Who is Author of Pancasutra Cirantanacarya or Yakinisunu Haribhadra

Author(s): Shilchandrasuri
Publisher: Z_Nirgranth_Aetihasik_Lekh_Samucchay_Part_1_002105.pdf and Nirgranth_Aetihasik_Lekh_Samucchay_Part_2
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/269044/1

Page #1

Who is The Author of the Pañcasūtra : Cirantanācārya or Yākinisūnu Haribhadra ?
Acārya Vijayaśīlacandra sūri
The Pañcasūtra is a concise treatise enjoying considerable respect among the Svetambara Jaina munis for several centuries past. It contains an essential spiritual experience and systematic presentation of the matter meant for the sublimation of soul and purification of mind. It is charmingly composed in succinct, elegant, and meaningful sūtras in Prakrit. Despite its small size, it enjoys popularity to an appreciable degree.
Acarya Haribhadra suri has also written a terse, well-composed, and facile commentary on this small work, of which several editions have appeared in print. Its critical edition, however, has been only recently published by the B. L. Institute of Indology, Delhi, competently edited by Munirāja Jambüvijaya1.
Up to this date, no reference as to its author has been encountered in existing sources. In point of fact, no one has tried to investigate it. On the contrary, all so far have accepted the authenticity of the traditionally floating information that some Cirantanācārya has composed this work. The trem 'Cirantanācārya' has two plausible explanations: First, cirantana means ancient (and hence the work by some ancient ācārya): Second, it may mean the appellation proper of the ācārya who composed it. Out of these two views, the former view has been universally accepted.
Indeed, few critical discussions about the authorship of this treatise have been done; yet all contemporary writers on it concluded: The author of this work is unknown. Let us first notice these opinions.

Page #2

184
Ācārya Vijayaśīlacandrasuri
Jambu-jyoti
1. In his introduction to the Pancasūtra, V. M. Shah offers two views :
(1) It is composed accordingly by faltand meaning ancient preceptors or preceptor having the name form. The first meaning is more likely. It is difficult to assign individual authorship to works like this.
(2) The term feletter is unhelpful in deciding the authorship. The plural form can be used out of respect (mānärthe bahuvacanam) for the author. At the same time, it is very likely that ancient authors might have composed the sūtras and Haribhadra sūri might have put them together3.
2. Writes K. V. Abhyankar : "The Pañcasütra which is a small elegant treatise written by some old writer whose name has still remained unknown."
3. A. N. Upadhye categorically records : "It is not possible to talk of [an] individual authorship with regard to works like [the] Pañcasūtra. The basic contents of this book are as old as Jainism. They are a literary heirloom preserved in the memory of Jain monks."
4. And the considered opinion of V. M. Kulkarni is :
* The language of the post-canonical Jaina works is partly Prakritthe so-called Jaina Māhārāstrī—and partly Sanskrit.' (M. Winternitz). The language of the known Prakrit works of Haribhadra is Jaina Māhārāstrī whereas the present work is written in Ardhamāgadhi prose; and this prose shares quite a few peculiarities of the diction and style of the canonical works. This fact suggests that Acārya Haribhadra was possibly not its author. It is not unlikely that the author of [the] Pañcasūtra regarded the contents of the text as the property of the entire Jain Samgha and preferred to remain anonymous. It is also suggestive of its early date of composition. How early it is difficult to say. Since Haribhadra does not know who its author was we may not be far wrong in saying that it was composed about a century or so before Ācārya Haribhadra flourished."6
The gist of the aforementioned four opinions is this: these unanimously proclaim that Acārya Haribhadra sūri is not the author of the Pañcasūtra. Besides this, Munirāja Jambūvijaya, the editor of the dependable critical edition of the Pañcasútra, is inclined to opine that Acārya Haribhadra suri

Page #3

Who is The Author of the....
185
probably may be the author of the Pancasūtra. Inspite of this sensing, in the absence of definite evidence, Munivara Jambūvijaya did not commit to any positive statement but conceded to the tradition, and prefixed the title of the work with the phrase
f arfare?
It should, however, be clear that, as against this established tradition and the opinions of the aforenoted scholars, the author of the Pancasūtra is definitely Haribhadra sūri himself, indeed to the total exclusion of any other more ancient author. To corroborate my statement, I shall produce evidence searched out by critically examining some internal and external aspects of the text of the Pancasūtra.
1. There are three significant sentences at the end of the commentary of the Pancasūtra : 554145145 HHHH ID 4944FCT HAAT II HR STYLE
andsf9811
Among these, the third sentence deserves special consideration. It comes from the pen of the commentator and therefore implicitly written to mean समाप्तं पञ्चसूत्रकं व्याख्यानत: Had the commentator and the author of the Pancasūtra been different, the phrase in question, ought to have been in the form समाप्ता पञ्चसूत्रकवृत्तिः', while here it is समाप्तं पञ्चसूत्रकं व्याख्यानतोऽपि' and the last word of the phrase, 314, holds a suggestive significace. The term 379 implies that the Pancasūtra has been completed in the sense of "together with the commentary." If af9 is deleted from this sentence, it would mean that the Pañcasūtra is completed 'in the form of commentary.' The addition of only one word 'af' changed the entire contextual meaning. This would then suggest that, had the commentator and the author of the Sūtra been different individuals, such a phrasing would never have been possible. Now, who the commentator was, is of course quite certain. And, therefore, in light of the aforenoted phrasing, if we regard him as the author also of the Sūtra, it would be thoroughly compatible.
Predictably, some scholar may say: 'At the end of the original text, the author of the text has employed the sentence 'Haia daging to indicate the completion of the original text. In the same way, in the continuation of that sentence, the commentator has employed this sentence to indicate the completion of the commentary and, therefore, it is not proper to connect the latter with the original text and hence to its unknown author.' By way of response to this objection, it may be said : If the argument referred to in

Page #4

186
Acārya Vijayaśīlacandrasuri
Jambu-jyoti
the preceding paragraph may be valid, the commentator would have put either 'समाप्तं पञ्चसूत्रकं व्याख्यानतः' or the sentence 'समाप्ता पञ्चसूत्रकवृत्ति. And this could then be regarded as a proper ending. Moreover, after this, there is a positively independent sentence TTECCICHT WHIHTO, which has been written by the commentator. As a result of this phrase, the whole contextual reference of the sentence समाप्त पञ्चसूत्रकं व्याख्यानतोऽपि, is altogether changed and this sentence written by the commentator himself, clearly establishes the oneness of the commentator and the author of the original text. Nevertheless, with reference to the points to be later discussed, if we critically consider this matter, the doubt, it any still remains, will be cleared.
Second, had the original author employed the phrase A4T 4396, it would imply the completion of the 1997 and not the KFC; but the commentator writes 4914 911. Elsewhere also in the commentary, the commentator recognises this composition definitely as 12. Is it possible for a master commentator like Haribhadra sūri to take liberty of this kind with the phrase employed by the original author at the end of the original text.? And, can such a liberty be deemed proper or in the fitness of things ? On the contrary, an ancient commentator like Haribhadra süri would proceed in his commentary remaining thoroughly faithful to each and every word of the original author and on this very account an inference can be advanced that, had the commentator been the original author of the text, he would make any desired addition in the matter of the original text. From this standpoint, if he himself had coined the title 450T for the original text, then alone in the commentary (and at the end of the commentary) he would employ the appellative term " Fr . 2. After the sentence wird u
einisfy, the commentator had also put some devotional sentences : "78: cart and I 7420 1227 नमः । सर्ववन्दनार्हान् वन्दे । सर्वोपकारिणामिच्छामो वैयावृत्यम् । सार्वानुभावादौचित्येन मे धर्मे प्रवृत्तिर्भवतु । ad heal: fas: Hg, vd Heal: yført: HT, Hd Hrai: Afat: Fra 1113
It has been an established tradition of the commentators that their dutiful work is to provide word by word elucidation of the matter discussed by either the original author or the 2016. When their work is finished, the commentators end the text after writing either a verse or verses or some prose lines indicating the completion of the treatise. But, thereafter, the commentators never made any addition of their own to the commentary.

Page #5

Who is The Author of the....
187
Even Ācārya Haribhadra süri has not taken such a liberty in the commentaries on his own works, the Yogadrstisamuccaya and the Pañcavastuka or for that matter in the commentary of the text the Sodaśaprakarana. Other great commentators also have not taken such a liberty. From this we may get an idea of the established convention as indicated above.
Quite contrary to this established tradition, after the completion of the commentary of the Pañcasutra, Haribhadrācārya has put nearly six sentences : Granted that they are in Sanskrit, but they have been inserted in such a way that they can be ranked with the originalsūtras. If these sentences are compared with the sentences 41
a n oTu14 etc. in the final 15th prose section of the first face of the Pancasūtra barring the difference of language--the Sūtra text being in Prakrit, the commentary in Sanskrit there is no difference at all in the style and presentation of the two. Further, with reference to this, the sentences, सर्वनमस्काराहेभ्यो नम:15 and सर्वे सत्त्वाः सुखिनः
16 (repeated three times] incorporated in the prose section of the commentary, positively appear to be the respective reflections of the sentences 41 H (here, had it been 75, it would appear more consistent and more pleasing) नमोक्कारारिहाणं7, and सुहिणो भवंतु जीवा18 found in the prose section of the original text.
The aforementioned situation clearly, indeed positively, leads us to believe, indeed on firm grounds, that Haribhadra suri is also the author of the Sūtra text and for that very reason, during the process of repeatedly experiencing the devotionally emotionalised moments, he might have incorporated this small prose section in the commentary. It does not sound superfluous when he says that. He would not have taken such a liberty had he been just the commentator and not the author of the original text.
3. The great epistemologist Yaśovijaya Gani of the 17th century, on whom was bestowed upon the title f 45, at the time of referring to the Pañcasūtra in the 447271, includes the following phrases :
पापप्रतिघातगुणबीजाधानसूत्रे हरिभद्रसूरिभिरप्येतद्भव-सम्बन्धि भवान्तरसम्बन्धि वा पापं यत्तत्पदाभ्यां परामृश्य मिथ्यादुष्कृतप्रायश्चित्तेन विशोधनीयमित्युक्तम् । तथा हि "सरणमुवगओ अ एएसिं.....इत्थ fogÇERS 3"1119

Page #6

188
Acārya Vijayaśīlacandrasuri
Jambu-jyoti
Having considered the sins committed either in this birth or in the past existences, by the term TT-TT, Haribhadra sūri also has stated to undergo the expiatory purification in the form of f 1Gop. After having stated this, he has inserted a prose section of the first sūtra of the Pancasūtra and thereafter Upādhyāya Yaśovijaya has offered its explanation in his own style.
In the aforementioned Sanskrit sentences, Yasovijaya clearly has stated araufragrautserta slefusuffers, but not fequuntaat or THECT. This is a noteworthy point. This indicates that Yasovijaya may have possessed some credible tradition wherefrom a clear conviction of attributing the authorship of the Pancasūtra with assuredness to Haribhadra sūri could be had. Otherwise, without the tradition before him, he could not have believed it nor would he have employed such a definitive sentence With reference to such minor matters, we may take a single example of his rational vigilance. The at Soh is also a product of Haribhadra sūri, and Yaśovijaya wrote a commentary upon that work as well. Therein, in the last 915914, there are 17 verses instead of 16. In the 17th verse, there is a clear indication of the author's name as con 7 EU420. From this statement we can naturally conclude that only Haribhadra sūri is the author of that verse and, by extension, of the disch {UT. But, in the mind of Yaśovijaya, there might have arisen another optional thought about this 17th verse, on account of which, at the end of the commentary on that verse, he has inserted a sentence as 'fgroep 7448 1721. From only this much context, it can be understood that it was not possible for him to put the sentence 979.......... SERUETU according to blind following. He had a firm conviction that the author of the Pañcasūtra is Haribhadra sūri and for that reason he has employed such a phrase. From this testimony, too, it can be deduced that Haribhadra sūri is the author of the Pañcasūtra.
4. Taric, 1940, 38, asylch, fafylait, 1 -such titles available in the domain of Jaina literature are thanks to the special predilection of naming the works; it is, moreover, characteristic of Haribhadra süri alone. Any other author might have entitled the work as पञ्चसूत्र or पञ्चसूत्री. The name पञ्चसूत्रक may flash in the understanding of only Haribhadra sūri. While offering guidance regarding the etymological interpretation of the term FC, Muniraja Jambūvijaya has observed as under : "The title of the work written by Ācārya Haribhadra sūri is 434

Page #7

Who is The Author of the....
in the practical convention, still he has given as a title for it and he has shown its etymological interpretation in the same, refer to page No. 80, foot note No. 5 in this very work. The etymological interpretation and the meaning of the term ч should be understood in the same way."22 This perceptive observation lends a positive encouragement to my above arrived deduction that such topical appellations characteristically were designed by Haribhadrācārya.
5. The more important on the score of procedure will be to scrutinize the significant words, phrases, clauses, and sentences available in other works composed by Haribhadra sūri and those paralleled in the Pañcasūtra. Let us institute a comparison of some of the portions of the T with those of other works such as the विंशतिविंशिका, the धर्मबिन्दु, the योगदृष्टिसमुच्चय, and the षोडशक, all by Haribhadra sūri.
[1] In the fourth sūtra of the पञ्चसूत्रक, there appears a phrase व्याधितसुकियाज्ञात, it is as follows :
189
'वाहियसुकिरियानाएणं, से जहा केइ महावाहिगहिए, अणुभूयतव्वेयणे विष्णाया सरूवेण, निव्विण्णे तत्तओ, सुवेज्जवयणेण सम्मं तमवगच्छिय जहाविहाणओ पवने सुकिरियं, निरुद्धजहिच्छाचारे, तुच्छपत्थभोई मुच्चमाणे वाहिणा नियत्तमाणवेयणे समुवलब्भारोग्गं पवड्ढमाणतब्भावे, तल्लाभनिव्वुईए तप्पडिबंधाओ सिराखाराइजोगे वि वाहिसमारोग्गविण्णाणेण इट्ठनिष्पत्तीओ अणाकुलभावयाए किरिओवओगेण, अपीडिए, अव्वहिए, सुहलेस्साए वड्ढइ, वेज्जं च बहु मन्नइ' 23 etc.
This very व्याधितसुक्रियाज्ञात is to be met with in the verses of the 12th विंशिका of the विंशतिर्विशिका, in a slightly different phraseology and context :
'नो आउरस्स रोगो नासर तह ओसहसुईओ ॥ १२ ॥ न य विवरीएणेसो किरियाजोगेण अवि य वड्ढेइ । इय परिणामाओ खलु सव्वं खु जहुत्तमायरइ ॥ १३॥ थेवोऽवित्थमजोगो नियमेण विवागदारुणो होइ । पाकिरियागओ जह, नायमिणं सुप्पसिद्धं तु ॥१४॥

जह आउरस्स रोगक्खयत्थिणो दुक्करा वि सुहहेउ । इत्थ चिगिच्छाकिरिया तह चेव जइस्स सिक्खति ॥ १५॥24
And this very fact is more clearly discernible in the 16th verse of the 12th षोडशक :

Page #8

190
Ācārya Vijayaśīlacandrasuri
Jambu-jyoti
"व्याध्यभिभूतो यद्वन्निविण्णस्तेन तत्क्रियां यत्नात् ।
सम्यक्करोति तद्वद् दीक्षित इह साधुसच्चेष्टाम् ।।25 [2] In the fourth sūtra of the Pancasūtra, a group of sentences occurs as undernoted :
'से समलेमृकंचणे समसत्तुमिते नियत्तग्गहदुक्खे, पसमसुहसमेए सम्मं सिक्खमाइयइ, गुरुकुलवासी, गुरुपडिबद्धे, विणीए, भूयत्थदरिसी, न इओ हियतरं ति मनाइ, सुस्सूसाइगुणजुत्ते तत्ताभिनिवेसा विहिपरे परममंतो त्ति अहिज्जइ सुत्तं ।।26
The verses of the 12th fairiahi, partly bearing verbal similarity and reverberating the significance of those sentences are as follows:
'इत्थ वि होदइगसुहं तत्तो एवोपसमसुहं ॥४॥ सिक्खादुगंमि पीई जह जायइ हंदि समणसीहस्स। तह चक्कवट्टिणो वि हु नियमेण न जाउ नियकिच्चे ॥५॥ गिण्हइ विहिणा सत्तं भावेण परममंतरूव त्ति ॥27
[3] In the fourth sutra of the Pancasutraka, there are sentences 'आयओ गुरुबहुमाणो अवंझकारणत्तेण । अओ परमगुरुसंजोगो । तओ सिद्धी असंसयं ।'28 Now, the following verse of the second 15#15 bears complete similarity with the above sentences :
गुरुपारतन्त्र्यमेव च तद् बहुमानात् सदाशयानुगतम्।
परमगुरुप्राप्तेरिह बीजं तस्माच्च मोक्ष इति ॥१०॥29 The significant point here is that the phrase 3709 Ruto appearing in the text of the Pancasutra has been explained as मोक्षं प्रत्यप्रतिबद्धसामर्थ्यहेतुत्वेन30 in its commentary and the phrase सदाशयानुगतं appearing in the verse of षोडशक has been also explained as सदाशयः संसारक्षयहेतुर्गरुरयं ममेत्येवंभूत: कुशलपरिणामस्तेनानगतं गुरुपारतन्त्र्यं31 by its commentators. On this account, not only the verbal agreement but also the similarity of the reading of these two separate treatises becomes evident.
___ [4] 'निदंसणमेत्तं तु नवरं - सव्वसत्तुक्खए सव्ववाहिविगमे सव्वत्थसंजोगेणं सव्विच्छासंपत्तीए जारिसमेयं एत्तोऽणंतगुणं खुतं, भावसत्तुक्खयादितो। रागादयो भावसत्तू, कम्मोदया वाहिणो, परमलद्धीओ उ अत्था, अणिच्छेच्छा इच्छा। एवं सुहुममेयं, न तत्तओ इयरेण गम्मइ, जइसुहमिवाजइणा, आरुग्गसुहं व रोगिण fa fa TT 11'32 (In the fifth sūtra of the Pancasūtra)
जं सव्वसत्तु तह सव्ववाहि सव्वत्थ सव्वमिच्छाणं । खय-विगम-जोग-पत्तीहि होइ तत्तो अणंतमिणं ॥३॥ रागाईया सत्तू कम्मुदया वाहिणो इहं नेया। लद्धीओ परमत्था इच्छाऽणिच्छेच्छमो य तहा ॥४॥

Page #9

Who is The Author of the....
191
अणुहवसिद्धं एवं नारुग्गसुहं व रोगिणो नवरं। गम्मइ इयरेण तहा सम्ममिणं चिंतियव्वं तु ।।५।।33 (20th fafara)
How striking is the correspondence between the two aforementioned references, the first lying in the fifth sutra of the Pancasūtra and the second in the verses of the 20th factory$1.
[5] In the same way, the sentence of the fifth sutra ty tn furuar अणंता34 can be compared with the sentence जत्थ य एगो सिद्धो तत्थ अणंता35 of the verse 18th of the 20th fafica.
[6] Also, there is a sentence in the fifth sūtra of the Pañcasūtra as 7 taş36. This is powerful and regulatively assuming the form of an argument, and as it can be easily compatible in different references, it can be employed there. And, for this very reason, in the 19th verse the of 20th fach, Haribhadra sūri has employed this very argumentative sentence as below:- Ha a 561 U 515 T unas 137
Here, the reading, which has been traditionally accepted everywhere and which has been incorporated by Abhyankar in the fayfalaffront edited by him, is as below :- a stat a 313 4711 valyaş 138 This reading appears to be faulty after considering the method of the employment of the sentence 'न सत्ता सदंतरमुवेई in the Paricasutra. सत्ता might have been transformed into सन्ना through the mistake of the scribe or it is possible that it might have been incorrectly read and the reading 24 al also positively appears in some manuscripts. Therefore, the very sentence 711 7 inchas appears appropriate and consistent in meaning: and from all these considerations, it per se becomes an established truth, indeed beyond any doubt, that the author of the fafrict and the SE is one and the same person.
[7] The discussion, which is carried on in the following sentences of the fifth sūtra of Pañcasūtra - offGaal 374 U GT HOT HESIT णिवित्ती। ण निवित्तीए आयद्वाणं । ण यण्णहा तस्सेसा । यह भव्वत्ततल्ला णाएणं । ण केवलजीवरूवमेयं ।'39 etc. is the same in a slightly differing manner in the following verses of the second fafgan, namely Oshifafya.
'जह भव्वत्तमकयगं न य निच्चं एव किं न बंधोऽवि? । किरियाफलजोगो जं एसो ता न खल एवं ति ॥१४॥

Page #10

192
Acărya Vijayaśīlacandrasuri
Jambu-jyoti
भव्वत्तं पुणमकयगमणिच्चमो चेव तहसहावाओ। जह कयगोऽवि हु मुक्खो निच्चोऽवि य भाववइचित्तं ।।१५।। एवं चेव यऽदिक्खा (दिदिक्खा) भवबीजं वासणा अविज्जा य । सहजमलसद्दवच्चं वन्निज्जइ मुक्खवाईहिं ।।१६।। 40
[8] In the same way, we find the very rational annotation of the sentences-अणाइजीवे अणादिजीवस्स भवे, अणादिकम्मसंजोगणिव्वत्तिए41 in the first sutra and अणाइमं बंधो पवाहेणं2 in the fifth sutra, in nearly initial 12 verses43 of the second विशिका.
[9] A free translation of the sentence सुद्धधम्मसंपत्ती पावकम्मविगमाओ, पावकम्मविगमो तहाभव्वत्तादिभावाओ4 of the firstsutra isclearly noticeable in the first verse :
'निच्छयओ पुण एसो जायइ नियमेण परमपरियट्टे। तहभव्वत्तमलक्खयभावा अच्चंतसुद्धत्ति ॥१॥45
of the fourth fafyrch and the first half of the eighth verse, 'pofit सहजमलभावविगमओ सुद्धधम्मसंपत्ती'46 of the selfsame विशिका.
[10] The sentences in the third sutra are as under :
'तओ अणुण्णाए पडिवज्जेज्ज धम्मं । अण्णहा अणुवहे चेवोवहाजुत्ते सिया । धम्माराहणं खु हियं सव्वसत्ताणं । तहा तहेयं संपाडेज्जा । सव्वहा अपडिवज्जमाणे चएज्ज ते अदाणगिलाणोसहत्थचागनाएणं ।'47
Some aphorisms of Haribhadra sūri's mifang may now be compared with those noted above. These are :- तथा-गुरुजनाद्यनुज्ञेति ॥२३।। तथा तथोपधायोग इति ॥२४|| दुःस्वप्नादि कथनमिति ॥२५॥ तथा विपर्ययलिङ्गसेवेति ॥२६।। दैवज्ञैस्तथा तथा निवेदनमिति ॥२७|| न धर्मे मायेति ॥२८॥ उभयहितमेतदिति ॥२९॥ यथाशक्ति सौविहित्यापादनमिति ॥३०॥ ग्लानौषधादिज्ञातात त्याग इति ॥३॥48
The beauty of the situation here is that the translation of certain aphorisms bearing numbers 23, 24, 31 from among the aforementioned is directly met with in the afore-recorded original textual matter, while the sense of the remaining aphorisms is found in the commentary of the Pañcasūtra 49. This fact strongly corroborates the circumstance that Haribhadra sūri positively is the author of the Pancasūtra as well as its commentary.
[11] The context of the two sentences 'ण दिदिक्खा अकरणस्स' and 'ण सहजाए णिवित्ती50' incorporated in the fifth sutra exactly corresponds with the two following verses of योगदृष्टिसमुच्चय :

Page #11

Who is The Author of the....
193
'दिदृक्षाद्यात्मभूतं त-न्मुख्यमस्या निवर्तते । प्रधानादिनतेर्हेतु-स्तदभावान्न तन्नतिः ॥२०॥ अन्यथा स्यादियं नित्य-मेषा च भव उच्यते । va a afirma FP 49: 1170811'51
[12] I guess that the term GET in the Jaina literature is for the first time noticeable in the works of Haribhadra sūri. Out of his works :--
(i)
The term feed is employed in the above-recorded verse, bearing the number 200 of the referencedy.
(ii) The employment of the term frest has been attributed to ancient writers
[Patañjali and so forth according to the commentaryl by incorporating the clause “दिदृक्षादिनिवृत्त्यादिपूर्वसूर्युदितं तथा' in the verse bearing the number
489 of the fag 182 (iii) The term FCERT is again encountered in the phrase 'ga ta fafccer' in
the 16th verse of the 2nd faf , of the fagfafafright. The traditionally famous reading'aa asfal, which has been accepted by Abhyankar is incorrect and inconsistent. Here, if we accept the reading facaal, then alone it sounds appropriate in case of all other situations53,
(iv) The term fcE is employed in the eighth verse of the 15th 4152107 of
the SIGOUGOUT, which is as follows: zema ERGEETHYRICALI Price : 154' Here the term FGEHT does not offer the meaning, which has been attributed to it in other treatises. Here this term is used in the sense of the ti consistently with its etymological interpretation sef409 FE&T. Here we can clearly see how intelligently and consistently a Jainācārya employs the term free, which bears a technical meaning according to the Sănkhya school of philosophy. Yet, the application the term, even when the context is changed, does not seem improper.
It is possible that Haribhadra sūri might have employed this term in his other works also. Now, we have to see whether he has employed the term दिक्षा in the sentence 'ण दिदिक्खा अकरणस्स'55 of the Pancasutra in the same sense in which he has used this term in the aforementioned three works barring the USIC.
[13] The term 4464656 is employed in the fourth sūtra of the Pancasūtra. This appears to be a favourite term of Haribhadra sūri, because it57 appears

Page #12

194
Acārya Vijayasilacandrasuri
Jambū-jyoti
also in the fasiaafrict [8/3], though in a different contextual sense. There it bears the meaning "Adoration conferring all-sided auspiciousness (सर्वमंगलकारिणी पूजा). In the tenth verse of the ninth षोडशक this adoration has been styled fa r , but the commentator Yaśovijaya has suggested that worship to have been published by समंतभद्दा58.
(14) Lastly, let us glance at the sentences in the ending portion of the Pañcasūtra. It has been written in the last aphorism that ' T 37 41 लिंगविवज्जयाओ तप्परिण्णा । तयणुग्गहट्टाए आमकुंभोदगनासनाएणं । एसा करुणत्ति वुच्चइ ।59 et cetera. The sense which is embodied in the above aphorism, appears exactly in the same significance in the concluding portion of the योगदृष्टिसमुच्चय :
'हरिभद्र इदं प्राह नैतेभ्यो देय आदरात् ॥२२६।। अवज्ञेह कृताऽल्पाऽपि यदनाय जायते। अतस्तत्परिहारार्थं न पुनर्भावदोषतः ॥२२७।60
The contents given in these works, if passed to unworthy persons, the persons will become victims in any sort of calamity; therefore, it is a favour to them in not giving them the contents. Such a compassionate attitude, even in different words, can be impartially seen here.
All afore-recorded references unambiguously show that, it is very positively Haribhadra sūri and none else who emerges as the author of the original text of the Pancasūtra. Had it not been so, the content-references of the Pañcasūtra cannot bear similarity with the several corresponding references from the many works-Prakrit as well as Sanskrit of that Acārya to such an extent.
Despite this clear internal evidence, if the view of attributing the authorship of the Pancasūtra to an unknown ancient (
F ri) ācārya or the one by name 'Cirantana' who might have flourished prior to Haribhadra sūri be maintained, we will be forced to accept that Haribhadrācārya might have borrowed verbally as well as sensewise all the above-recorded references from the others' works compared with the references of the Pancasūtra and the contents discussed therein and, simultaneously with this, the originality of Haribhadra sūri observable in the presentation of matter, thoughts, and all of his works would come to nil. A conclusion such as that would amount to doing the gravest injustice to him and to his works.

Page #13

Who is The Author of the....
195
6. Pt. Bechardas Doshi had observed : "From the linguistic point of view, grammarians have given three types of Prakrit : (1) Prakrit that is based upon Sanskrit; (2) Prakrit that is like Sanskrit : (3) Native Prakrit..... The grammar (of Hemacandrācārya) belongs to the first category."61
In consonance with the above-mentioned view, if we examine the language of the original text of the Pañcasūtra, we will be convinced of its being the right time ynga language, observing as it does all the later rules of the Hemacandrīya grammar. The language of the works such as the farifafafyicht and so forth by Haribhadra suri is typologically the same. We can understand this phenomenon after taking into consideration the Prakrit words coming from Sanskrit and those bearing the similarity with Sanskrit, employed by the author, in his works. And the same is the situation with the Pancasūtra. For this very reason, there is no difficulty at all in taking Haribhadra süri as the author of the original text of the Pañcasūtra.
Even though some scholars are led to suppose that the language of the Pancasūtra is not Prakrit (Jaina Mahārāstrī) but is Ardhamāgadhĩ, like the language employed in the ägamas, yet they have not put forward convincing reasons or evidence in corroboration of this supposition. It is possible that, having seen the employment of t in the singular forms of nominative case in construction like pulsata, 4a, R u oafere, gerand,
can0762 etc., those scholars might have been led to stipulate the language of the Pañcasūtra as Ardhamāgadhi. But against it, had they taken into account the 311 unambiguously employed in the Prakrit language in the singular forms of the nominative case elsewhere in many places in this very work in the construction such as melafaya, mafiq ,
49673, faa379 , 37orafg44619163 etc., they would not have arrived at the above supposition. Quoting the view of M. Winternitz, Kulkarni concludes : "The language of the post-canonical Jain works is partly Prakrit--the so called Jaina Mahārāstrī and partly Sanskrit. The language of the other Prakrit works of Haribhadra sūri is Jaina Mahārāstri, whereas the Pañcasūtra is written in Ardhamagadhi prose. So Ācārya Haribhadra sūri was possibly not its author, but it is a treatise written by some ancient Ācārya prior to Haribhadra sūri."$4 But the striking similarity of the language

Page #14

196
Acārya Vijayaśīlacandrasuri
Jambu-jyoti
discernible in other works of Haribhadrācārya and in the Pancasūtra, as also the similarity of linguistic usages involving संस्कृतसम and संस्कृतभव words as stated above, positively proves that the work in question is composed not in Ardhmagadhi but in Prakrit.
Also, the argument advanced by Kulkarni that "The treatise in question is in Ardhamāgadhi prose and so it is not written by Haribhadra sūri because his other treatises are in Prakrit" hold no water. Is it not possible that the same author can employ different languages and different dictions ? Is it not possible that the same author can write in versified form as well as in prose ? To the contrary, this situation indicates to a profound and highly erudite genius possessing the knowledge of several languages. If a competent Gujarātī or Mahārästrian poet / author can write prose / poetic literature in other languages such as Hindi, English, and so forth as he would in his own native tongue, then what obstacle lies in the way in believing that a master scholar like Haribhadra sūri can write works in different varieties of Prakrit ?
7. The second point of importance is that the Pañcasūtra probably is believed to have been the work of Cirantanācārya and until now the tradition continues that the name of the 'Cirantanācārya' is unknown. Now, a question arises : This Cirantanācārya is inevitably considered to be faced (ancient) for us even today and, therefore, we can take it for granted that, he perhaps may be believed to be unknown even in the past centuries. But how can it be believed that this Cirantanācārya and his name might be unknown to Acārya Haribhadra sūri ? Kulkarni believed that this Cirantanācārya might have flourished a century or more before Haribhadra sūriøs. And if we are to proceed on the line that the Pancasūtra is a postcanonical composition, we must accept the above inference of Kulkarni. Could it be consistently rational that the name of Cirantanācārya, who might have flourished a century or two before Haribhadra sūri may be an author unknown or unfamiliar to Haribhadra süri ? Definitely not. Like this work, its author also (if he were a different person) cannot be unknown to Haribhadra sūri and had he known the author of the original text, he would not have remained silent about his authorship and unhesitatingly revealed his name. This consideration once again leads us to believe that Haribhadra sūri himself was the author of the sutra-work.

Page #15

Who is The Author of the....
197
The gist of the above discussion is that, just as Haribhadra süri is the author of the commentary of the varich, in the same way he himself is the author of the Sūtra-text of the Pancasūtraka. Concomitantiy with the establishment of this truth, the tradional belief upheld by four scholars, namely Shah, Abhyankar, Upadhye, and Kulkarni and the arguments they offered for the corroboration of this belief, per se become invalid.
A question that now arises is precisely this. Though Haribhadra súri is the author of the Pancasūtra, yet whence and when arose this confusion / uncertainty about the authorship of this composition ?
From the investigations carried out, it seems that the confusion may have arisen in the 15th century of Vikrama Era or somewhere closer to that dare. In the three available ancient palm-leaf manuscripts of the Pancasūtra, which in all probability were written between the 12th and the 14th century of Vikrama Era, as recorded by Muniräja Jambúvijaya, there is no reference anywhere to its author. The only indication there is 'THE 66. It can be inferred that, during that period, there might not be any confusion regarding the authorship of this work. The first record of the type may be sensed in the following statement :
'पाञ्चसूत्रं प्राकृतमूलम्, सूत्राणि २१०. afe aflug CC067
The list of the Jaina works in the reguficht which was prepared by some learned Jain-monk early in the latter half of the 16th century of Vikrama Era, does not refer to this record regarding the author of the Pancasūtra and therein it has been reported that the commentary thereon is 'Haribhadrī.' It cannot be denied that the confusion might have arisen from this record. If we focus on this record and read "Tai yrgyi KETU P&o afna afeICCO', and if we draw therefrom the meaning–The Pañcasutra in the Prakrit language having 210 sūtras, and the vrtti thereon equal in volume to verses 880—with the addition of the particle 7, it cannot be denied that the term Haribhadri is supposed to have covered both the Sūtra (original text) and the Vrtti (the commentary). And the term Haribhadri is in the feminine gender consistently with the feminine gender of the word Vrtti.
Of course, this may be looked upon as a little far-fetched; for all earlier scholars, in view of the fact that author's name was not specified for

Page #16

198
Acārya Vijayaśīlacandrasuri
Jambu-jyoti
the Sūtra-text, were led to believe that the qualification 'Hāribhadri (ETH) only indicated the name of the commentator since it unambiguously refers to the term af. But, it is a noteworthy circumstance that, in this record, regarding the name of the original author there is no statement like चिरन्तनाचार्यकृतं or अज्ञातकर्तक.And that circumstancecorroborates the erroneous interpretation stated above. However, instead of adopting this line of thinking, someone, after noticing the above-noted record, might have taken the work as 37 Chah and thereafter that faulty supposition may have been perpetuated.
After this, from the colophons of the two manuscripts of the Pancasūtra, copied in the 17th century of Vikrama Era, it can be clearly understood that either during that time or a little before it, a misunderstanding that the author of the Pañcasūtra and its commentator may have been different persons and that the name of the original author was unknown, may have gained currency. Those colophons are as follows:
‘समत्तं पंचसुत्रकं ॥ छ । कृतं चिरन्तनाचायैर्विवृतं च जाकिनीमहत्तरासूनु श्रीहरिभद्राचार्यैः ॥68
It is probable that, perhaps there may have been such colophons in other manuscripts also, copied during that period. And the tradition reflecting the miscomprehension regarding the identity of the author of the Pancasútra may have arisen from such misleading records. The direct consequence of such colophons leading to such a misunderstanding was that, instead of taking the sentence ofa:
f e r RI, ETCI UTC146FUZIAT: put by the commentator (i.e, the author), after the sentence ' F01041 79/81 at the end of the commentary of the Pancasūtra-in the reference of the original text and commentary, critics of our times may have taken this sentence to apply to the commentary alone.
And the second happening strenghthening the above-mentioned misunderstanding is that, at the end of the work composed by Haribhadra sūri, the term face which appears as a signifier of Haribhadra's work, is not present in the concluding portion of the Pancasūtra text.
Now, when we know that the belief of attributing the authorship of the Pancasūtra text to Cirantanācārya is not older than the late medieval times and we have at some length discussed the evidence regarding Haribhadra's authorship of the text of the Pañcasūtra as well as

Page #17

Who is The Author of the....
199
the commentary thereon, the sentence ofa: fakat' is positively by Haribhadra sūri and it is certain that the phrase is employed here in reference to the original text together with the commentary. Also, granted that the term wafat does not directly appear, its sense arguably has been conveyed by the author in a different way, aface means emancipation from the transmigratory cycle. In the last sentence of the Pañcasūtra, the author has suggested the expectation of emancipation, but it is not through the term face, but through the term f^:*44, employed there either affirmatively or positively. Refer, in this context, the last sentence of the Pañcasūtra :
एसा करुण त्ति वुच्चइ एगंतपरिसुद्धा अविराहणाफला तिलोगनाहबहुमागेणं निस्सेयससाहिग त्ति पव्वज्जाफलसुत्तं 169
If, however, the demand for the term face is insisted upon, then even in the end portion of the commentary supposed to be written by Haribhadra sūri, the term face is nowhere noticeable ! And on that ground the authorship of Haribhadra sūri for the commentary can as well be objected, even denied. So, taking the term f1:47 as synonymous with the term waface, would allow us in connecting the total composition with Haribhadra sūri.
Regarding the authorship of the Pancasūtra, M. A. Dhaky, in his communication some years ago to me, wrote:
"Your Holiness believes this text to be the composition of Haribhadra sūri instead of Cirantanācārya. Examining the original text from the standpoint of matter, diction, and style which are replete with gracefulness and elegance, it also seems to me that it is a post-canonical work : it, moreover reflects the constructions of phrases and sentences which can be called relatively modern. Haribhadra sūri has neither referred to the name of the Echinor has he respectfully presented the text as ancient. Also, he has not offered obeisance to the achit Thus comprehending, it may seem that the commentator and the author of the original text is the same person."
Thus, as deduced from the bulk of evidence, internal as well as external, Haribhadra sūri arguably is the author also of the text proper of the Pañcasūtra.
The Pañcasutra, a work which may have been composed by him in the evening of his life, appears to be the essence of his life-long study of

Page #18

200
Ācārya Vijayaśīlacandrasuri
Jambu-jyoti
the sāstras. There can be no denying that this composition happens to be the manifestation of the spiritual ecstasy, his attainment of the higher level in the practice of mystical science. From the ratiocinations discussed in the TETTHET which are introduced in the Pañcasūtra, probably more charmingly and in brief and pithy sentences as also a quotation from that work?' at one place in the commentary of the Pañcasūtra, this latter work must be subsequent to the composition of the treenery and his other works. Prior to this, he may have composed several other works covering different topics, including plausibly UI, in the later part of his life. And in that late lot appears the composition of the Pancasūtra.
Abhyankar, too, with reference to this very point, records his own opinion as underquoted :
"एतै रचितानां तेषां तेषां ग्रन्थानां क्रमप्रतिपादने टीकाग्रन्थाः प्रायः प्रथम रचिता अनन्तरं धर्मकथा रचितास्तदनन्तरमनेकान्तजयपताका-लोकतत्त्वनिर्णयादयः प्राधान्येन जैनसिद्धान्तप्रतिपादनपरा ग्रन्था निर्मितास्तदनन्तरं षड्दर्शनसमुच्चय-शास्त्रवार्तासमुच्चय-पञ्चाशकादयो दर्शनग्रन्थास्तदनन्तरं च योगदर्शनप्रतिपादकौयोगबिन्दु-योगदृष्टिसमुच्चयौ रचिताविति भाति । सर्वेषामन्ते परिणतप्रज्ञैरेभिरागमसारभूतः स्वकीयग्रन्थप्रतिपादितानां विविधानां विषयाणां सङ्ग्रहस्थानभूतश्चासौ विशतिविशिकानामा ग्रन्थो fryrеlfa 171" To this we may add : "1617 THAN A F5 51 पञ्चसूत्रकस्य सटीकस्य रचना सन्दब्धा स्यादिति ।"
The aforenoted criticism leads us to conceive that, here in the field of Jaina literature, perhaps there may have been two methods of composing works:
1. The method of amplifying, in the works that follow in succession, the topics that were elucidated in the earlier works.
2. The method of abbreviating, in the fresh works, the topics elucidatively presented and at some length in the earlier works. With reference to Bhagavān Haribhadra sūri, it can be stated that, out of the above two methods, he might have adopted the second. For getting a clear understanding, it may be stated that he might have composed some of his notable works in the following chronological order :
1. Pañcāśaka 2. Vimśikā 3. Sodasaka 4. Astaka 5. Pañcasūtraka

Page #19

Who is The Author of the....
201
In the medieval biographical tradition, Haribhadra sūri enjoys a reputation in the field of Jainism as the author of 1444 Prakarana works. A few Prakarana-treatises and a few commentaries (on the works earlier composed) written by him, are available. Among these, those that are in our possession--specially, those in whose appellations numeral-words are employed-are available. Thanks to the deduction now reached that Haribhadra suri is the author of the Pancasūtra, a most notable example has been added to the list of his works and this is a circumstance signifying our good fortune and indeed is a matter of gratification.
Annotations : I. B. L. Series, No. 2; Ācārya Haribhadra sūri Granthmālā, Vol. No. 1, General
Editor : V. M. Kulkarni, Ed. Muni Jambūvijaya, Delhi 1986. 2. Pañcasuttam, Ed. V. M. Shah, Bombay 1934, "Introduction," p. 17. 3. Ibid., p. 20. 4. Ibid., "Foreword", p. 69. 5. Pañcasūtrakam, Ed. Muni Śrī Jambūvijayajī, Delhi 1986, "Introduction," p. 33. 6. Ibid. 7. Ibid., Prastāvanā, pp. 4-5. 8. Ibid., p. 80. 9. Ibid., p. 80. 10. Ibid., p. 81. 11. Ibid., p. 80. 12. Ibid., Prastāvanā, p. 3. 13. Ibid pp. 80-81. 14. Ibid., p. 24. 15. Ibid., pp. 80-81. 16. Ibid. 17. Ibid., p. 24. 18. Ibid. 19. Dharmapariksa, Ahmedabad V. S.1998 (A. D. 1942), pp. 23-24. 20. Sodasaka Prakaranam, Bombay 1984, p. 96. 21. Ibid. 22. Pañcasūtrakam, Jambūvijaya, “Intro.," p. 4. 23. Ibid., pp. 50-53-54.

Page #20
202 Acarya Vijayasilacandrasuri Jambu-iyoti 24. Vimsati-Vimsika, Ed. K. V. Abhyankar, Bombay 1932, pp. 38-39. 25. Sodasakaprakaranam, Bombay 1984, p. 70. 26. Pancasutrakam, Jambuvijaya, pp. 45-46. 27. Vimsati-Vimsika, p. 37. 28-30. Pancasutrakam, Jambuvijaya, pp. 57 and 58. 29-31. Sodasakaprakaranam, Bombay 1984, p. 10. 32-34. Pancasutrakam, Jambuvijaya, pp. 70 and 75. 33-35. Vimsati-Vimsika, pp. 61 and 63. 36. Pancasutrakam, Jambuvijaya, pp. 68. 37-38. Vimsati-Vimsika, p. 63. 39-41-42-44. Pancasutrakam, Jambuvijaya, pp. 73,3,71, 6. 40-43-45-46. Vimsati-Vimsika, pp. 6, 4-5-6, 11-12. 47-48-49-50. Pancasutrakam, Jambuvijaya, pp. 37-40 and 73. 51. Haribhadra yoga bharati, Bombay V. S.2036 (A. D. 1980), p. 123. 52. Ibid., p. 286. 53. Vimsati-Vinsika, p. 6. 54. Sodasakaprakaranam, Bombay 1984, p. 85. 55-56. Pancasutrakam, Jambuvijaya, pp. 73 and 76. 57. Vimsati-Vimsika, p. 24. 58. Sodasakaprakaranam, p. 85. 59. Pancasutrakam, Jambuvijaya, pp. 78-79. 60. Haribhadra yoga bharati, pp. 129. 61. Prakrit Vyakarana, Pt. Becharadas Doshi, Ahmedabad 1925, "Pravesa", p. 12. 62. Pancasutrakam, Jambuvijaya, p. 3. 63. Ibid., pp. 11-13-16. 64-65. Ibid., "Intro.," p. 33. 66-67-68. Ibid., "Prastavana", pp. 4-3-4. 69-70. Ibid., pp. 80-66. 71. Vimsati-Vimsika, "Prastavikam, Nivedanam," p. 7. 000