On the Purvas 1

BY

P. C. BAGCHI, M.A., D.Litt. (Paris)

§ 1. Introductory.-All who are interested in the study of Jainism are well acquainted with the opinions of such pioneer workers as Barth, Weber and Lassen who maintained that Jainism was nothing but an offshoot of Buddhism. They went so far as to emphasise that valid inferences could not be drawn from the sacred books of the Jainas as these were reduced to writing as late as the 5th century A. D. The fruitful investigations of Jacobi, Bühler and Hoernle, later on, dispelled all such illusions and definitely established that Jainism was not only of independent growth but also that its founder was an elder contemporary of Gautama Buddha. Jacobi put forward definite proofs of the authenticity of the Jaina literature and relegated it to a date as early as the 3rd century B. C. Besides these he indicated that there were some earlier works-called the purvas, which can be dated even prior to the angas which represent the earlier portion of the existing Jaina canon. The object of the present paper is to see whether any clearer lights can be thrown on these purvas.

§ 2. The traditional accounts are unanimous in maintaining that the purvas constituted an earlier literature and that they were fourteen in number. Regarding their loss the tradition gives us a long story and this may be summed up thus-As soon as the eleven Angas were collected in the Council of Pataliputra, the Sangha felt the necessity of recovering the fourteen purvas also. In order to recover them the Sangha sent two monks to Bhadrabahu who was away in Nepal, as he only was the master of the whole thing then. Bhadrabahu declined to come back to back to Pataliputra

This paper was read before the Section of Religion of the Second Oriental Conference held in Calcutta in January, 1922.

as he had undertaken a twelve years' vow and promised to teach the purvas after that period was over. The Sangha

was not however satisfied and threatened him with "excommunication." Bhadrabahu found no other alternative than to submit and agreed to teach the purvas to a selected number of monks. Five hundred monks along with Sthulabhadra were sent but all of them except the latter fell off, being tired of the slowness of the progress.

Sthulabhadra succeeded in mastering the first ten purvas at the end of a period of 12 years, when he was declared unworthy of being taught the remaining four as he had then indulged in showing miracle, to his sisters. Through the intervention of the whole Sangha, however, Bhadrabahu taught him the rest of the purvas on condition that he would not teach them to anybody else. Sthulabhadra in his turn, therefore, could not teach the last four purvas to his two disciples Mahagiri and Suhastin.

§ 3. The traditions examined. Now the questions which suggest themselves are-(1) whether the 14 pūrvas really existed and constituted an earlier canon, as the traditions would unanimously have us believe, and (2) had they existed what it is that ultimately led to their disappearance. Is there anything historical in this traditional account of their loss or is it merely a fiction contrived to supply justification for the negligence on the part of Sthulabhadra through which the last four purvas fell into disuetude.

The real existence of the purvas at one time can in no way be questioned as we still meet with a detailed list of their contents both in the 4th anga, the Samavayanga and the Nandisūtra. Their names as enumerated are-(1) Utpādapūrva, (2) Agrāyaṇiyapūrva, (3) Viryapravādapūrva, (4) Astināstipravādapūrva, (5) Jñānapravādapūrva, (6) Satyapravādapūrva, (7) Ātmapravādapūrva, (8) Karmapravādapūrva, (9) Pratyākhyānapravādapūrva, (10) Vidyānupravādapūrva, (11) Kalyānapūrva, (12) Prāṇāvāyapūrva, (13) Kriyāviśālapūrva,

(14) Lokavindusārapūrva. Further, it is stated that each of the purvas consisted of chapters technically known as vastus or topics. From the short description of the subjectmatter under each head they appear to have been discourses on various topics, both philosophical and ethical, of an elementary character.

This account of the purvas cannot however be considered as a fraud for supplying the Jain doctrines with an older authority as no Jaina tradition claims to maintain that angas were derived from them. Rather in opposition they are known to have been co-existent with the purvas from the time of the first Tirthamkara. "As a fraud," therefore, as Jacobi rightly points out, "the tradition about the purvas would be unintelligible but accepted as truth it well falls in with our views about the development of the Jain literature."

The next question to be considered is whether these purvas constituted an earlier canon and if so what is their position relative to the angas. That they formed an earlier canon appears to be extremely probable for reasons not far to seek. These are

(1) The very title purva which means "earlier" points to this. It is besides confirmed by an independent tradition which records that Mahavira first recited to his ganadharas the contents of the purvagatasutras (pārvas) whereupon the ganadharas in their turn brought the contents of these into the form of angas, āchāras, etc.

(2) The Bhagavati-Sutra records that among the disciples of Makkhali Gośāla, the Ajivika leader, there were six who were called the Disacaras. They created an Ājīvika canon consisting of eight mahānimittas and two maggas. It is furthermore stated that "this literature sprang out of the extracts made by the Disacaras according to their own ideas from the purvas and that Gosala derived the six characteristic features of the organic world therefrom." That these purvas are the same as those under consideration, there can be no

doubt. One of the earliest inscriptions of Sravana Belgola tells us that Bhadrabahusvamin possessed a thorough knowledge of the astanga-mahanimittas. Attention has already been drawn to the tradition that this Bhadrabahusvamin was the last Ganadhara who possessed a thorough knowledge of the fourteen purvas. There can be no wonder, therefore, if those eight mahānimittas were extracts from the fourteen purvas of the Jainas. Dr. B. M. Barua in his monograph on the Ajivika conclusively shows that Makkhali Gosāla, the founder of Ajivikism was an elder contemporary of Mahāvīra and the latter passed six years of his earlier religious career with him. It is quite clear therefore that those works, viz., the pūrvas, the extracts of which were accepted by Makkhali Gosāla as forming the Ajivika canon, cannot but be very ancient.

(3) We must, furthermore, take into consideration as Dr. Leumann points out, that the old accounts on the rise of the Jaina schisms clearly mention only the purvas and not the angas. This is quite a remarkable fact and unmistakably shows the precedence of these purvas over the angas.

The tradition therefore appears to be substantially correct in relegating these purvas to an earlier date. But the inclusion of these purvas in the twelfth Anga called the Driṣṭivada led Weber to disbelieve in their antiquity. We have however tried to show elsewhere that the purvas came to be associated with the twelfth anga later on. This association can in no way help us in assigning to the purvas a late origin.

§ 4. The causes of their disappearance. All the traditions agree in saying that the fourteen purvas which Mahavira is said to have transmitted to all his disciples were preserved intact for six generations longer after Sudharman and Jambusvamin who succeeded to the patriarchate one after another after the master's demise. We are therefore to understand

Mahagiri, Suhastin. Susthita, Indradinna, Sudinna, Simhagiri, and Vajrasvamin.

that none of these fourteen purvas were lost during the terms of the next six patriarchs and all had existed till the time of Prabhava Sayyambhava, Yasobhadra, Sambhutivijaya, Bhadrabahu and Sthulabhadra. They are always called cauddasa-puvvi or caturdasapurvadhārin. With Sthulabhadra, however, as already pointed out, the knowledge of the 4 last purvas (11-14) completely ceased. The next seven patriarchs are known as dasapuvvi, i.e., those who possessed the knowledge of ten purvas only. Vajrasvamin was the last of the dasapurvis. From his time onwards the knowledge of the purvas decreased gradually. In the Anuyogadvaratatva and also in the Bhagavati we find mention also of navapurvi. By a similar process the remain. ing purvas were gradually lost and in the time of Devardhiganin in 980 A. V. (5th century A. D.), only one pūrva is said to have remained which also was lost within a few years In other words, the loss of all the fourteen pūrvas was complete by 100 A. D., i. e., towards the last quarter of the 5th century A. D.

more.

The most significant point regarding the loss of the pūrvas appear to be this that the knowledge of them began to decrease from the time of Sthulabhadra onwards. The decay of these purvas therefore seems to bave been coeval with the collection and systematization of the eleven angas which took place through the intervention of Sthulabhadra in the Council of Pataliputra. This was surely not an accident and signifies, in the opinion of Jacobi, the suppression of an earlier canon by a new one. Now what it is that necessitated the abolition of this old canon and the construction of a new one. The purvas appear to Jacobi to have dealt chiefly with the dristis or the philosophical opinions of the Jains and other sects. "It may be thence inferred," says he, "that the purvas related controversies held between Mahāvīra and rival teachers. The title pravāda which is added to the