“The dating of the Jain councils: do scholarly presentations reflect the traditional sources?” In, Studies in Jaina history and culture: disputes and dialogues, edited by Peter

3

THE DATING OF THE JAINA COUNCILS

Do scholarly presentations reflect the traditional sources?

Royce Wiles

The oldest manuscripts of Fvetambara canonical texts are palm-leaf ones fromthe eleventh to twelfth centuries CE. As shown by Hoernle (Uvasagadasao1880–90), Alsdorf (1965: 42), Bollée (1977–1988) and by my own doctoral workon the Nirayavaliya (Wiles 2000) there is, in all likelihood, only one recension ofmost, if not all, Fvetambara canonical texts.1 A definitive interpretation of thematerial available on the history of the Fvetambara ‘canon’2 has not yet been writ-ten, however, current views on this are summarized in the standard scholarlyaccounts of Jainism (Dundas 1992: 53–70, Jaini 1979: 42–88, Schubring 1935§37–56). Since the first descriptions of the canon by Jacobi (1879) and Weber(1883–1885), the most original contribution to the description of this history hasbeen the work of Kapadia (1941) who provided citations of evidence from theprimary source materials. Here I wish to query a consistent feature of scholarlypresentations about the redacting councils to which the Fvetambara canon isattributed, namely a recurring weakness to adequately identify and examine thesources upon which these scholarly presentations are based, especially the basesfor the dating of the councils. I want to show that current scholarly accounts donot adequately represent the sources.

According to the Fvetambara tradition, the final council of Valabhi underDevarddhigajin was critical to the recension of the extant canon transmitted to ustoday, I will therefore focus more attention on it, and present only an outline ofthe material on the other councils.

Bhadrabahu and the council of Pataliputra

Dundas gives a clear version of the current scholarly opinion on the first council:

The first recitation [of the Jaina scriptural canon] is supposed to havebeen held at Pataliputra (modern Patna) 160 years after Mahavira’s

61

Flugel-03.qxd 17/11/05 16:26 Page 61

death, as a result of which knowledge of the twelve-limbed canon wasdeemed to be imperfect and, with the subsequent disappearance of theDrishtivada, it was officially reduced to eleven limbs.

(Dundas 1992: 62)

Dundas adds further down the page that ‘the earliest accounts of any of the recita-tions date from the second half of the seventh century . . . ’ (Dundas 1992: 62).What is not stated however, is that the date just indicated – 160 AV – does notcome down to us from the second half of the seventh century. According to myreadings, the date of 160 AV is based (solely?) on Hemacandra’s Parifistaparvan(9.112) which was written during 1216–1229.

Most scholarly accounts of the first council, at Pataliputra, demonstrate afailure to accurately present information about the original sources. Schubringincludes material on the first council in his epitome of the Jaina lineage ofteachers, his version is based on Hemacandra’s Parifistaparvan, which he datesto 1216–1229 (Schubring 1935 (§23): 34 � 1962: 45). Although Schubring doesremind us that Hemacandra’s account would have been based on earlier literarysources, in particular the Avassaya literature, he does not make explicit here thatHemacandra’s comments in Parifistaparvan 9.55–67, can only be matched withthe Avassaya-curji version, that is, to my knowledge there is no other identifiedearly source for information on the Pataliputra council.

When Jaini cursorily mentions the Pataliputra council he cites no directreferences to Prakrit sources (1979: 5 n. 6), nor does he give an explicit date forit. Further on he does imply a date, when he gives Bhadrabahu’s era as ‘circa300 BC’ (1979: 50), however, he does not attempt to justify or discuss that date.Only Kapadia appears to have had access to the Avafyaka-curji and he cites anextract which is clear and unequivocal:

At that time there was a famine of twelve years. [The Jaina mendicants]lived here and there on the coast, then, [after the famine] they met againin Pataliputra. From some they gathered chapters and pieces [of texts]and so put together the eleven Akgas. The Ditthivada did not survive.Bhadrabahu was living in Nepal, he knew the fourteen Purvas. Thesakgha sent emissaries to him to say: ‘Teach [us] the Ditthivada.’ Theywent and related that edict from the sakgha. He replied to them: ‘Becauseof the famine I could not begin the mahapraja [practice], now I haveundertaken it.’ So he did not go. The emissaries returned and told thesakgha this. They sent more emissaries [to ask]: ‘What is the punishmentfor someone who disobeys an order of the sakgha?’ They went and saidthat. He said: ‘That one is to be expelled.’ He then said to them: ‘Do notexpel me, send intelligent [students], I will give seven instructions.’3

Given the close similarity between the wording of the Avafyaka-curji accountand that of Hemacandra,4 it seems that here Hemacandra has indeed closely

ROYCE WILES

62

Flugel-03.qxd 17/11/05 16:26 Page 62

followed the curji version, making it more intelligible in the process. What ishighly significant is that no date is offered by the curji passage.

Apart from the Avassaya-curji and the – probably derivative – account inHemacandra’s Parifistaparvan, I have not come across other citations of originalsources for information on this first council. The Avassaya-curji is written inPrakrit and is certainly ancient, it preserves much otherwise unrecorded informa-tion, and is generally dated between SaÅvat 650 and 750 � 593–693 CE (Balbir1993:1, 81). If the Avassaya-curji is the sole original source of information onthe first council, in my opinion that needs to be stated in scholarly accounts,instead of those accounts simply repeating earlier statements without adequatereference to any textual basis for their assertions. Similarly, if the date of the firstcouncil is based solely on Hemacandra’s work then that also needs to be stated byscholars.

The councils of Mathura (under Skandila), Valabhi I (Nagarjuna) and Valabhi II (Devarddhigajin)

Accounts of the history of the Jaina Agamas almost always refer to the redactingwork of the two Jaina Acaryas Skandila and Nagarjuna and to DevarddhigajinKsamaframaja. These three individuals are all cited as having ensured thetransmission of the teaching of the Jina Mahavira at different ‘councils’, in spiteof that teaching being endangered by times of famine. Devarddhigajin is held tohave been directly responsible for causing the teachings gathered by the twoearlier Acaryas (Skandila and Nagarjuna) to be written down. Sometimes datingsare also offered for these individuals and their work. However, on examining thetextual references used to justify these statements the evidence for the compositeaccount they present is at best extremely weak, particularly with regard to datings.Later I will attempt to demonstrate how accounts of this aspect of the canonicaltexts of the Fvetambara Jainas rarely indicate the severely limited foundationsupon which they are based. Few scholars have examined original sources, insteadmost accounts have repeated received information uncritically, often obscuringthe speculative nature of the basic information.

First I will give a survey of scholarly accounts of the final redaction of theJaina Agamas, to show the evolution of received scholarly opinion on the placeof the teachers mentioned earlier in the history of the Agama. I will then examinethe textual bases cited as evidence, to test those scholarly accounts.

Scholarly accounts of the Jaina councils

The first printed account of the events surrounding the editing of the Jaina Agamawas published by Jacobi in the introduction to his landmark edition of theKalpasutra (1879). Jacobi quotes what he refers to as a ‘common and old tradi-tion’ that the ultimate redaction of the Fvetambara Jaina canonical works wasmade by Devarddhigajin Ksamaframaja in 980 AV (Jacobi converts this date to


63

Flugel-03.qxd 17/11/05 16:26 Page 63

454 or 514 CE): Devarddhigajin saw the Agamas almost being lost and so hadthem written down by the sakgha of Valabhi Jacobi continues:

Devarddhigajin, the Buddhaghosa of the Jainas, has most probablyarranged the whole of the traditional Jaina literature, which he gathered inthe Agamas from books and from the mouth of living theologians. He wasnearly too late for his task. For in many cases, fragments only of bookswere left, and he put them together to make up a book as he thought best.

(Kalpasutra 1879: 15–16)5

Jacobi provides three references to back up his account: (1) his notes on Kalpasutra§148, (2) Jinaprabhamuni’s Sandehavisausadhi and (3) Padmamandiragiri’s&simajdalaprakaraja (SaÅvat 1553) – each of these will be taken up in turn whenthe traditional sources for information on the councils are examined later. For nowit is enough for my purposes to show that Jacobi, ever a careful scholar, has statedexplicitly the basis for his conclusions.

The next account of the creation of the Jaina canon was by Weber (1883–1885:218), cited here in the English translation by Smyth (1888):

the transmission was only oral; for which, according to tradition, writingwas not substituted till eight centuries later, in the year 980 Vira [con-verted by Weber to 543 CE (p. 220 n.1)]. This was effected by a councilin Valabhi under the presidence of Devarddhigaji Ksamaframaja;though others state that this ensued 13 years after (993 Vira [556 CE])at the hands of a council in Mathura under fri Skandilacarya. Inconnection with this the statement may be placed that in the year 980 theValabhi king Dhruvasena commanded that the Kalpasutram should berecited publicly. Herein a special participation of the king in the work isindicated, be it in that of Devarddhigaji or in that of Skandila, to whomby this act he gave decisive support.

Weber is clearly depending on Jacobi, but disagreeing with the date conversions,he does not cite any sources or information other than those given already byJacobi. He places Devarddhigajin at the Valabhi council prior to a Mathuracouncil under Skandila.

Not until Charpentier (1922: 1, 15–17) do we have another overview of theacademic interpretation of this element of Jaina history. Charpentier summarizesearlier views in the introduction to his edition of the Uttaradhyayana. His version is:

A famous teacher, Devarddhigajin, called the ksamaframaja, who sawthat the sacred lore was in danger of becoming obsolete – no doubtbecause of the scarcity of manuscripts – convoked a second greatCouncil at Valabhi. This is said to have taken place in 980 or 993 AC,and seems to have been connected in some way with a public recitation

ROYCE WILES

64

Flugel-03.qxd 17/11/05 16:26 Page 64

of the Jinacaritra, or ‘Life of Mahavira’ before king Dhruvasena ofAnandapura (a town not mentioned elsewhere). Now, as kingDhruvasena I of Valabhi is supposed to have succeeded to the throne in526 AD, and 993–526 is � 467 (BC), the actual year of Mahavira’sdeath, I think we are entitled to assume, that this was the real date ofthe Council of Valabhi, and that it was in some way protected byDhruvasena. Devarddhigajin, the president of the council, no doubt tookdown from the members all the scriptures considered as canonical thatdid not at that time exist in written form, and we need not doubt that thewhole external form of the Siddhanta dates from about 526 AD.

There are quite a few problems with Charpentier’s account. According to hisfootnote (page 16 n. 1) he is basing his comments on the commentaries cited byJacobi in his 1879 edition of the Kalpasutra (page 270 to be specific). As will beshown later, those commentaries are far from definite in their interpretation of theold dates, and they date from several hundred years after the events to which theyrefer. In my opinion Charpentier has gone too far in his assumptions to linkDhruvasena to the council. This will be seen later when the commentary passagesin question are considered.

In 1926 Schubring’s Worte Mahaviras appeared. The opening twenty-six pagesof this important collection of translations from Jaina canonical texts deals withthe canon of the Fvetambara Jainas:

It was probably in the first quarter of the sixth century [500–525 CE]that the city of Va¬a, called Valabhi in Sanskrit, on the Kathiawad penin-sula in Gujarat, was witness to a religious conference of the ‘white’Jainas. Under the presidency of Devarddhi, one of their principals, in theconvocations of the believers an attempt was made to settle and copydown the wording of the sacred texts. Therewith were the testaments ofthe teaching of Mahavira, almost a thousand years – according to thetradition – after the passing away of the master, saved from the steadyadvance of decay. Since then the Canon of the white-robed has inessence remained unchanged.6

The date suggested for the council under Devarddhigajin is 500–525 CE.Importantly, no citations at all are brought forward to justify this. The main pointI want to make here is that the account of the council is presented without anysubstantiating evidence that would allow readers to judge the tradition’s reliabil-ity for themselves, or even ascertain how definite or not, it might be. The accountby Guérinot (1926: 72) repeats the now standard view, also without giving anysources. In both of these scholarly accounts the ‘facts’ have become self-evidentand need not be backed up with original citations or even references to them.

Winternitz, paving the way for his brief (but still indispensible) tour throughJaina literature, provides a summary history of the Councils, but, like the other


65

Flugel-03.qxd 17/11/05 16:26 Page 65

accounts cited so far, he does not give any references to original sources (1933: 2,431–435). In the section on canonical history Winternitz cites Weber, Jacobi andvon Glasenapp (1925) yet only speaks of one council in Valabhi, and makes nomention of Skandila (the position of the Jaina teacher Nagarjuna has not evenbeen referred to by Western scholars yet).

Schubring (1935: 55, n. 4) is again brief, but at least cites Jacobi while addinga reference to a note by Bhandarkar (Report, 1883–1884: 129) – first pointed outby von Glasenapp (1925: 466 n. 9) – that the council in Mathura under Skandilaoccurred earlier than Devarddhi’s work in Valabhi. Again, however, there are nonew original sources and Jacobi’s work of fifty years earlier is repeated (althoughwithout the date equivalents).7 This seems to have remained a settled matter forSchubring, in 1959 he wrote the following (although his phrasing, as usual, iscareful): ‘The authoritative texts of the Fvetambaras . . . in their oldest portionsdate from the 3rd to 2nd century BCE. The canon was collected at a council inKathiawar (Gujarat) in the 6th cent.8 The remarks of all the preceding scholarshave ultimately been based on a single source, Jacobi’s work of 1879. A new con-tribution was only made in 1941 in Kapadia’s A history of the canonical literatureof the Jainas. This was the first account since Jacobi to provide citations fromtraditional sources as evidence.9 For this reason it has been the basis for the morecareful account of Jaini (1979: 51–52) and has influenced Folkert (1993: 46 n. 6,see later) and Dundas (1992), as well as the ‘revised German edition’ ofSchubring (1962: 2000).10

The section of Kapadia’s work relevant here is this chapter, ‘Redaction of theJaina canon.’ Kapadia says (1941: 61): ‘So Skandila summoned a council of Jainasaints at Mathura and made up the kaliyasuya by taking note of whatever couldbe gathered from them’. Disappointingly, Kapadia adds baldly: ‘It appears thatthis happened sometime between Vira SaÅvat 827 and 840’ (1941: n. 4) There isno additional information, nor are original sources cited to give any idea wherethis date came from. Kapadia also notes (pp. 61–62) that there was a similarproject under Nagarjuna11 in Valabhi.

Kapadia’s summary account cites the texts listed later (in the same sequence)and although he is providing much new information, his account lacks any senseof chronology. I have added the currently accepted dates for these texts (sourcesfor dates are given below when the texts are taken up individually):

Nandisutra-curji 676 CE

Bhadrefvara’s Kahavali c.1150–1200 CE

Hemacandra’s Yogafastra auto-commentary 1088–1172 CE

Malayagiri’s commentary on Joisakarajdaga c.1093–1193 CE

Samayasundara’s Samacarifataka c.1630 CE

Kapadia does not mention dates for any of these and he presents them all asequally valid. He is after all interested in the events recorded in the tradition andis not concerned about dates. For most scholars his presentation is uncritical in

ROYCE WILES

66

Flugel-03.qxd 17/11/05 16:26 Page 66

that regard but at least he made the original citations available for the first time.His important contribution was published in India during the second World Warand that may have limited its impact. It has only recently been reprinted (2000).Renou in his account of the Jaina canon, for example, shows no sign of familiar-ity with the new information provided (1951: 2, 633).

The more recent accounts of P. S. Jaini (1979: 51–52) and Folkert (1993) arebased on Kapadia and can be cited from Folkert’s summary (1993: 46):

The Jains themselves point to three significant councils at which theirtexts were at issue. The first is placed at Mathura, ca. 350 CE, under theleadership of Skandila. The second is placed at Valabhi, in Saurashtra, atabout the same time, under Nagarjuna. The third council is again placedat Valabhi, ca. 500 CE, under Devarddhigajin. The function of the firsttwo councils apparently was to commit to writing the texts subscribed toby the Fvetambara monastic groups (gacchas) represented at each. Thethird council appears to have produced a uniform version of those texts,noting certain important variants, and to have seen that copies weremade and delivered to major Jain centers.

As Folkert suggests in a footnote, European scholars have not had access tothe original materials, this may explain why scholarly presentations of thecouncils and statements about the redaction of the canon have not been seriouslyreexamined.

The final account to be presented here is that of Dundas who has provided themost recent comprehensive account of Fvetambara traditions of the transmissionof their scriptures (1992: 61–64).12 Dundas’s account is perhaps the best contem-porary formulation of the academic position regarding the councils (page 62):

The first recitation [of the teachings] is supposed to have been held inPataliputra (modern Patna) 160 years after Mahavira’s death . . . .The second recitation took place 827 years after Mahavira but, on thisoccasion, was held at two places simultaneously, at Mathura in the northunder the auspices of Skandila and at Valabhi in the west under theauspices of Nagarjuna . . . . The final recitation held at Valabhi in the firsthalf of the fifth century was convened by Devarddhiganin and theaccounts of it stress that, to avoid the complete disappearance of thescriptures, the canon was redacted in manuscript form.

What none of these scholarly accounts of the councils makes clear is the late dateof the sources on which they are based. Certainly the statements made reflect theFvetambara tradition, but they exclude the notable equivocations present inthe tradition, equivocations which take away any element of certainty about thedating of these events. If we now turn to the original sources for informationon the councils it will be seen that the scholarly views expressed earlier are


67

Flugel-03.qxd 17/11/05 16:26 Page 67

considerably more definite than the tradition itself. A few scholars have raiseddoubts about the datings but none has highlighted the lateness of the sources forthe datings, for example Ohira in her study of the Viyahapajjatti, simply ques-tioned the dating of the third council (‘the Third Canonical Council [was] held inValabhi (453 AD or 466 AD according to tradition) which is again disputable’(1994, 3 (§7)).

Accounts of the council of Valabhi in Fvetambara texts

Based on the citations of Jacobi and Kapadia mentioned earlier, I will now turn tothe original sources concerning the events of the councils and the redacting of thecanon. The extracts are taken up here in approximate chronological order.13 Theinformation relied on by scholars is largely from the commentary literature, onlytwo sources (§1 and §2) are not from there, and those two are the most undetailed.

The following textual sources will be examined:

§1 Devavacaka, Nandisutra (Theravali)§2 Kalpasutra, Jinacaritra, section 148§3 Jinadasagaji, Nandisutra-curji (676 CE) (plus the Ayara- and

Dafafrutaskandha-curjis)§4 Haribhadra (700–770 CE) LaghuvÒtti on Nandisutra§5 Filakka (9th century) Ayaratika§6 Fantyacarya Vadivetala (d. saÅ. 1096 [1039]?), Fifyahita on Uttaradhyayana§7 Hemacandra (1088–1172), Yogafastra commentary§8 Malayagiri (c. 1093–1193) tika on the Prakirjaka entitled Joisakarajdaga§9 Bhadrefvara (c. 1150–1200) Kahavali

§10 Jinaprabhamuni, (1307) Sandehavisausadhi, commentary on Kalpasutra§11 Vinayavijaya, (1559) Subodhika, commentary on Kalpasutra§12 Dharmasagara, (1571), Kirajavali or Vyakhanapaddhati, cty on Kalpasutra§13 Samayasundara, (c. 1630), Samacarifataka§14 Samayasundara, (1642), Kalpalata, commentary on Kalpasutra§15 Laksmivallabha, (� 1835) Kalpadruma, commentary on Kalpasutra

§1 Devavacaka

The Nandisutra as transmitted to us has at its beginning a list of elders(Sthaviravali) which is attributed to Devavacaka.14 This is the earliest source toname the teachers Skandila and Nagarjuna and link them (vaguely) with the trans-mission of the teachings. The very careful scholar Muni Jambuvijaya has shownthat the Nandisutra itself was known to Mallavadin (fifth century) in a formdifferent to the one it has now.15 There is, however, no way of knowing if theSthaviravali dates from an older version of the Nandisutra or the newer one.Since the Nandisutra-curji, which comments on these verses is dated 676 CE

ROYCE WILES

68

Flugel-03.qxd 17/11/05 16:26 Page 68

(Nandisutra 1966b: 83) it is enough for my purposes to say that the Sthaviravaliwas written before then.

At the start of the Nandisutra a sequence of forty or so verses praises Mahaviraand the sakgha, gives a list of the ford-makers and the gajadharas, beforepraising the teaching of Mahavira, and finally the list of elders (verses 23–43).The verses naming the teachers Skandila and Nagarjuna are:

I bow down to him Skandilacarya, whose method of explanation(ajuyoga) is even now spreading in half of Bharata, whose fame hasspread to many cities. Then I bow down to Himavanta, who has prowessas great as the Himalaya, has great fortitude and valour, the bearer oflimitless spiritual study. We bow down to Himavanta Ksamaframaja[and] Acarya Nagarjuna, bearers of the mode of explanation of thekaliya texts, bearers too of the Purvas. I bow down to Vacaka Nagarjuna,endowed with tenderness and mildness, who attained the state of Vacakain due course, transmitter of the flood of scripture. I bow to the pupil ofNagarjuna, Acarya Bhutadijja, whose colour is like excellent purifiedgold, a campaka flower, the heart of a choice blooming lotus, whoseheart is compassionate toward souls capable of liberation, skilled in thevirtue of compassion, wise, foremost in half of Bharata, foremostamongst experts in all kinds of spiritual study, the best expert whoexpounds the scriptures, delighter of the line of the Nagila clan, forwardin the benefitting of beings, up-rooter of the danger of existence. I bowto Lohitya, who knows well what is eternal and what is not, who alwaysbears the meaning of scriptures well-understood, the actuality of devel-oping those of good nature [?]16

Whether or not Skandila and Nagarjuna are the spiritual forefathers ofDevarddhigaji need not detain us here. The verses place the names Skandila andNagarjuna firmly in the lineage of expounders of the texts, but no hint of dates isgiven. All that is established here is that these teachers existed before 676 CE

(the date of the Nandisutra-curji).

§2 Kalpasutra §148

This is the key passage for Western scholars’ statements, since it, or ratherJacobi’s comments about this passage in the introduction to his edition (1879), arethe ultimate source of the scholarly views presented in the section about the dateof the redacting council. First, the passage, which comes at the end of one sectionand just after the description of the death of Mahavira:

samajassa bhagavao Mahavirassa java savva-dukkha-ppahijassa navavasa-sayaiÅ viikkaÅtaiÅ, dasamassa ya vasa-sayassa ayaÅ asiime


69

Flugel-03.qxd 17/11/05 16:26 Page 69

saÅvacchare kale gacchai. vayaj’aÅtare puna: ayaÅ tejaue saÅvac-chare kale gacchai iti [variant disai].17

(Kalpasutra 1879: 67)

Since the time that the Venerable Ascetic Mahavira died, etc. (alldown to) freed from all pains, nine centuries have elapsed, and of thetenth century this is the eightieth year [ � 980 AV]. Another redactionhas ninety-third year (instead of eightieth [� 993 AV]).18

(Kalpasutra 1884: 270)

So 980 or 993 years have passed since the death of Mahavira. But the briefpassage does not say to what event reference is made: the text does not indicatein any way what happened after the lapse of that number of years, likely candi-dates however could reasonably be the composition of the Kalpasutra itself or itsredaction.

In 1879 Jacobi took this statement to refer to Devarddhigajin: ‘It needs hardlybe remarked that the passages containing the dates 980 and 993 AV do not refer tothe author [of the Kalpasutra, Bhadrabahu], but to Devarddhigajin, the editor ofthe Kalpasutra’ (p. 23). In Jacobi’s footnote to his translation he also listed this asthe first option (1884: 270 n. 1, the other options will be dealt with later when thecommentaries are presented). The passage just cited – or rather the combinedremarks by the later commentators about it – is at the heart of Jacobi’s 1879statements about the dates for the redacting councils cited earlier. In the text itself,however, there is no mention of Mathura, Valabhi, Skandila, Nagarjuna orDevarddhigajin, those associations are only made later in commentary literature(extracts §10 onwards later).

§3 Jinadasa Nandi-curji

The colophon to the curji on the Nandisutra is dated Faka 598 [676 CE].19 Sincethe verses have been translated under extract §1 earlier, only the curji commentson those are given here.

The verse [no. 32] ‘Whose [mode of explanation]’: How then his modeof explanation? It is said, there was a time of profound and difficultfamine for twelve years, because [the ascetics] were again and again(ajjajjato � anyanya-tah?) lapsing [from the rules]20 for the sake offood, scriptural learning (suta) perished through the absence of under-standing (gahaja), text-work (gujaja), [and] ajuppeha [?]. Then in thetime of plentiful food in Mathura there was a great meeting of asceticswith the faithful, headed by Acarya Khandila, saying: ‘Who rememberswhatever [let them recount that for us].’ Thus the Kaliyasuta [texts]were gathered. Because this was done in Mathura it is said to be theMathura recension. And that approved by the Acarya Khandila was done

ROYCE WILES

70

Flugel-03.qxd 17/11/05 16:26 Page 70

in his presence and is said to be the mode of explanation. The restis easy.

Others say: that scriptural learning (suta) was not destroyed, but in thatvery difficult famine the other main bearers of the mode of explanationperished. Only the teacher Khandila remained.21 In Mathura the mode ofexplanation was again set forth for the ascetics, therefore it is called theMathura recension, the mode of explanation in his presence it is said.22

The only contribution of the curji on v. 34 is that Nagarjuna was the pupil ofHimavanta.

[Verse 35] curji: ‘In due course’ by grasping the texts [beginning with]‘Samadiya . . . ’ and so on: and in time, with the turn of those ahead,succeeding the person [ahead of him], he attained the stage of vacaka.He directs the flood of scripture, the pouring out [of scripture?]. The restis easy.

This is the oldest dated source for the account of the councils: the teachers’ namesare mentioned, but there is no indication at all of their dates.

Two other sources in the ancient layer of the curjis can be treated here(I cite these references from Mehta and Chandra (1970–1972, Nagajjuja sv):the Ayara-curji, (also ascribed to Jinadasa, 593–693 CE, see Balbir 1993: 1, 81)mentions the two names: Nagarjuna (Ayarakga-curji 1941: 219, 232, 237, 244,313) and Devardhigajin (page 207). Another (unascribed?) curji on theDafafrutaskandha mentions the name Nagajjuja (Nagajjujiya tu evaÅ padaÅtievaÅ tu gujappehi aguja’navvijjae (Ayaradasao 1954: 204)).23 These occur-rences which add nothing to what we know, merely confirm the continuity of thetradition. The references which follow all echo this information, until we get tothe commentary speculations (§10 and so on which follows).

§4–8

Because of their brevity and derivative nature, these text references can be treatedtogether. Reference §4 is by Haribhadra (700–770 CE) in the LaghuvÒtti on theNandisutra (cited here from the edition of Pujyavijaya (1966b: 16f)).24 BecauseHaribhadra is merely re-presenting the curji version in Sanskrit his passages neednot be examined in detail. He adds nothing to the previous entries, but merelytransmits that information in the more widely known Sanskrit. Reference §5comes in the ninth century when Filakka, an important Fvetambara commentator,refers in his commentary on the Ayarakga to Nagajjuja (*Ayarakga 1916: 303).This is hardly a major reference, but does show the continuity of the traditionthrough the ninth century and that the earlier information was available. Similaris reference §6 by Fantyacarya Vadivetala (he died in SaÅvat 1096 [1039]?). In


71

Flugel-03.qxd 17/11/05 16:26 Page 71

his Uttaradhyayana commentary entitled Fifyahita (Uttaradhyayana 1933: 149)he refers to the name Nagajjuja.

The great Hemacandra (1088–1172) in his Yogafastra commentary (1926 or1939 edition p. 207) seems to re-present the version from the curji or fromHaribhadra, and merely says that the Agamas were written down by Skandila andNagarjuna and others fearing that because of a famine the teachings would belost.25 The major later commentator Malayagiri (c.1093–1193) provides theeighth reference, in his commentary on the Joisakarajdaga (1928: 41) he givesonly the traditional account.26 While in his commentary on the Nandisutra headds that Skandila was a ‘Disciple of preceptor Siha of the BaÅbhaddiva branch.’

§9 Bhadrefvara Suri, Kahavali

This work has been dated by Jacobi (1932: xii–xiii) to the twelfth centurySaÅvat.27 Jacobi offers further comment: ‘Bhadrefvara’s tales are, as a rule, but amore elegant version of the kathanakas contained in the curjis and tikas’ (p. xii).‘Bhadrefvara’s work has few literary merits. It is scarcely more than a collectionof disconnected materials for the history of the Fvetambara church, culled fromthe ample literature of curjis and tikas’ (p. xiii). So this extract cannot be used asevidence, seeming to rely as it does on the earlier sources already cited.28

§10 Jinaprabhamuni, Sandehavisausadhi.

It is of vital significance that none of the citations up to this point has given anyindication of the dates of the teachers. This extract is the first indication of a tra-dition of dating. Jinaprabhamuni completed the Sandehavisausadhi, a commen-tary on the Kalpasutra, on Afvina sudi 8, SaÅvat 1364, or 1307 CE. This is the firstof several comments on the extract given at §2 earlier. Jacobi makes it clear thathe has not seen the ‘curji’ on the Kalpasutra but he thinks all the Sanskrit com-mentators are deriving their information from it (Kalpasutra 1879: 25).29 This mayexplain his trust of the commentatorial tradition here, that is, the antiquity of thecurjis supposedly vouching for the authenticity of the tradition. A lengthy extractis cited by Jacobi (1879: 114–115) from a manuscript supplied by Bühler (pre-sumably from Bühler’s personal collection (Jacobi 1879: 25–26)).30 In the passagecited by Jacobi (and then concisely paraphrased by him) we are presented with thefollowing options for the meaning of the dates given in the Kalpasutra text. Thefirst choices relate to the year 980, which is explained as the number of years tohave elapsed: (1) since the passing away of Mahavira and the composition of theKalpasutra by Bhadrabahu, (2) since Devarddhi saw the teachings in danger andset them down, or (3) since the death of the son of king Dhruvasena, though somesay that was 1080 years ago, (4) The year 993 could be the number of years sincePajjusaja was moved from the fifth to the fourth of Bhadrapada.

The traditions available to Jinaprabhamuni did not allow him to decide, herelegates the option of the council dating to second place. This is the earliest

ROYCE WILES

72

Flugel-03.qxd 17/11/05 16:26 Page 72

source to link a date with the redacting council of Devarddhigajin, it does socautiously and qualifies all its options with bahufruta vayathavad vidanti, ‘thelearned know how it was.’ This passage is the oldest source I have found for thedating repeated in the scholarly accounts presented in the first section earlier,although not one of those accounts communicated clearly the lack of definiteness,nor the other choices for the meaning of the date given in the tradition, nor eventhe fact that this option for the date’s meaning is not recorded before 1307 CE.

§11 Vinayavijaya, Subodhika

This commentary on the Kalpasutra (as yet unpublished), is also cited by Jacobi(1879: 116–117). It was written in SaÅvat 1616 [1559]. Once again this passagerelates to extract §2.31 The commentator begins by stating that he is having to relyon earlier commentators. He then presents two choices, the first is that this versewas written by Devarddhigajin himself to show when the Kalpasutra was writ-ten, that is, the writing down of the canon was in 980, so the Kalpasutra was alsowritten down then. He then cites a Prakrit verse stating that 980 years afterMahavira in the town of Valabhi, Devarddhigajin wrote down the teachings. Thesecond option is that 980 was when the Kalpasutra was first read aloud inAnanda[pura]. He then goes on to present the traditions about the date being 993etc. This commentator, while giving the Devarddhi option first, nevertheless says,‘the omniscient ones know the reality [of it, ie. what the truth is]’ tattvam punahkevalino vidanti. The tradition is not firm and the dating is being offered athousand years after the relevant event.

§12 Dharmasagara, Kirajavali or Vyakhanapaddhati

This commentary on the Kalpasutra by Dharmasagara, Kirajavali orVyakhanapaddhati, was written in SaÅvat 1628 [1571]. This is still unpublishedbut was cited by Jacobi (1879: 115–116).32 The opening line of the relevant sec-tion shows that the writer of the curji used by Dharmasagara has not commentedon this line: yady api curjikareja kuto’pi karajaÅ na vyakhyatam. He is relyingon a statement in an old and worn commentary, avapta-jirja-tikaikadefa. Herepeats the Devarddhigajin option. Once more the overall tone is uncertainty andwe are told ‘to find out the truth from the learned’, tattvam tu bahufruta-gamyam,and ‘to ask the experts in scripture or those knowing the innermost details of theteachings’ tattvaÅ tu frutadhara-gamyam prastavya va pravacana-rahasya-vidah. Even the oldest commentators then are consistently representing thetraditional interpretations as uncertain, surely there should be some sign of thisuncertainty in modern interpretations of this evidence.

§13–14 Samayasundara, Samacarifataka and Kalpalata

Before turning to the final commentary on the Kalpasutra passage we have astatement by Samayasundara, who lived around 1630 CE. In his Samacarifataka


73

Flugel-03.qxd 17/11/05 16:26 Page 73

he repeats the statements of the earlier sources, apparently on the basis of theNandisutra-curji, without adding anything new.33 The same author is responsiblefor the next citation, in his Kalpalata, a commentary on the Kalpasutra writtensometime before SaÅvat 1699 [1642]: ‘[I]n 980 VN at the end of the secondfamine, a council of monks met under [Khandila’s] chairmanship in Mahura toredact the canon’ (Kalpasutra *1939: 107). Jacobi says ‘The comment of theKalpalata is a mere abstract of the Sandehavisausadhi [extract §10 above]’ (1879:115). This means Samayasundara is likely to have based his comments on thattext, therefore neither of these quotations from him qualify as an independentconfirmation of the tradition.

§15 Laksmivallabha’s Kalpadruma

This final dated text, is a commentary on the Kalpasutra written sometime after1835 CE. The mention of the names here shows the tradition of commentingcontinued, but this text is too late as a source to be of interest here. Already by the1500s the commentaries were merely repeating earlier accounts.

Conclusion about the dates of the Jaina redacting councils

The original sources containing information about the redacting teachers andtheir activity can be divided into those which provide a date and those which donot. None of the sources before Jinaprabhamuni’s Sandehavisausadhi of 1307give any indication of a date for the redactions, while the statements from 1307onwards are consistently tentative and qualified. Accordingly, there is no justifi-cation for scholarly accounts to link the councils with the suggested datings inanything but the most preliminary way. Certainly to present these dates asunquestionably well established facts is misleading.

A tradition about something happening in 980 (or 993) AV is certainly found inthe Kalpasutra (§2 cited earlier). What the dates refer to is not clear, as Jacobistates in the footnote to his translation (1884: 270 n. 1):

The commentators confess that there was no fixed tradition, andbring forward the following four facts, which are applied at will toeither date:

1 The council of Valabhi under the presidency of Devarddhi, who caused theSiddhanta to be written in books.

2 The council of Mathura under the presidency of Skandila, who seems to haverevised the Siddhanta.

3 The public reading of the Kalpasutra before king Dhruvasena . . .4 The removal of Pajjusaja by Kalakacarya from the fifth to the fourth

Bhadrapada.

ROYCE WILES

74

Flugel-03.qxd 17/11/05 16:26 Page 74

Jacobi cited – from manuscript sources – four commentators on Kalpasutra §148and another text, Padmamandiragiri’s &simajdalaprakaraja (SaÅvat 1553)(Kalpasutra 1879: 114–118). These turn out to be the sources of the four alterna-tives he gives earlier. What is notable about these works as sources is that they arenot definite even about what event is being dated, that is, they present alternatives,and three suggest that readers look elsewhere for clarification: bahufruta vayathavad vidanti (Sandehavisausadhi), tattvaÅ tu frutadharagamyam prastavyava pravacanarahasyavidah (Kirajavali) and tattvam punah kevalino vidanti(Subodhika), which shows there was no clear traditional information on which tobase a judgement.

A second notable feature is the late date of these commentaries. Listing themhere using Jacobi’s dates (1879: 25–36), which are in general supported byVelankar (1944), we have:

1307 Jinaprabhamuni, Sandehavisausadhi (completed SaÅvat 1364)1496 Padmandiragiri, &simajdalaprakaraja (SaÅvat 1553)155934 Vinayavijaya, Subodhika (SaÅvat 1616)1571 Dharmasagara, Kirajavali or Vyakhanapaddhati (SaÅvat 1628)c.183535 Laksmivallabha Kalpadruma

‘[T]he common and old tradition’ referred to by Jacobi, turns out to be neither socommon nor so old. We cannot blame Jacobi if his early remarks (1879) havenot been tempered by the qualification given in his footnote to the translation ofKalpasutra §148 (1884). Remarks in the introduction to a truly pioneeringtranslation are more likely to be widely read than a footnote deep in the Englishversion of a Jaina religious text. His later more qualified remarks have notbeen taken up by scholars, who have instead relied on his earlier – perhaps over-confident – assertion linking Devarddhigajin with the date 980/993 AV. Thecontinued overstatement of the case for accepting these datings for more thana century however cannot be defended.

Kapadia, the only other scholar to publish original source passages, was vaguewhen he connected the references detailing the councils to the dates 980/993 AV.He cited the Nandisutra-curji text and added as a footnote ‘It appears that thishappened sometime between Vira SaÅvat 827 and 840’ (1941: 61 n. 4). He thencited a text linking the dates with Devarddhigajin – text §14 earlier – but that textis dated from 1642 and hardly authoritative in this matter.

In the sources that have come to light so far, references about the activities ofSkandila, Nagarjuna and Devarddhigajin are straightforward, if vague, for themost part. The passages suggesting the date for their activities appear only in thelater commentatorial traditions, where they are presented with indications thatthe tradition is not definite on this point. The misrepresentation of these mattersas definite, when the tradition clearly indicates that they are not definite, is whatI hope to correct in the standard accounts of the history of the councils in thetransmission of the Jaina canon. We can certainly say that the tradition speaks of


75

Flugel-03.qxd 17/11/05 16:26 Page 75

councils, and I endorse the versions of Folkert and Dundas cited earlier, with theaddition of the information that late traditions ascribe those councils to 980(or 993) AV.

Notes

1 Presumably the editing of the texts, or at least the majority of them, was completedsometime prior to the great commentator Abhayadeva (fl. 1058–1071 according to thedates of his commentaries on the Uvavaiya and Viyahapajjatti, SaÅvat 1115 andSaÅvat 1128 respectively (Velankar 1944: 64a, 290a)).

2 Other problematic aspects of the Fvetambara ‘canon’, its contents etc., are dealt withby Kapadia (1941), Jaini (1979: 47–77), Bruhn (1987) and Folkert (1993: 87).

3 Avafyaka-curji (*1928–1929: 2, 187, cited here from Kapadia 1941: 72 n.1): tammiya kale barasavariso dukkalo uvatthito/saÅjata ito ito ya samuddatire acchitta pujaravi Padaliputte milita/tesiÅ ajjassa uddesao, ajjassa khajdaÅ, evaÅ sakghaditehiÅekkarasa Akgaji sakghatitaji, Ditthivado natthi/Nepalavattajie ya Bhaddabahusamiacchanti coddasapuvvi, tesiÅ sakghejaÅ patthavito sakghadao ‘DitthivadaÅ vaehi’tti/gato, niveditaÅ sakghakajjaÅ taÅ, te bhajanti – dukkalanimittaÅ mahapajam napavittho mi, iyajiÅ pavittho mi, to na jati vayajaÅ datuÅ padiniyattehiÅ sakghassaakkhataÅ. tehi ajjo vi sakghadao visajjito – jo sakghassa ajaÅ atikkamati tassa kodajdo? te gata, kahitaÅ, to akkhai – ugghadijjai/te bhajanti – ma ugghadeha, pesehamehavi, satta padipucchagaji demi.

4 Parifistaparvan (9.55–9.67, p 244–245): itaf ca tasmin duskale karale kalaratrivat/nir-vaharthaÅ sadhusakghas tiraÅ niranidher yayau // 55 // agujyamanaÅ tu sada sadhunaÅvismÒtaÅ frutam/anabhyasanato nafyaty adhitaÅ dhimatam api // 56 // sakgho’thaPataliputre duskalante’khilo’milat / yad Akgadhyayanoddefady asid yasya tad adade //57 // tataf caikadafakgani frisakgho’melayat tada/DÒstivadanimittaÅ ca tasthau kiñcidvicintayan // 58 // NepaladefamargasthaÅ BhadrabahuÅ ca purvijam/jñatva sakghahsamahvatuÅ tatah praifin munidvayam // 59 // gatva natvamuni tau tam ity ucate kÒtañ-jali/samadifati vah sakghas tatragamanahetave // 60 // so’py vaca mahaprajaÅdhyanam arabdham asti yat/sadhyaÅ dvadafabhir varsair nagamisyamy ahaÅ tatah //61 // mahapraje hi nispanne karye kasmiÅfcid agate/sarvapurvaji gujyantesutrarthabhyaÅ muhurtatah // 62 // tadvacas tau muni gatva sakghasyafaÅsatam atha /sakgho’py aparam ahuyadidefeti munidvayaÅ // 63 // gatva vacyah sa acaryo yahfrisakghasya fasanam / na karoti bhavet tasya dajdah ka iti faÅsa nah // 64 //sakghabahyah sa kartavya iti vakti yada sa tu / tarhi taddajdayogyo’sity acaryo vacyauccakaih // 65 // tabhyaÅ gatva tathaivokta acaryo’py evam ucivan / maivaÅ karotubhagavan sakghah kiÅ tu karotv adah // 66 // mayi prasadaÅ kurvajah srisakghahprahijotv iha / fisyan medhavinas tebhyah sapta dasyami vacanah // 67 // Schubringhas paraphrased this passage (1935 §23), there is also the translation of the entireParifistaparvan by R. C. C. Feynes (The lives of the Jain Elders. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 1998) in which this passage is translated on pp. 193–194.

5 In a footnote Jacobi added:

About 30 years earlier, between 410 and 432 AD, Buddhaghosa caused theBuddhist pitakas and arthakathas to be written down ‘for the more lastingstability of faith.’ As the redaction of the Buddhist works in Ceylon and thatof the Jaina works in Guzerat occurred about the same time, it may beinferred either that the Jainas adopted that measure from the Bauddhas, orthat it was in the 5th century that writing was more generally made use of inIndia for literary purposes.

(Kalpasutra 1879: 16 n.1)

ROYCE WILES

76

Flugel-03.qxd 17/11/05 16:26 Page 76

Perhaps a desire to see the Jaina and Buddhist moves as contemporaneous has ledJacobi to state the case for linking the councils with the date 980 so strongly.

6 Schubring 1926: [1]:

Es wird im ersten Viertel unseres sechsten Jahrhunderts gewesen sein, daß dieStadt Vaÿa, im Sanskrit Valabhi gennant, auf der Halbinsel Kathiawad in Gujarat,Zeugin einer geistlichen Tagung der, weißen Jainas wurde. Unter dem VorsitzDevarddhis, eines ihrer Häupter, wurde in Versammlungen der Gläubigen derWortlaut der heiligen Texte festzuhalten versucht und der handschriflichenVervielfältigung zugeführt. Damit waren die Zeugnisse von Mahaviras Lehre,fast tausend Jahre – so will es die Überlieferung – nach dem Hinscheiden desMeisters, vor dem Fortschreiten der Verflüchtingung gerettet. Seitdem bestehtder Kanon der Weißgewandeten im Wesentlichen unverändert.

7 ‘Im Jahre 980 nach Mahavira, nach anderer Überlieferung 993, fand zu Valabhi (heuteVala) auf Kathiawar unter dem Vorsitz des Gajin Devarddhi eine Mönchsversammlungstatt mit dem Ziele, die heiligen Bücher zu vervielfältigen.’

8 Schubring (1959: 669), translation by John Cort in Folkert (1993: 47 n. 9): ‘Die für dieShvetambaras verbindlichen Werke . . . stammen in ihren ältesten Teilen aus dem 3. bis2. Jh. vChr. Zum Kanon wurden sie in einem Konzil auf Kathiawar (Gujarat) Ende des6. Jh. gesammelt.’

9 Kapadia’s account, and even his citations, are also reproduced by India-based authors,for example, Ratnaprabha and Kanu Chhotalal Jain Framaja Bhagavan Mahavira(1942–1951) in v. 5, pt. 1 pp. 215–216. For ‘Yugapradhana Nagarjuna’ there is a briefmention in this work (p. 317), but it seems to be a reworking of Kapadia’s information,with the addition of an (unsourced) date for Nagarjuna’s death VN. This is a confusedand confusing publication offering unsourced extracts with translations. Derivativeaccounts almost entirely based on the early pioneers continues to be published in India,for example, Muni Uttam Kamal Jain in Jaina sects and schools (Delhi: Concept),(1975: 44–45) but he misleadingly adds a citation from Epigraphia Indica (XVI, 17)purporting to indicate a date for the council of Valabhi, when in fact there is no men-tion there of the council (I am grateful to Peter Flügel for pointing out this reference).

10 This point being one of the few cases where the English version is better than theoriginal German. In that it follows Kapadia’s account (1962: 77 n. 4).

11 This seems to be the first mention of the Jaina teacher Nagarjuna in scholarly accounts.The references in Jaina commentaries to the two traditions of reading, the tradition ofValabhi or the tradition of Mathura are dealt with in the text.

12 Jagdishchandra Jain’s versions have not been used. He prints the following contradic-tory statements a few lines apart: ‘ . . . after the redaction of the canon in these councils,acarya Skandila and Nagarjunasuri could not get an opportunity to meet each other andhence the two different versions remained unreconciled.’ ‘The council of Valabhi wasattended by both Arya Skandila and Nagarjunasuri’ (Jain 1984: 40).

13 In each case I think it vitally necessary to cite extensively the text of each source. Notpaying attention to the original sources has been a major contributing reason to theinexact scholarly position now holding sway. Even in India the original sources areextremely difficult to locate, for example, the old commentaries cited by Jacobi in1879 have still not been published to my knowledge, that is, Jinaprabhamuni’sSandehavisausadhi, Vinayavijaya’s Kirajavali/Vyakhanapaddhati, Samayasundara’sKalpalata.

14 Pujyavijaya has examined material about the links between the writer of theNandisutra, Devavacaka and Devarddhigaji Ksamaframaja (Pujyavijaya 1961:29–31), although he cites Devendra Suri (author of the Navyakarmagranthas) using‘Devarddhi-vacaka’ and ‘Devarddhi-ksamaframaja’ several times while citingNandisutra readings – which may strengthen the case for separating the two authors


77

Flugel-03.qxd 17/11/05 16:26 Page 77

since Jaina authors tend to be careful about epithets and honorifics – he prefers not todecide on whether there was one author or two (see also Nandisutra 1966a: 5).

15 Mallavadin (1966–1988), see the Sanskrit Prakkathana, page 24.16 Nandisutra (1968: 1–8): jesi imo ajuogo payarai ajjavi addhabharahammi/bahuna-

garaniggayajase te vande Khandilayarie // 33 // tato HimavantamahantavikkamaÅdhiparakkamam ajantaÅ/sajjhayamajantadharam HimavantaÅ vandimo sirasa //34 // Kaliyasuyaajuogassa dharae dharae ya puvvajaÅ/Himavanta-khamasaje vandeNagagjjujayarie // 35 // miu-maddava-saÅpajje ajupuvviÅ vayagattajaÅ patte/oha-suyasamayarae Nagajjujavayae vande // 36 // vara-kajagativiya-campaya-vimaula-vara-kamala-gabbha-sari-vajje/bhaviya-jaja-hiyaya-daie daya-guja-visarae dhire //37 // addhabharaha-ppahaje bahu-viha-sajjhaya-sumujiya-pahaje / ajuoiya-vara-vasahe ¡aila-kula-vaÅsa-jandikare // 38 // bhuahiyayappa-gabbhe vande haÅBhuyadijjam ayarie/bhava-bhaya-voccayakare sise ¡agajjuja-risijaÅ // 39 // visesayaÅ sumujiya-jiccajiccaÅ sumujiya-sutta-’ttha-dharayaÅ jiccaÅ // vandehaÅ LohiccaÅ sabbhavubbhavajataccaÅ // 40 //.

17 Jacobi’s oldest dated manuscript was Vikrama 1484 [1427 CE], presumably on paper(1879: 28). Muni Pujyavijaya’s edition of the Kalpasutra (1952) is based on six man-uscripts, including five on palm leaf, one from Khambhat dated SaÅvat 1247 [1190].His text for this passage is: samajassa jaÅ bhagavao Mahavirassa java sav-vadukkhappahijassa nava vasasayaiÅ viikkantaiÅ, dasamassa ya vasasayassa ayaÅasiime saÅvaccharekale gacchai / vayajangare puja ayaÅ tejaue saÅvaccharekalegacchai iti disai / 147 //.

18 Stevenson’s version, in his presentation of the Kalpasutra, need not detain us. Jacobi’scomments on its unreliability (Kalpasutra 1879: 27) were echoed by Winternitz(1933:2, 462 n. 1).

19 Fakarajño paccasu varsafatesu vyatikrantesu astanavatesu Nandyadhyayanacurnisamapta ti // (Nandisutra 1966b: 8, 83); Schubring prefers ‘677’ (1935: 43).

20 The Paia-sadda-mahajjavo gives for phidia: bhraÅfa-prapta nasta, cyuta; atikranta,ullakghita. The commentary on the Nandisutra known as the Visama-pada-tip-panakam, glosses this as nirgatanaÅ (Nandisutra 1966b: 182) while Kapadia’s text(1941: 61 n. 3) gives ajjato thitajaÅ probably using Nandisutra-curji 1928.

21 Reading saÅthare with Kapadia’s citation (1928: 61, n. 3).22 Nandisutra (1966b: p. 9 line 19–p. 11 line 7): jesi imo ajuogo payarai ajjavi addhab-

harahammi / bahu-nagara-niggaya-jase te vande Khajdilayarie // 32 // jesi imo. gaha/kahaÅ puja tesiÅ ajuogoj ucyate barasa-saÅvaccharie mahante dubbhikkha-kalebhattattha ajjajjato phiditajaÅ gahaja-gujaja-’juppehabhavato sute vippajatthepujo subhikkha-kale jate Madhurae mahante sahu-samudae Khandilayariya-ppa-muha-sakgheja ‘jo jaÅ saÅbharati’ tti evaÅ sakghaditaÅ KaliyasutaÇ / jamha yaetaÅ Madhurae kataÅ tamha Madhura vayaja bhajjati / sa ya Khandilayariya-sammaye tti katuÅ tass’antiyo ajuogo bhajjati / sesaÅ kajthaÅ / ajje bhajanti – jahasutaÅ ja jatthaÅ, tammi dubbhikkha-kale je ajjo pahaja ajuyogadhara te vinattha,ege Khandilayarie saÅdhare, teja Madhurae ajuyogo pujo sadhujaÅ pavattito ttiMadhura vayaja bhajjati, tassamtio ya ajiyogo bhajjati // 32 // . . . midu-maddava-saÇpajje ajupuvviÇ vayagattajaÇ patte/oha-suya-samayare Jagajjujavayaevande // 35 // midu-maddava. gaha / ‘ajupuvvi’ samadiyadisutaggahajeja, kalato yapurima-pariyayattajeja purisajupuvvito ya vayagattajaÅ patto, ohasutaÅ ca ussaggo,taÅ ca ayarati/sesaÅ kanthaÅ // 35 // Jagajjuja vayagassa siso Bhutadijje ayarito /tassima guja-kittaja tihiÅ gahahiÅ . . .

23 A more complete list of these internal citations is given by Pujyavijaya (1961: 31–32)although he omits the occurrence on p. 244. The use of the respectful term Bhadantamakes Pujyavijaya think the unnamed curji writer was of the line of Nagarjuna, or atleast identifying with his lineage.

ROYCE WILES

78

Flugel-03.qxd 17/11/05 16:26 Page 78

24 Nandisutra (1966b: 13): jesi imo ajuogo payarai ajja vi addhabharahammi/bahuna-garaniggayajase te vande Khajdilayarie // 33 // jesi. gadha/Vyakhya – yesam ayamanuyogah pracarati adyapy ardhabharate Vaitadhyadaratah / bahunagaresu nirgataÅ –prasiddhaÅ yafo yesaÅ te bahu-nagara-nirgata-yasasah tan vande sikghavacaka-fisyanSkandilacaryan/kahaÅ puja tesiÅ ajuogoj ucyate, barasa-samvaccharie mahante dub-bikkhe kale bhattattha phidiyajaÅ gahaja-gujaja-’juppeha’bhavato sutte vippajatthepujo subhikkhe kale jate mahurae mahante samudae Khandilayariya- ppa-muhasakgheja “jo jaÅ saÅbharahi” tti evaÅ sakgahaditaÅ KaliyasuyaÇ/jamha eyaÅMahurate kayaÅ tamha Mahura vayaja bhannati / sa ya Khandilayariya-sammata ttikauÅ tassaÅtio ajuogo bhajjati/anne bhajanti jaha – suyaÅ jo jatthaÅ, tammi dubb-hikkha-kale je anne pahaja ajuogodhara te vijattha/ege Khandilayarie sandhare/tejaMahurae pujo ajuogo pavattio tti Mahura vayaja bhannai/tassaÅtio ya ajuogo bha-jjai tti gatharthaj // 33 // tatto Himavanta-mahanta-vikkamaÇdhi-parakkamamajantaÇ/sajjhayamajantadharaÇ HimavantaÇ vandimo sirasa //34 // . . .kaliyasuyaajuogassa dharae dharae ya puvvajaÇ/himavantakhamasae vande¡agajjujayarie // 35 // kaliya. gaha / Vyakhya – kalikafrutanuyogasya dharakan /dharakaÅf ca ‘purvaja’ utpadadinam/himavatksamaframajan vande/tathaitacchisyaneva vande Nagarjunacaryani iti gatharthah // 35 // kimbhutanj.

25 JinavacanaÅ ca dussama-kala-vafad uccinna-prayam iti matva bhagavadbhir Nagarjuna-Skandalacarya-prabhÒtibhih pustakesu nyastam (cited by Kapadia 1941: 62 n. 2).

26 iha hi Skandilacarya-pravÒttau dussamanubhavato durbhiksapravÒttya sadhunaÅpathanagujanadikaÅ sarvam apy anefat / tato durbhiksatikrame subhiksapravÒttaudvayoj sakghayor melapako’bhavat / tad yatha – eko Valabhyam eko MathurayaÇ /tatra ca sutrarthasakghatane parasparaÅ vacanabhedo jatah / (cited by Kapadia1941: 62 n. 3).

27 Jacobi knew of only one palm leaf manuscript of the text and that was of indifferentquality: ‘There are two Bhadrefvara-Suris in Peterson’s Index of Authors in the 4thReport. The first in the list is probably the author of the Kahavali, in the second halfof the 12th century of the SaÅvat era [c. 1100–1150 CE]’ (Jacobi 1932: xii).

28 Bhadrefvara also names Nagajjuja in his Kahavali: atthi Mahura‘urie suyasamiddhoKhandilo nama Suri, taha Valahi nayarie Nagajjujo nama Suri/tehi ya jaebarasavarisie dukkale nivvadabhavao viphutthim (?) kauja pesiya disodisiÅsahavo/gamiuÅ ca kahavi dutthaÅ te pujo miliya sugaie/java sajjhayanti tavakhajdukhurudihuyaÅ puvvahiyaÅ/tato ma suyavocchitti hou tti paraddho surihiÅsiddhantuddharo/tattha vi jaÅ na visariyam taÅ taheva sajthaviyaÅ/pamhutthajaÅuja puvvavaravadantasuttatthajusarao kaya sakghadaja (cited by Kapadia (1941: 62n. 1) from a manuscript).

29 From notes by Pujyavijaya (Nandisutra 1966b: Prastavana) and Velankar (1944: 75)there is clearly more than one curji on the Kalpasutra, however without access to morematerials I cannot clarify the situation beyond saying that the following texts have beenreferred to by earlier authors: (1) Kalpa-curji (Nandisutra 1966b: Prastavana 6–7) –(2) Kalpa-vifesa-curji (Nandisutra 1966b: Prastavana 6–7) – (3) Kalpasutrasya curjiNiryukti-garbha (printed Kalpasutra 1952: 83–[115]) Prakrit prose around 67 verses,this is probably the same as the ‘Niryukti by Bhadrabahu . . . 68 gathas’ (Velankar 1944:75b). It begins: saÅbodho sattamasiyaÅ phasetta verses begin PajjosamajaeakkharaiÅ. It makes no comment on §148 (� §147 in Pujyavijaya’s edition) but jumpsfrom a comment on the preceding passage to §201 – (4?) Curji, 700 granthas(Velankar 1944: 75b.) – In addition Pujyavijaya cites a Kalpacurji (different fromthe Dafafrutaskandhacurji) which ends: tao ya arahajato chijjasaÅsaribhavati saÅsarasaÅtatiÅ chettuÅmokkhaÅ pavatiti. Kalpacurji samapta. granthagram5300 pratyaksaragajanaya nirjitam. [sarvagranthagram 14784] (Nandisutra 1966a:Prastavana, 7). He also cites a Kalpavifesacurji ending: Kappavisesacujji samatteti.


79

Flugel-03.qxd 17/11/05 16:26 Page 79

However the Niryukti embedded in a curji published by him in Kalpasutra 1952 doesnot end like this and so is presumably another curji.

30 nava vasa-sayaiÅ ti çriViranirvÒter navasu varsafatesv afityadhikesu [980]vyatitesv iyaÅ vacana jate ‘ty arthe vyakhyayamane na tatha vicaracaturicañcunaÅcetasi pritir, asya sutrasyaçriVardhamananantaraÅ saptatyadhikava-rsafateno’tpannenaçriBhadrabahusvamiprajitatvat tasmad iyati kale gateiyaÅ vacana pustakesu nyaste ‘ti sambhavyate. çriDevarddhiksamaframajairhiçriViranirvajan navasu varsafatesv afityuttaresu [980] atitesu granthan vyavac-chidyamanan dÒstva sarvagranthanam adime Nandyadhyayane sthaviravalilaksajaÅnamaskaraÅ vidhaya granthah pustakesu likhita ity ata eva’tra granthe sthavi-ravaliprante Devarddhiksamaframajasya namaskaraÅ vaksyate, purvaÅ tu gurufisyajaÅfrutadhyayanadhyapanavyavaharah pustakanirapeksa eva’’sit. kecit tv idam ahur, yadiyatkalatikrame DhruvasenanÒpasya putramarajartasya samadhim adhatumAnandapure sampratikale Mahasthanakhyaya rudhe sabhasamaksam ayaÅ granthovacayitum arabdha iti. samajassa jam bhagavao Mahavirassa java savva-dukkha-ppahijassa Dhuvasejaraijo putta-maraje ege vasa-sahasse asiti-vasahie vatikkaÅteity [1080] api kvadicadarfesu dÒstam, bahufruta va yathavad vidanti. trinavatiyu-tanavafatapakse [993] tv iyata kalena pañcamyaf caturthyam paryusajaparvapravavÒte: tejauya-nava-saehiÅ samaikkaÅtehi Vaddhamajao | pajjusavaja-cautthiKalayasurihiÅto thaviya || visahi dijehi kappo paÅcaga-haji ya kappa-thavaja ya |nava-saya-tejauehiÅ vucchinna saÅgha-ajae || Sala[va]hajeja rajja saÅghaesejakario bhayavaÅ | pajjusavaja-cautthi caummasaÅ caudasie || caumasagapadikamajaÅ pakkhiya-divasaÅmi cauviho saÅgho | nava-saya-tejauehiÅ ayarajaÅtaÅ pamajaÅti || iti Tirthodgaradisu bhajanat. This commentary was published in*Kalpasutra: 1913.

31 yady api etasya sutrasya vyaktataya bhavartho na jñayate, tatha’ pi, yatha pur-vatikakarair vyakhyataÅ, tatha vyakhyayate. tatha hi: atra kecid vadanti, yatKalpasutrasya pustakalikhanakalajñapanaya (MS jñananaÅ paya) idaÅ sutraÅçriDevarddhigajiksamaframajair likhitaÅ. tatha ca’yam artho yathaçriViranirvajadafityadhikanavavarsafatikrame pustakarudhah siddhanto jatas, tada Kalpo’pipustakarudho’pi jataj iti. tatho’uktam: Valahi-puraÅmi nayare Devaddhi-ppamuha-sayala-saÅghehiÅ | putthe agama lihio nava ya asiyao Virao || anye vadanti: navafa-taafitivarse [sic] Virat Senakgajartham Anande sakghasamaksam mamahaÅ (!?)prarabdhaÅ vacayituÅ vijñaih, ityady antarvacyavacanat: çriViranirvajad afityad-hikanavafatavarsatikrame Kalpasya sabhasamaksaÅ vacana jata, taÅ jñapayitumidaÅ sutraÅ nyastam iti, tattvam punah kevalino vidanti. vayajaÅtare puje’tyadivacanantare punar ayaÅ trinavatitamah saÅvatsarah kale gacchati’ti dÒfyate. atrakecit vadanti vacanantare ko’rthah? pratyuttaraÅ (MS pratyaÅtare):. tejaue ttidÒfyate; yat Kalpasya pustake likhanam parsadi vacanaÅ va afityad-hikanavavarsafatatikrame iti kvacitpustake likhitaÅ, tat pustakantare trinavatyad-hikanavavarsafatatikrame iti dÒfyate, itibhavah. anye punar vadanti: ayam afititamahsaÅvatsara iti ko’rthah? pustake Kalpalikhanasya hetubhutah ayaÅ çriVirad dafamfata-sya afititamasaÅvatsaralaksajakalo gacchati’ti. vayajaÅtare ko’rthah? ekasyah pus-takalikhanarupaya vacanaya anyat parsadi vacanarupaÅ yad vacanantaraÅ tasya punarhetubhuto dafamafatasya ayaÅ trinavatitamah saÅvatsarah. tatha ca’yam arthah:navafatafititamavarse Kalpasya pustake likhanaÅ navafatatrinavatitamavarse caparsadvacane’ti tatho’ktaÅ çriMunisundarasuribhih svakÒtastotraratnakofe: virat tri-nandakkafarady acikarat tvaccaityapute Dhruvasenabhupatih | yasmin mahaih saÅsadiKalpavacanam adyaÅ, tad Anandapuram na kah stute? || pustakalikhanakalas tuyatho’ktah pratita eva: ValahipuraÅmi nayare ityadivacanat: tattvam punah kevalinovidanti.

32 yady api curjikareja kuto’pi karajan na vyakhyatam, avaptajirjatikaikadefe tvasya vacanaya ity evaÅ vyakhatam; tatha’pi afityadhikanavafate varsatikrame

ROYCE WILES

80

Flugel-03.qxd 17/11/05 16:26 Page 80

sarvan granthan vyavacchidyamanan dÒstva pustakesu nyasadbhihçriDevarddhigajiksamaframajaih çriKalpasutrasya’pi vacana pustake nyaste ‘ti kecitsambhavayanti. tatha punar iyatkalatikrame DhruvasenanÒpasya putramarajartasyasamadhiÅ adhatum, Anandapure sabhasamaksaÅ çriKalpavacana’py ajani ‘ti kecit;tattvaÅ tu bahufrutagamyam iti. trinavatiyutanavafatapakse tu: tejaua-nava-saehiÅsamaikkaÅtehi Vaddhamajao || pajjosavaja-cautthi KalagasurihiÅto thaviya || ityadisammatim udbhavye ‘yatkalatikrame bhadrasitacaturthyam paryusajaparvapravÒttiriti kecid vyakhyanayanti. evaÅ vyakhyane kriyamaje fatrusaÅfayanirasaka-Gardabhillocchedakari-Kalakasurito’yam bhinna eva sampadyate. na cai’vam,yatah prabhavakacaritraKalakacaryakathaprabhÒtigranthesv eka evo’ktah. tathaKalpacurji-Nifithacurjyadisu tu BalamitraBhanumitrayor matulena paryusajaparvacaturthyam pravartitam; BalamitraBhanu (mitra)TirthodgaraprakirjadisuçriVirajinaVikramadityarajñor antaralavartinav api Vikramadityapratyasannav uktau;tatra’pi kiyatkalavartinav api Vikramadi-tyakalabhavinav api sambhavatah, tathaçalavahana Vikramadityaprabandhadisu tayor yuddhasaÅgatif ca. kiÅ ca, curjikaraapi: katham idanim aparvarupayaÅ caturthyam paryusaje’? ‘ti fisyanodanayaÅ:yugapradhanaKalikasurivacanad eve’ty evam uttaraÅ dattavantah, na punah: vaya-jaÅtare puja ayaÅ tejaue saÅvacchare kale gacchai tti pravacanavacanene’ty adisvayam eva’’locyam. tasmad: afitipakse DhruvasenanÒpa(nu)grahat Paryusajakalpahparsadi vacayitum arabdhah, trinavatipakse tu pañcakapeksaya kalanaiyatyenaparsadi Kalpasutravacane pravacanamaryadabhakga iti paryalocanaya: 1) abhivard-hite varse viÅfatya dinair gÒhijñataparyusaja, 2) pañcakahanya svabhigÒhita-paryusaja ce’ty ubhayam api vyucchedya sakghadefad ekai’va vacana caramapañcakevyavasthapite’ti vastugatya vyakhyanikriyata iti vastugatya vyakhyane kriyamajeparsadvacanatah pañcakahanyadivyavacchedenai’va caramapañcake ya vacana savacanantaram ity arthasaÅgatir api. kecit tu vicaryamajaÅ yad afitipakse tad evavacanantareja trinavatipakse’pi yuktisaÅgataÅ dÒfyate. katham anyatha, ii disai ttiakathayayisyatj? tattvaÅ tu frutadharagamyam prastavya va pravacanarahasyavidah.

33 Fridevarddhigajiksamaframajena çriviradafityadhikanavafata (980) varse jatenadvadafavarsiyadurbhiksavafad bahutarasadhuvyapattau bahufrutavicchittau cajatayaÅ . . . bhavisyad bhavyalokopakaraya frutabhaktaye ca çrisakghagrahad mÒtavifistatadakalinasarvasadhun Valabhyamakarya tanmukhadavicchinnavafistannyunadhikan trutitantrutitanagamalapakananukrameja svamatya sakkalyya pustakar-udhah kÒtah / tatah mulato gajadharabhasitanamapi agamanaÅ karta çridevarddhi-gajiksamaframaja eva jatah / (cited by Kapadia 1941: 63 n. 1, repeated by Jaini 1979:52 n. 17).

34 Dated to SaÅvat 1696 [1639] (Velankar 1944: 77).35 Jacobi was not able to give a date for this work, but Velankar refers to it as the

Kalpadrumakalika, and says it was composed during the reign of Jinasaubhagyasuri,who became Suri in SaÅvat 1892 [1835] (Velankar 1944: 78a).

Bibliography

* indicates volumes I have not been able to physically consult.

Primary sources

Ayaradasao

1954 *Fri Dafafrutaskandha: mula-niryukti-curji. Bhavnagar: Vi. saÅ. 2011 [1954].(Majivijayaji Gaji granthamala)


81

Flugel-03.qxd 17/11/05 16:26 Page 81

Ayarakga-sutra

1916 *FrimadgajadharavarasudharmasvamiprajitaÅ FrutakevalibhadrabahusvamidÒb-dhaniryuktiyuktaÅ, FrimacchilakkacaryavihitavivÒtiyutaÅ [part 2 °vivarajayutaÅ]Friacarakgasutram. Mahesana: Agamodayasamitih, VirasaÅvat 2442. VikramasaÅvat1972–1973. Kraista 1916. 2 v.

Ayarakga-curji

1941 Friacarakgacurjih/bahufrutakiÅvadantya Frijinadasagajivaryavihita [edited bySagarananda]. Malavadefantargataratnapuriya (Ratalamagata): FriÒsabhadevajikefari-malaji FvetambarasaÅstha, Vikramasya SaÅvat 1998. Frivirasya 2468. Kraistasya1941. 382 p.

Avafyaka-curji

1928–1929 *Frimad Gajadhara-Gautama-Svami-sandÒbdhaÅ . . . Frimad-Bhadrabahu-Svami-sutrita-Niryukti-yutaÅ Frimaj-Jinadasa-Gaji-Mahattara-kÒtaya CurjyasametaÅ Frimad-Avafyaka-sutraÅ [edited by Sagarananda]. Indore: Jaina-bandhuPress, 1928–29. 2 v. This is the only printed edition.

Kalpasutra

1879 Jinacaritra in The Kalpasûtra of Bhadrabâhu edited with an introduction, notes anda PrakÒit-SaÅskÒit glossary/by Hermann Jacobi. Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus, 1879. viii,173 p. (Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes; 7,1).

1884 [Translation] Gaina Sûtras: translated from Prakrit/by Hermann Jacobi. Part I: TheAkârâkga Sûtra. The Kalpa Sûtra. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1884. liii, 324 p. (SacredBooks of the East; 22).

1913 *[Kalpasutra with Jinaprabha’s Sandehavisausadhi]. Jamnagara: Hiralal HaÅsaraj,1913. [Velankar 1944: 74b]

1939 *[Kalpasutra Kalpalata, with Samayasundara Gaji’s Kalikacarya katha]. Bombay:Jinadattasuri Pracina Pustakoddhara, 1939. 4, 196 p.

1952 Kalpasutra: mula patha, curji, niryukti tatha Fri PÒthvicandrasurikÒta tippaja,pathantara Gujarati bhasantara tatha bhasantaramaÅ adhara fabdono kosa / sam-padaka Pujyavijayaji; Gujarati bhasantara tatha adhara fabdhono kosa BecaradasaJivaraja Dofi. Amadavada: Sarabhai Majilala Navaba, Vi. saÅ. 2008. I, sa. 1952. 16,[116], 27, 89 p. (Fri Jaina Kala-sahitya saÅfodhaka karyalaya sirija; naÅ 5).

Mallavadin

1966–1988 DvadafaraÅ nayacakram: Tarkikafiromajijinafasanavadiprabhavakacarya-pravara-FrimallavadiksamaframajaprajitaÅ: Acarya FrisiÅhasurigajivadi-ksamaframajaviracitaya Nyayagamanusarijya vÒttya samalakkÒtaÅ: tippajadibhihpariskÒtah/sampadakah . . . Muni Jambuvijaya. Prathama’’vrttih. Bhavanagarastha:Frijaina-Atmanandasabha, VirasaÅvat 2492–2514: VikramasaÅvat 2022–2044: Isvisan1966–1988: AtmasaÅvat 70–92. 3 v.; 25 cm. (Fri-Atmanandajainagrantharatnamala92, 94, 95).

ROYCE WILES

82

Flugel-03.qxd 17/11/05 16:26 Page 82

Nandisutra

1966a NandisuttaÅ: Sirijijadasagajimahattaraiviraiyae Cujjie saÅjuyaÅ/saÅfodhakahsampadakaf ca Munipujyavijayah. Varajasi: PrakÒta Grantha Parisad, VirasaÅvat 2492[1966]. [1], 16, 103 p.; 3 leaves of plates. (PrakÒtagranthaparisad granthakka; 9).

1966b Nandisutram: Fri-FricandracaryakÒtadurgapadavyakhya-ajñatakartÒkavisama-padaparyayabhyaÅ samalakkÒtaya AcaryafriharibhadrasurikÒtaya VÒttya sahitam/saÅfodhakah sampadakaf ca Munipujyavijayah. Varajasi: PrakÒta Grantha Parisad,VirasaÅvat 2493 [1966]. 16, 218, 2 p.; 1 leaf of plates. (PrakÒtagranthaparisadgranthakka10).

1968 NandisuttaÅ: SiridevavayagaviraiyaÅ. AjuogaddaraiÅ ca: Siriajjarakkhiyathera-viraiyaiÅ/sampadakah Pujyavijayo Munih; Dalasukha Malavajiya, AmÒtalalaMohanalala Bhojaka ity etau ca. Bambai: FriMahavira Jaina Vidyalaya, Vira saÅ. 2494[1968]. 11, 54, 70, 127, 22, 467 p. (Jaina-Agama-granthamala; granthakka 1).

Nandisutra-curji

1928 *[Nandi Curji with Haribhadra’s VÒtti / edited by Sagarananda Suri]. Ratalama:&sabhadevaji Kefarimalaji Fvetambara SaÅstha, Vikrama SaÅvat 1984 [1928].

Pariçistaparvan, that is, continuation of theTrisastifalakapurusacaritamahakavyam of Hemacandra

1932 Sthaviravalicarita or Parifistaparvan, being an appendix of the Trisasti-falakapu-rusacarita/ by Hemacandra; edited by Hermann Jacobi. 2nd ed. Calcutta: AsiaticSociety of Bengal.

Uttaradhyayanasutra

1921–1922 The Uttaradhyayanasutra being the first Mulasutra of the Fvetambara Jains:edited with an introduction, critical notes and a commentary/ by Jarl Charpentier.Uppsala: Appelbergs Boktryckeri Aktiebolag, 1922. 409 p. (Archives d’ÉtudesOrientales; v.18).

1933 *Frimanti Uttaradhyayanani: Jinadasagajimahattara kÒtaya Curjya sametani[/edited by Sagarananda]. Ratnapura [Ratlam]: FriÒsabhadevaji KefarimalajityabhidhaFrifvetambarasaÅstha, Vira SaÅvat 2459. Vikrama SaÅvat 1989. Kraista san 1933.284 p.

Uvasagadasao

1880–1890 The Uvasagadasao, or, The religious profession of an Uvasaga, expounded inten lectures, being the Seventh Anga of the Jains, edited in the original Prakrit with theSanskrit commentary of Abhayadeva [and English translation]/by A. F. RudolfHoernle . . . 2 v.; [text] xxiii, 251, 76 p.; [translation] xiv, 171, 92 p. Calcutta: AsiaticSociety of Bengal, 1890, 1880. (Bibliotheca Indica work 105.)


83

Flugel-03.qxd 17/11/05 16:26 Page 83

Secondary sources

Alsdorf, L. 1965. Les études jaina: état présent et tâches futures. Paris: Collège de France.BORI Cat. � Descriptive catalogue of the government collections of manuscripts

deposited at the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. v. 17: Jaina literature and phi-losophy. Agamika literature 1935–54/compiled by Hiralal Rasikdas Kapadia. Poona:Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.

Balbir, Nalini. 1993. Avafyaka-Studien: introduction générale et traductions. Stuttgart:Franz Steiner. 2 v. (Alt- und Neu-Indische Studien; 45,1).

Bollée, Willem. 1977–1988. Studien zum Suyagada: die Jainas und die anderenWeltanschauungen vor der Zeitenwende: Textteile, Nijjutti, Übersetzung undAnmerkungen/Willem B. Bollée. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 2 v. (Schriftenreihe desSüdasien-Instituts der Universität Heidelberg; Band 24, 31).

Bruhn, Klaus. 1987. ‘Das Kanonproblem bei den Jainas’, in Kanon und Zensur: Beiträgezur Archäologie der literarischen Kommunikation, II. München: Fink, pp. 100–112.

Charpentier 1921–1922, see Uttaradhyayana 1921–1922.Dundas, Paul. 1992. The Jains. London: Routledge, 1992. x, 276 p.; 23 cm. (Library of

religious beliefs and practices).Glasenapp, Helmuth von. 1925. Der Jainismus: eine indische Erlösungsreligion. Berlin:

Georg Olms. [Reprint: 1984. Hildesheim: Georg Olms.]Feynes, R. C. C. 1998. The lives of the Jain elders. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Folkert, Kendall W. 1993. Scripture and community: collected essays on the Jains/edited

by John E. Cort. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1993. xxiv, 450 p. (Studies in WorldReligions; no. 6).

Guérinot, A.-A. 1926. La religion djaïna. Paris.Jacobi 1932, see Parifistaparvan mentioned earlier.Jain, Jagdishchandra. 1984. Life in ancient India: as depicted in the Jain canon and com-

mentaries, 6th century BC to 17th century AD/ Jagdishchandra Jain. 2nd rev. and enl. ed.New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1984. xxiv, 507 p.: 1 folded map. 1st ed. 1947.

Jaini 1979. The Jaina path of purification. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press,1979. xii, 327 p. [Reprint: Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1990.]

Kapadia, Hiralal Rasikdas. 1941. A history of the canonical literature of the Jainas/ byHiralal Rasikdas Kapadia. Gopipura, Surat: Hiralal Rasikdas Kapadia. ix, 272 p.[Reprint: Ahmedabad: Sharadaben Chimanbhai Educational Research Centre, 2000.xvi, 248 p. (Shree Shwetambar Murtipujak Jaina Boarding Series; vol . 17).]

Malavajiya, Dalasukha and Mohanalala Mehata. 1966–�1973�. Jaina sahitya ka bÒhaditihasa / sampadaka Dalasukha MalavajiyaMohanalala Mehata. Varajasi: ParfvanathaVidyaframa Fodha SaÅsthana. 1966–�1973�. 1–�7� v. (Parfvanatha Vidyaframagranthamala �6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 20�). Volume 2. Akgabahya Agama / lekhakaJagadifacandra Jaina va Mohanalala Mehata. 1966.

Mehta, Mohanlal and K. Rishabh Chandra. 1970–1972. Prakrit proper names/compiled byMohanlal Mehta and K. Rishabh Chandra; edited by Dalsukh Malvania. Ahmedabad:L. D. Institute of Indology, 2 v. (Agamic Index; v. 1.) (L. D. series; 28, 37).

Ohira, Suzuko. 1994. A study of the Bhagavatisutra: a chronological analysis.Ahmedabad: Prakrit Text Society 1994. xi, 276 p.

Pujyavijaya, Muni 1961. ‘Jaina agamadhara aura PrakÒta vakmaya: Jaina Agamadharasthavira aura acarya’ pp. [19]–61 (Hindi section). Originally an address to the AkhilaBharatiya Pracyavidyaparisad (frinagar), PrakÒta aura Jainadharma vibhaga, 14–16

ROYCE WILES

84

Flugel-03.qxd 17/11/05 16:26 Page 84

October 1961. Reprinted in Jñanañjali: Pujya Muni Pujyavijayaji abhinandanagrantha. Badodara: Sagara Gaccha Jaina Upafraya, Vira Ni. saÅ. 2595. Vikram SaÅvat2025. I. sa. 1969. 24, 286, 324, 116 p.

Renou, Louis. 1951. L’inde classique: manuel des études indiennes. Paris: École Françaised’Extrême-Orient. (Tome III).

Schubring, Walther. 1926. Worte Mahaviras: kritische Übersetzungen aus dem Kanon derJaina. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

——. 1935. Die Lehre der Jainas nach den alten Quellen dargestellt. Berlin: Walther deGruyter, 1935. 251 p. (Grundriss der indo-arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde;Band 3 Heft 7.) [Abridged translation: The doctrine of the Jainas: described after theold sources/translated from the revised German edition by Wolfgang Beurlen. Delhi:Motilal Banarsidass, 1962. viii, 335 p. 2nd rev. ed. 2000.]

——. 1959. ‘Jinismus’, in Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 3rd ed.,pp. 668–670. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr Paul Siebeck. (Cited in Folkert 1993: 430).

Smyth 1888–1892, see Weber, Albrecht. 1883–1885.Velankar, Hari Damodar. 1944. Jinaratnakofa: an alphabetical register of Jain works and

authors. Volume 1 Works [no more published]. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental ResearchInstitute. x, 466 p. (Government Oriental Series Class C; no. 4).

Weber, Albrecht. 1883–1885. Ueber die heiligen Schriften der Jaina. Indische Studien(1883–1885) 16: 211–479; 17: 1–90. [Reprint. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1973. Reducedsize.] [Translated by Herbert Weir Smyth (1857–1937): Weber’s Sacred literature of theJains. Indian antiquary (1888–92) 17–21. Separately printed Bombay, 1893. pp. 1–143.]

Wiles, Royce. 2000. The Nirayavaliyasuyakkhandha: critical edition, translation and notes.PhD. thesis, Australian National University, Canberra. (published version forthcoming).

Winternitz, Moritz. 1933 [1971]. A history of Indian literature. Volume 2: Buddhistliterature and Jaina literature: translated from the original German/by S. [V.] Ketkar andH. Kohn and revised by the author. Calcutta, 1933. xx, 673 p. [Reprint: New York:Russell & Russell.]


85

Flugel-03.qxd 17/11/05 16:26 Page 85

Flugel-03.qxd 17/11/05 16:26 Page 86

“The dating of the Jain councils: do scholarly presentations reflect the traditional sources?” In, Studies in Jaina history and culture: disputes and dialogues, edited by Peter

Documents