the
religion to which it belongs that has been simply abandoned by
the religious community itself. Besides, against all such suggestions
stand the statements of the Jains themselves; for they clearly tell
us that the purva's only became obsolete gradually, so that the
loss was not complete until a thousand years after the death of
Mahavira, i. e. just at the time of the final redaction of the canon. The
objection may be raised that this statement is not very reliable,
as such legendary records often contain only a very scanty amount
of truth. But although the narrative of an exact number of pur-
va's surviving at certain periods seems rather suspicious, I venture
to think that the statement as a whole ought not to be totally
disregarded.
The drstivada belonged to the nineteenth year in the study
of the sacred texts1, and this is in reality the last year, as the
twentieth seems to have been occupied with a sort of repe-
titional recitation of the whole of the sacred lore. This implies un-
doubtedly that the text was thought to be extremely difficult, and,
if we consider that it contained the very oldest books of the
canon, we may well conclude that it presented almost insuperable
difficulties both of language and of style. We need only think of
the Acaranga, probably one of the oldest, if not the very oldest, of
the existing scriptures, to see how immensely the difficulties in-
crease the older the text is. And the first ahga certainly belongs
to a later set of scriptures than the purva’s. Moreover, though
we hear a great deal about old commentaries (niryukti’s and curni's)
on the sacred texts, some of which are unanimously ascribed to Bha-
drabahu himself (about 300 B. C.), we never hear, as far as I know,
of any commentary upon the clrstivada. It seems probable from this
that the text was only recited and taught by some few very promi-
nent teachers, and that no fixed tradition of interpretation ever grew
up around it, as had been the case with nearly all the other canon-
ical works. If this was really so, it is perhaps not so very strange,
considering too that the purva's were certainly a rather extensive
1 Weber Inch Stud. XVI, 223 ff.
23
much the same thing) had been wilfully rejected by the Svetam-
baras themselves. For there are certainly many instances of cano-
nical scriptures having been altogether lost; but I am at a loss
to discover any sacred text containing the main doctrines of the
religion to which it belongs that has been simply abandoned by
the religious community itself. Besides, against all such suggestions
stand the statements of the Jains themselves; for they clearly tell
us that the purva's only became obsolete gradually, so that the
loss was not complete until a thousand years after the death of
Mahavira, i. e. just at the time of the final redaction of the canon. The
objection may be raised that this statement is not very reliable,
as such legendary records often contain only a very scanty amount
of truth. But although the narrative of an exact number of pur-
va's surviving at certain periods seems rather suspicious, I venture
to think that the statement as a whole ought not to be totally
disregarded.
The drstivada belonged to the nineteenth year in the study
of the sacred texts1, and this is in reality the last year, as the
twentieth seems to have been occupied with a sort of repe-
titional recitation of the whole of the sacred lore. This implies un-
doubtedly that the text was thought to be extremely difficult, and,
if we consider that it contained the very oldest books of the
canon, we may well conclude that it presented almost insuperable
difficulties both of language and of style. We need only think of
the Acaranga, probably one of the oldest, if not the very oldest, of
the existing scriptures, to see how immensely the difficulties in-
crease the older the text is. And the first ahga certainly belongs
to a later set of scriptures than the purva’s. Moreover, though
we hear a great deal about old commentaries (niryukti’s and curni's)
on the sacred texts, some of which are unanimously ascribed to Bha-
drabahu himself (about 300 B. C.), we never hear, as far as I know,
of any commentary upon the clrstivada. It seems probable from this
that the text was only recited and taught by some few very promi-
nent teachers, and that no fixed tradition of interpretation ever grew
up around it, as had been the case with nearly all the other canon-
ical works. If this was really so, it is perhaps not so very strange,
considering too that the purva's were certainly a rather extensive
1 Weber Inch Stud. XVI, 223 ff.