What Were the Contents of the Dṛṣṭivāda

The present article was published in the miscellany volume German Scholars on India. Contributions to Indian Studies edited by the Cultural Department of the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany New Delhi. Vol. 1, Benares 1973, pp. 1-5. Actually, this article was written for the Muni Jinavijaya Felicitation Volume which was to be published in 1967 but has not appeared in 1973 when the paper appeared additionally in the mentioned miscellany volume. It was presented there as a token of homage to the Doyen of Jaina studies in India. To make this online reissue citeable, the page numbers are added to the text (see squared brackets).

What Were the Contents of the Dṛṣṭivāda

[1] Jaina tradition is unanimous as to the complete and irretrievable loss of the twelfth Aṅga, the Dṛṣṭivāda, at an early date - yet it is able to furnish surprisingly exact and detailed particulars about its divisions, subdivisions, and contents. A good deal of statements are obviously fictitious: nobody is likely to believe that e.g. the Nāṇappavāya-puvva consisted of 9999999, or the Saccappavāya-puvva of 10000006 (or 10000060) words. ^[1] But even apart from such monstrosities, it is quite generally speaking the very exactness and detailedness of the statements concerning an avowedly long lost text that renders those statements suspicious; as A. Weber aptly put it as early as in 1883 ^[2]: "one can indeed give very rich details if one consults only one's imagination." Actually, Western scholars have come to regard the tradition about the contents of the Dṛṣṭivāda as spurious in that sense that, though the (partly unintelligible) titles of some sections and sub-sections may be genuine, the lost Aṅga did not contain what is ascribed to it by the canonical table of contents and by the claims of a great number of the most diverse texts and subjects to be derived from or based on the Dṛṣṭivāda; in the words of Schubring ^[3]:

“The 12th Aṅga, under the title of a 'discourse on (heterodox) views' …, was an instruction to apology and quite naturally fitted closely in the doctrine laid down in Aṅgas 1-11. In the course of time it was lost. Jacobi (SBE 22, XLV) explains this fact by saying that later generations thought the discourses of their early predecessors not to be important any longer. It is more likely that their preservation appeared to be undesirable since the study of such disputes was apt to arouse heretical thoughts and activities.”

The traditional claims to descent from the Dṛṣṭivāda include those of the (post-canonical) Śvetāmbar Karmagranthas and of their Digambar counterparts, the famous “Siddhānta” texts of Mudbidri, the Ṣaṭkhaṇḍāgama and the Kaṣāyaprābhṛta. When these texts, preserved in one single Ms. copy which [1|2] nobody had been allowed to read for centuries, were at last made accessible through the indefatigable endeavours of Hiralal Jain, they were hailed by him on the title page of his first edition as “throwing light for the first time upon the only surviving pieces of the lost Dṛṣṭivāda, the 12th Aṅga of the Jain canon.” His opinion is shared by another leading Jain scholar of India, A.N. Upadhye. In a paper read at the XXVI International Congress of Orientalists in Delhi and entitled “The problem of the Pūrvas: their relics traced”, he accepts the claim of the Mudbidri texts to be based on portions of the 2nd and 5th Pūrvas and ascribes the loss of these Pūrvas to the intricacy of their subjects:

“The details contained in these works are highly elaborate and difficult and deal with the intricacies of the Karma doctrine … Even from these relics, of which only one or two (allied) Mss. are preserved only in one locality, it can be justly surmised that such Pūrva texts were not studied on a very large scale, because they dealt with dry details of the Karma doctrine which were not of general interest and the study of which was even denied to many. In course of time the number of monks studying such texts gradually dwindled down; and when the Sangha pooled together the entire canonical literature, this minority of monks perhaps did not cooperate in this work with the result that even these relics of Pūrvas remained in isolation and were studied in a very small circle."

I must confess that I am not convinced by these arguments. The very intricacy of the Mudbidri texts speaks against and not for their high antiquity. In contents and style, they are typical products of later scholasticism, far removed from the much simpler language and spirit of old canonical texts. ^[4] Further, though these Digambar Karma texts actually ceased to be studied in modern times and were kept secret, the same is by no means true of their counter-parts and very close relations, the Śvetāmbar Karmagranthas (which actually have a number of stanzas in common with them): they were always known and accessible and never ceased to be read and studied though they are certainly no less intricate and technical than the Mudbidri texts. The intricacy and technicality of these late scholastic works can have nothing to do with the early loss of the ancient Dṛṣṭivāda.

That any real knowledge of the contents of the 12th Aṅga had vanished at a relatively early time is shown with particular clearness by a hitherto unnoticed passage of the Āvaśyaka Cūrṇi, that extremely rich but as yet hardly tapped source of early medieval Jain scholarship. It seems interesting enough [2|3] to be quoted in full and is offered here as a modest contribution to the Dṛṣṭivāda problem. On p. 35 of the printed edition ^[5] we read:

iyāṇiṃ angapaviṭṭhaṃ bāhiraṃ ca doṇṇi vi bhaṇṇanti. angapaviṭṭhaṃ Āyāro jāva Diṭṭhivāo, aṇangapaviṭṭhaṃ Āvassagaṃ tav-vairittaṃ ca. Āvassagaṃ Sāmāiya-m-ādi Paccakkhāṇa-pajjavasāṇaṃ; vairittaṃ kāliyaṃ ukkāliyaṃ ca. Tattha ukkāliyaṃ aṇegavihaṃ, taṃ jahā: Dasaveyāliyaṃ Kappiyākappiyaṃ evam-ādi, kāliyaṃ pi aṇegavihaṃ, taṃ jahā: Uttarajjhayaṇāṇi evam-ādi.

ettha sīso āha jahā: “Diṭṭhivāe savvaṃ ceva vaomayaṃ ^[6] atthi, tao tassa ceva egassa parūvaṇaṃ jujjai.” āyario āha: “jai vi evaṃ, tahā vi dummeha-appāuya-itthiyādīṇi ya kāraṇāṇī pappa sesassa parūvaṇā kīrai” tti. tattha bahave dummedhā asattā Diṭṭhivāyaṃ ahijjiuṃ; appāuyāṇa ya āuyaṃ na pahuppai; itthiyāo puṇa pāeṇa tucchāo gārava-bahulāo cal'indiyāo dubbaladhiīo. ao eyāsiṃ je aises' ajjhayaṇā Aruṇovavāya-Nisīha-m-āiṇo Diṭṭhivao ya, te na dijjanti! tattha “tucchā” nāma puvvāvarao vakkhāṇe asamatthā, “gāra-va-bahulā” ṇāma gavvamantīo tti, “cal'indiyāo” ṇāma indiya-visaya ṇiggahe Bhūyavādaṁ pappa asamatthāo, “dubbala-dhiīo” ṇāma cala-cittāo, iti mā taṃ suyaṇāṇa-laddhiṃ uvajīvissanti. ao tesiṃ aises'ajjhayaṇāṇi vārijjanti tti.

"Now will be taught Angapraviṣṭa and Angabāhira. Angapraviṣṭa is (the Angas from) Ācāra to Dṛṣṭivāda; non-Angapraviṣṭa is Āvaśyaka and non-Āvaśyaka. The Āvaśyaka begins with the Sāmāyika and ends with the Pratyākhyāna; non-Avaśyaka is kālika (to be studied during regular study hours) and utkālika (to be studied outside regular study hours). Of these, utkālika is a plurality (of texts), viz. Daśavaikālika, Kalpikākalpika and so on; kālika, too, is a plurality (of texts), viz. Uttarādhyayana etc.

Here the pupil raises the following objection:'The Dṛṣṭivāda contains the totality of speech (i.e. all that has ever been, or can ever be, expressed in words), therefore it would have been appropriate (for the Jina) to teach that alone.' The Ācārya answers: 'That is quite right; yet the rest (of the sacred texts, the Śrutajñāna), is taught for the sake of the dull-headed, the short-lived, the women, etc.' In this (enumeration), there are many dull-headed people who are unable to study the Dṛṣṭivāda; for the short lived the life-time would not suffice; and women are as a rule empty, given to haughtiness, sensual and inconstant; therefore the Pre-eminent Texts ^[7] such as Aruṇovavāya, Ṇisīha etc., and Dṛṣṭivāda are withheld from them. Here 'empty' means: unable to interpret [3|4] coherently; 'given to haughtiness' means: arrogant; 'sensual' means: unable to restrain sensual passions in connection with the Bhūtavāda; ^[8] 'inconstant' means: fickle-minded; therefore they shall not profit from obtaining that (part of) Śrutajñāna. For this reason the Pre-eminent Texts are forbidden to them.”

The above passage is versified by Jinabhadra in the two stanzas Viśeṣāvaśyakabhāṣya 551f. and expatiated upon by Maladhārī Hemacandra as follows:

… Pūrvāṇy abhidhīyante, teṣu ca niḥśeṣaṃ api vāṅmayam avatarati; ataś caturdaśa-pūrvātmakaṃ dvādaśam evāngam astu, kiṃ śeṣānga-viracanena angabāhya-śruta-racanena vā? ity āśankhyāha:

jai vi ya Bhūyāvāe savvassa vaomayassa oyāro,

nijjūhaṇā tahā vi hu dummehe pappa itthī ya. 551.

aśeṣa-viśeṣānvitasya samagra-vastu-stomasya bhūtasya, sadbhūtasya, vādo, bhaṇanaṃ, yatrāsau Bhutavādaḥ; athavā: anugatavyāvṛttāpariśeṣa-dharma-kalā-pānvitānāṃ sabheda-prabhedānāṃ bhutānāṃ, prāṇināṃ, vādo yatrāsau Bhūtavādo, Dṛṣṭivādaḥ; dīrghatvaṃ ca takārasyārṣatvāt, tatra yady api Dṛṣṭivāde sarvasyāpi vāṅmayasyāvatāro 'sti tathāpi durmedhasāṃ, tad-avadhāraṇādy-ayogyānāṃ manda-matīnaṃ, tathā śrāvakādīnāṃ strīṇāṃ cānugrahārthaṃ niryūhanā, viracanā, śeṣa-śrutasya.

nanu strīṇāṃ Dṛṣṭivādaḥ kim iti na dīyate? ity āha:

tucchā gārava bahulā cal'indiyā dubbalā dhiīe ya

iya aises'ajjhayaṇā Bhūyāvāo ya no 'tthīṇaṃ. 552.

yadi hi Dṛṣṭivādaḥ striyāḥ katham api dīyeta, tadā tucchādi-svabhāvatayā 'aho ahaṃ, yā Dṛṣṭivādam api paṭhāmi!' ity evaṃ garvādhmāta-mānasāsau puruṣa-paribhavādiṣv api pravṛttiṃ vidhāya durgatim abhigacchet. ato niravadhi kṛpā-nīra-nīradhibhiḥ parānugraha-pravṛttair bhagavadbhis tīrtha-karair Utthāna-Samutthāna-śrutādiny atiśayavanty adhyayanāni Dṛṣṭivādaś ca strīṇāṃ nānujñātaḥ. anugrahārthaṃ punas tāsām api kincic chrutaṃ deyaṃ ity ekādaśāngādi viracanaṃ saphalam.

The passages quoted here might at first sight suggest that at the time of their composition the Dṛṣṭivāda still was a regular object of study for ableminded males; a more attentive reading will soon make it clear that on the [4|5] contrary they merely testify to a firmly established if somewhat naive belief that “the Dṛṣṭivāda contains everything” - a belief obviously betraying complete ignorance of the real contents of the long-lost text and, on the other hand, conveniently permitting to derive from “the Dṛṣṭivāda” or “the Pūrvas” any text or subject which it was desired to invest with canonical dignity. I know of no other passage where the universality of contents of the Dṛṣṭivāda is claimed so openly and so bluntly. And this bluntness and naivety is no doubt the reason why, significantly, the great Haribhadra in his Āvaśyaka Ṭīkā omits our passage altogether: as in many other cases, he eliminates what he feels to be obsolete or what does not come up to his more exacting standard of refined scholarship; he may also have been reluctant to reproduce the somewhat scathing remarks about women. For the modern scholar, just what led him to reject the passage is apt to enhance its interest [5].