DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.29591#0028
24
Char pen tier, Uttaradhyayanasntra
mass of scriptures, that parts of them should have gradually become
obsolete. Moreover, we know that the reason why Devarddhi caused
the Council of Valabhl to be convoked was that the sacred lore
had sunk into a state of decay and was threatened with the fate
of becoming totally obsolete. If now we have certain reasons for
believing that just one special part of the canon, viz. the drstivadci,
was in a higher degree than the others exposed to destruction, it
may perhaps not be quite unreasonable to suggest that, when the
rest of the sacred scriptures had already begun to fall into obli-
vion, this was much more the case with the twelfth ahga, and
that in the time of Devarddhi it was beyond recovery. I do not
propose to discuss this hypothesis further here, I have only put
it forward on account of its possibly affording an explanation of
the strange mutilation of the canon, that is more in harmony
with the Jain tradition itself than the suggestions mentioned above.
As regards the Jain literature subsequent to the Council of
Valabhl, nothing need be said here; for there is no positive evi-
dence that any canonical text belongs to a time later than about
i OOO A. V. After that period — i. e. after the beginning of the
6th century A. D. — a huge mass of commentaries, represented
by the successive stages of niryukti, curni, tikci and dipilca, came
into existence, and it would not be possible or even of any value
to treat of those writings here. But, as it seems to be rather a
prevalent opinion that the work of the commentators only began
after the final redaction of the canon 1 had taken place, I shall here
only emphasize the unanimous tradition amongst the Jains that
Bhadrabahu himself was the author of niryukti's to not less than
ten different canonical works, and that other pontiffs and patriarchs
belonging to the centuries before our era had also written com-
mentaries on the sacred scriptures. Very much weight ought not
probably to be attached to these statements; and, as regards the
authorship of Bhadrabahu, several of these niryukti's were evidently
not written by him, as they themselves mention him amongst the
former saints of the Jain church. But I feel strongly inclined to believe
that the tradition of the commentaries is much older than the Council
of Valabhl, and that the statements concerning Bhadrabahu imply
at least that the oldest body of interpretations of the sacred scrip-
1 Cp. e. g. Pulle Studi italiani di filologia indo-iranica I, i ff.
Char pen tier, Uttaradhyayanasntra
mass of scriptures, that parts of them should have gradually become
obsolete. Moreover, we know that the reason why Devarddhi caused
the Council of Valabhl to be convoked was that the sacred lore
had sunk into a state of decay and was threatened with the fate
of becoming totally obsolete. If now we have certain reasons for
believing that just one special part of the canon, viz. the drstivadci,
was in a higher degree than the others exposed to destruction, it
may perhaps not be quite unreasonable to suggest that, when the
rest of the sacred scriptures had already begun to fall into obli-
vion, this was much more the case with the twelfth ahga, and
that in the time of Devarddhi it was beyond recovery. I do not
propose to discuss this hypothesis further here, I have only put
it forward on account of its possibly affording an explanation of
the strange mutilation of the canon, that is more in harmony
with the Jain tradition itself than the suggestions mentioned above.
As regards the Jain literature subsequent to the Council of
Valabhl, nothing need be said here; for there is no positive evi-
dence that any canonical text belongs to a time later than about
i OOO A. V. After that period — i. e. after the beginning of the
6th century A. D. — a huge mass of commentaries, represented
by the successive stages of niryukti, curni, tikci and dipilca, came
into existence, and it would not be possible or even of any value
to treat of those writings here. But, as it seems to be rather a
prevalent opinion that the work of the commentators only began
after the final redaction of the canon 1 had taken place, I shall here
only emphasize the unanimous tradition amongst the Jains that
Bhadrabahu himself was the author of niryukti's to not less than
ten different canonical works, and that other pontiffs and patriarchs
belonging to the centuries before our era had also written com-
mentaries on the sacred scriptures. Very much weight ought not
probably to be attached to these statements; and, as regards the
authorship of Bhadrabahu, several of these niryukti's were evidently
not written by him, as they themselves mention him amongst the
former saints of the Jain church. But I feel strongly inclined to believe
that the tradition of the commentaries is much older than the Council
of Valabhl, and that the statements concerning Bhadrabahu imply
at least that the oldest body of interpretations of the sacred scrip-
1 Cp. e. g. Pulle Studi italiani di filologia indo-iranica I, i ff.