What Were Thecontents Of Drstivada

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided text regarding the contents of the Drṣṭivāda:

The article by L. Alsdorf examines the content of the Drṣṭivāda, the twelfth and last Anga (limb) of the Jaina canon, which is unanimously believed by the Jain tradition to have been lost irretrievably at an early date. Despite its loss, the tradition provides surprisingly detailed information about its divisions and contents.

Traditional Claims vs. Scholarly Skepticism:

• Traditional View: The Jain tradition, both Svetambara and Digambara, claims that various later texts, such as the Karmagranthas and the "Siddhanta" texts (Śākaṇḍāgama and Kaṣāyaprahṛta), are based on or derived from the Drṣṭivāda. Some scholars like Hiralal Jain and A. N. Upadhye initially supported these claims, suggesting that the Mudbidri texts might represent surviving fragments of the lost Purvas (sections of the Angas). They attributed the loss of these Purvas to the intricacy and technical nature of their subject matter, particularly the Karma doctrine, which made them difficult to study and thus led to their eventual decline in readership.

• Alsdorf's Skepticism: Alsdorf expresses strong reservations about these arguments. He contends that the intricacy and technicality of these later texts are actually indicators of later scholasticism, not high antiquity. He points out that the Svetambara Karmagranthas, which are equally intricate, remained accessible and studied, contradicting the idea that complexity alone led to the loss of the Drṣṭivāda.

Evidence of Early Loss and a "Belief in Universality":

• Avasyaka Curni Passage: Alsdorf highlights a previously unnoticed passage in the Āvaśyaka Cūrṇi, an early medieval Jain scholarly source. This passage reveals a dialogue between a disciple and an Ācārya that offers crucial insights into the understanding of the Drṣṭivāda's contents at that time.

  • Disciple's Objection: The disciple questions why the entire sacred knowledge (vacomayam) wasn't contained solely within the Drṣṭivāda, as it was believed to encompass all speech.
  • Ācārya's Explanation: The Ācārya explains that other sacred texts (Angas 1-11) were taught for the benefit of those considered "dull-headed" (dummedha), "short-lived" (appāuya), and "women" (itthiyādi). These groups were deemed incapable of fully comprehending or appreciating the profound and challenging material of the Drṣṭivāda, including specific texts like Arunovavāya and Nisiha. The reasons cited for withholding the Drṣṭivāda from women include their alleged "emptiness" (tuccha - unable to interpret coherently), "haughtiness" (gārava-bahulā - arrogant), "sensual nature" (indiyā - unable to restrain sensual passions), and "inconstancy" (dubbala-dhilo - fickle-minded).

• Interpretation of the Passage: Alsdorf argues that this passage, and its later versification and commentary by Jinabhadra and Hemacandra, doesn't necessarily prove the Drṣṭivāda was still actively studied by capable males at the time of its composition. Instead, it signifies a firmly established, albeit naive, belief that "the Drṣṭivāda contains everything." This belief, Alsdorf suggests, arose from a complete ignorance of the text's actual contents and served as a convenient way to attribute canonical dignity to any text or subject by claiming it was derived from the Drṣṭivāda or the Purvas.

• Haribhadra's Omission: Alsdorf notes that the prominent scholar Haribhadra omits this passage from his commentary on the Āvaśyaka. He speculates that Haribhadra, with his more refined scholarly standards, may have found the passage obsolete, lacking in rigor, or perhaps even objectionable due to its disparaging remarks about women. For the modern scholar, however, this omission paradoxically enhances the passage's interest by highlighting the very aspects Alsdorf finds significant: the naive belief and potential biases surrounding the lost text.

Conclusion:

Alsdorf's analysis suggests that while the Jain tradition preserved detailed claims about the Drṣṭivāda's contents, these claims likely stemmed from a belief in its all-encompassing nature rather than direct knowledge. The early loss of the Drṣṭivāda meant that its actual content became a subject of speculation and was used to legitimize later texts. The passages discussed, particularly from the Āvaśyaka Cūrṇi, indicate that by the early medieval period, the text was largely inaccessible, and its perceived universality was a more prominent feature than its specific teachings.