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 Pancasutra : Cirantanacarya or Yakinisunu Haribhadra ? Acarya Vijayasilacandra suri The Pancasutra 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 sutras 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 Muniraja Jambuvijaya1. 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 Cirantanacarya has composed this work. The trem 'Cirantanacarya' has two plausible explanations: First, cirantana means ancient (and hence the work by some ancient acarya): Second, it may mean the appellation proper of the acarya 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 Acarya Vijayasilacandrasuri Jambu-jyoti 1. In his introduction to the Pancasutra, 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 (manarthe bahuvacanam) for the author. At the same time, it is very likely that ancient authors might have composed the sutras and Haribhadra suri might have put them together3. 2. Writes K. V. Abhyankar : "The Pancasutra 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] Pancasutra. 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 Maharastri--and partly Sanskrit.' (M. Winternitz). The language of the known Prakrit works of Haribhadra is Jaina Maharastri whereas the present work is written in Ardhamagadhi prose; and this prose shares quite a few peculiarities of the diction and style of the canonical works. This fact suggests that Acarya Haribhadra was possibly not its author. It is not unlikely that the author of [the] Pancasutra 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 Acarya Haribhadra flourished."6 The gist of the aforementioned four opinions is this: these unanimously proclaim that Acarya Haribhadra suri is not the author of the Pancasutra. Besides this, Muniraja Jambuvijaya, the editor of the dependable critical edition of the Pancasutra, is inclined to opine that Acarya Haribhadra suri

Page #3
Who is The Author of the.... 185 probably may be the author of the Pancasutra. Inspite of this sensing, in the absence of definite evidence, Munivara Jambuvijaya 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 Pancasutra is definitely Haribhadra suri 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 Pancasutra. 1. There are three significant sentences at the end of the commentary of the Pancasutra : 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 samAptaM paJcasUtrakaM vyAkhyAnata: Had the commentator and the author of the Pancasutra been different, the phrase in question, ought to have been in the form samAptA paJcasUtrakavRttiH', while here it is samAptaM paJcasUtrakaM vyAkhyAnato'pi' and the last word of the phrase, 314, holds a suggestive significace. The term 379 implies that the Pancasutra has been completed in the sense of "together with the commentary." If af9 is deleted from this sentence, it would mean that the Pancasutra 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 Sutra 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 Sutra, 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 Acarya Vijayasilacandrasuri Jambu-jyoti the preceding paragraph may be valid, the commentator would have put either 'samAptaM paJcasUtrakaM vyAkhyAnataH' or the sentence 'samAptA paJcasUtrakavRtti. 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 samApta paJcasUtrakaM vyAkhyAnato'pi, 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 suri 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 suri 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 namaH / sarvavandanArhAn vande / sarvopakAriNAmicchAmo vaiyAvRtyam / sArvAnubhAvAdaucityena me dharme pravRttirbhavatu / ad heal: fas: Hg, vd Heal: yfort: 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 Acarya Haribhadra suri has not taken such a liberty in the commentaries on his own works, the Yogadrstisamuccaya and the Pancavastuka or for that matter in the commentary of the text the Sodasaprakarana. 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 Pancasutra, Haribhadracarya 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 originalsutras. 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 Pancasutra barring the difference of language--the Sutra 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, sarvanamaskArAhebhyo nama:15 and sarve sattvAH sukhinaH 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) namokkArArihANaM7, and suhiNo bhavaMtu jIvA18 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 Sutra 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 Yasovijaya Gani of the 17th century, on whom was bestowed upon the title f 45, at the time of referring to the Pancasutra in the 447271, includes the following phrases : pApapratighAtaguNabIjAdhAnasUtre haribhadrasUribhirapyetadbhava-sambandhi bhavAntarasambandhi vA pApaM yattatpadAbhyAM parAmRzya mithyAduSkRtaprAyazcittena vizodhanIyamityuktam / tathA hi "saraNamuvagao a eesiM.....ittha fogCERS 3"1119

Page #6
188 Acarya Vijayasilacandrasuri Jambu-jyoti Having considered the sins committed either in this birth or in the past existences, by the term TT-TT, Haribhadra suri 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 sutra of the Pancasutra and thereafter Upadhyaya Yasovijaya 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 Pancasutra with assuredness to Haribhadra suri 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 suri, and Yasovijaya 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 suri is the author of that verse and, by extension, of the disch {UT. But, in the mind of Yasovijaya, 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 Pancasutra is Haribhadra suri and for that reason he has employed such a phrase. From this testimony, too, it can be deduced that Haribhadra suri is the author of the Pancasutra. 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 suri alone. Any other author might have entitled the work as paJcasUtra or paJcasUtrI. The name paJcasUtraka may flash in the understanding of only Haribhadra suri. While offering guidance regarding the etymological interpretation of the term FC, Muniraja Jambuvijaya has observed as under : "The title of the work written by Acarya Haribhadra suri 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 ch 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 Haribhadracarya. 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 suri and those paralleled in the Pancasutra. Let us institute a comparison of some of the portions of the T with those of other works such as the viMzativiMzikA, the dharmabindu, the yogadRSTisamuccaya, and the SoDazaka, all by Haribhadra suri. [1] In the fourth sutra of the paJcasUtraka, there appears a phrase vyAdhitasukiyAjJAta, it is as follows : 189 'vAhiyasukiriyAnAeNaM, se jahA kei mahAvAhigahie, aNubhUyatavveyaNe viSNAyA sarUveNa, nivviNNe tattao, suvejjavayaNeNa sammaM tamavagacchiya jahAvihANao pavane sukiriyaM, niruddhajahicchAcAre, tucchapatthabhoI muccamANe vAhiNA niyattamANaveyaNe samuvalabbhAroggaM pavaDDhamANatabbhAve, tallAbhanivvuIe tappaDibaMdhAo sirAkhArAijoge vi vAhisamAroggaviNNANeNa iTThaniSpattIo aNAkulabhAvayAe kiriovaogeNa, apIDie, avvahie, suhalessAe vaDDhai, vejjaM ca bahu mannai' 23 etc. This very vyAdhitasukriyAjJAta is to be met with in the verses of the 12th viMzikA of the viMzatirvizikA, in a slightly different phraseology and context : 'no Aurassa rogo nAsara taha osahasuIo // 12 // na ya vivarIeNeso kiriyAjogeNa avi ya vaDDhei / iya pariNAmAo khalu savvaM khu jahuttamAyarai // 13 // thevo'vitthamajogo niyameNa vivAgadAruNo hoi / pAkiriyAgao jaha, nAyamiNaM suppasiddhaM tu // 14 // jaha Aurassa rogakkhayatthiNo dukkarA vi suhaheu / ittha cigicchAkiriyA taha ceva jaissa sikkhati // 15 // 24 And this very fact is more clearly discernible in the 16th verse of the 12th SoDazaka :

Page #8
190 Acarya Vijayasilacandrasuri Jambu-jyoti "vyAdhyabhibhUto yadvanniviNNastena tatkriyAM yatnAt / samyakkaroti tadvad dIkSita iha sAdhusacceSTAm / / 25 [2] In the fourth sutra of the Pancasutra, a group of sentences occurs as undernoted : 'se samalemRkaMcaNe samasattumite niyattaggahadukkhe, pasamasuhasamee sammaM sikkhamAiyai, gurukulavAsI, gurupaDibaddhe, viNIe, bhUyatthadarisI, na io hiyataraM ti manAi, sussUsAiguNajutte tattAbhinivesA vihipare paramamaMto tti ahijjai suttaM / / 26 The verses of the 12th fairiahi, partly bearing verbal similarity and reverberating the significance of those sentences are as follows: 'ittha vi hodaigasuhaM tatto evopasamasuhaM // 4 // sikkhAdugaMmi pII jaha jAyai haMdi smnnsiihss| taha cakkavaTTiNo vi hu niyameNa na jAu niyakicce // 5 // giNhai vihiNA sattaM bhAveNa paramamaMtarUva tti // 27 [3] In the fourth sutra of the Pancasutraka, there are sentences 'Ayao gurubahumANo avaMjhakAraNatteNa / ao paramagurusaMjogo / tao siddhI asaMsayaM / '28 Now, the following verse of the second 15#15 bears complete similarity with the above sentences : gurupAratantryameva ca tad bahumAnAt sdaashyaanugtm| paramaguruprApteriha bIjaM tasmAcca mokSa iti // 10 // 29 The significant point here is that the phrase 3709 Ruto appearing in the text of the Pancasutra has been explained as mokSaM pratyapratibaddhasAmarthyahetutvena30 in its commentary and the phrase sadAzayAnugataM appearing in the verse of SoDazaka has been also explained as sadAzayaH saMsArakSayaheturgarurayaM mametyevaMbhUta: kuzalapariNAmastenAnagataM gurupAratantryaM31 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] 'nidaMsaNamettaM tu navaraM - savvasattukkhae savvavAhivigame savvatthasaMjogeNaM savvicchAsaMpattIe jArisameyaM etto'NaMtaguNaM khutaM, bhaavsttukkhyaadito| rAgAdayo bhAvasattU, kammodayA vAhiNo, paramaladdhIo u atthA, aNicchecchA icchaa| evaM suhumameyaM, na tattao iyareNa gammai, jaisuhamivAjaiNA, AruggasuhaM va rogiNa fa fa TT 11'32 (In the fifth sutra of the Pancasutra) jaM savvasattu taha savvavAhi savvattha savvamicchANaM / khaya-vigama-joga-pattIhi hoi tatto aNaMtamiNaM // 3 // rAgAIyA sattU kammudayA vAhiNo ihaM neyaa| laddhIo paramatthA icchA'Nicchecchamo ya tahA // 4 //

Page #9
Who is The Author of the.... 191 aNuhavasiddhaM evaM nAruggasuhaM va rogiNo nvrN| gammai iyareNa tahA sammamiNaM ciMtiyavvaM tu / / 5 / / 33 (20th fafara) How striking is the correspondence between the two aforementioned references, the first lying in the fifth sutra of the Pancasutra 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 aNaMtA34 can be compared with the sentence jattha ya ego siddho tattha aNaMtA35 of the verse 18th of the 20th fafica. [6] Also, there is a sentence in the fifth sutra of the Pancasutra as 7 tas36. 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 suri 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 valyas 138 This reading appears to be faulty after considering the method of the employment of the sentence 'na sattA sadaMtaramuveI in the Paricasutra. sattA might have been transformed into sannA 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 sutra of Pancasutra - offGaal 374 U GT HOT HESIT nnivittii| Na nivittIe AyadvANaM / Na yaNNahA tassesA / yaha bhavvattatallA NAeNaM / Na kevalajIvarUvameyaM / '39 etc. is the same in a slightly differing manner in the following verses of the second fafgan, namely Oshifafya. 'jaha bhavvattamakayagaM na ya niccaM eva kiM na baMdho'vi? / kiriyAphalajogo jaM eso tA na khala evaM ti // 14 //

Page #10
192 Acarya Vijayasilacandrasuri Jambu-jyoti bhavvattaM puNamakayagamaNiccamo ceva thshaavaao| jaha kayago'vi hu mukkho nicco'vi ya bhAvavaicittaM / / 15 / / evaM ceva ya'dikkhA (didikkhA) bhavabIjaM vAsaNA avijjA ya / sahajamalasaddavaccaM vannijjai mukkhavAIhiM / / 16 / / 40 [8] In the same way, we find the very rational annotation of the sentences-aNAijIve aNAdijIvassa bhave, aNAdikammasaMjogaNivvattie41 in the first sutra and aNAimaM baMdho pavAheNaM2 in the fifth sutra, in nearly initial 12 verses43 of the second vizikA. [9] A free translation of the sentence suddhadhammasaMpattI pAvakammavigamAo, pAvakammavigamo tahAbhavvattAdibhAvAo4 of the firstsutra isclearly noticeable in the first verse : 'nicchayao puNa eso jAyai niyameNa prmpriytttte| tahabhavvattamalakkhayabhAvA accaMtasuddhatti // 1 // 45 of the fourth fafyrch and the first half of the eighth verse, 'pofit sahajamalabhAvavigamao suddhadhammasaMpattI'46 of the selfsame vizikA. [10] The sentences in the third sutra are as under : 'tao aNuNNAe paDivajjejja dhammaM / aNNahA aNuvahe cevovahAjutte siyA / dhammArAhaNaM khu hiyaM savvasattANaM / tahA taheyaM saMpADejjA / savvahA apaDivajjamANe caejja te adANagilANosahatthacAganAeNaM / '47 Some aphorisms of Haribhadra suri's mifang may now be compared with those noted above. These are :- tathA-gurujanAdyanujJeti // 23 / / tathA tathopadhAyoga iti // 24|| duHsvapnAdi kathanamiti // 25 // tathA viparyayaliGgaseveti // 26 / / daivajJaistathA tathA nivedanamiti // 27|| na dharme mAyeti // 28 // ubhayahitametaditi // 29 // yathAzakti sauvihityApAdanamiti // 30 // glAnauSadhAdijJAtAta tyAga iti // 3 // 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 Pancasutra 49. This fact strongly corroborates the circumstance that Haribhadra suri positively is the author of the Pancasutra as well as its commentary. [11] The context of the two sentences 'Na didikkhA akaraNassa' and 'Na sahajAe NivittI50' incorporated in the fifth sutra exactly corresponds with the two following verses of yogadRSTisamuccaya :

Page #11
Who is The Author of the.... 193 'didRkSAdyAtmabhUtaM ta-nmukhyamasyA nivartate / pradhAnAdinaterhetu-stadabhAvAnna tannatiH // 20 // anyathA syAdiyaM nitya-meSA ca bhava ucyate / 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 suri. 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 [Patanjali and so forth according to the commentaryl by incorporating the clause "didRkSAdinivRttyAdipUrvasUryuditaM tathA' 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 Jainacarya employs the term free, which bears a technical meaning according to the Sankhya school of philosophy. Yet, the application the term, even when the context is changed, does not seem improper. It is possible that Haribhadra suri might have employed this term in his other works also. Now, we have to see whether he has employed the term dikSA in the sentence 'Na didikkhA akaraNassa'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 sutra of the Pancasutra. This appears to be a favourite term of Haribhadra suri, because it57 appears

Page #12
194 Acarya Vijayasilacandrasuri Jambu-jyoti also in the fasiaafrict [8/3], though in a different contextual sense. There it bears the meaning "Adoration conferring all-sided auspiciousness (sarvamaMgalakAriNI pUjA). In the tenth verse of the ninth SoDazaka this adoration has been styled fa r , but the commentator Yasovijaya has suggested that worship to have been published by samaMtabhaddA58. (14) Lastly, let us glance at the sentences in the ending portion of the Pancasutra. It has been written in the last aphorism that ' T 37 41 liMgavivajjayAo tappariNNA / tayaNuggahaTTAe AmakuMbhodaganAsanAeNaM / esA karuNatti vuccai / 59 et cetera. The sense which is embodied in the above aphorism, appears exactly in the same significance in the concluding portion of the yogadRSTisamuccaya : 'haribhadra idaM prAha naitebhyo deya AdarAt // 226 / / avajJeha kRtA'lpA'pi yadanAya jaayte| atastatparihArArthaM na punarbhAvadoSataH // 227 / 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 suri and none else who emerges as the author of the original text of the Pancasutra. Had it not been so, the content-references of the Pancasutra cannot bear similarity with the several corresponding references from the many works-Prakrit as well as Sanskrit of that Acarya to such an extent. Despite this clear internal evidence, if the view of attributing the authorship of the Pancasutra to an unknown ancient ( F ri) acarya or the one by name 'Cirantana' who might have flourished prior to Haribhadra suri be maintained, we will be forced to accept that Haribhadracarya might have borrowed verbally as well as sensewise all the above-recorded references from the others' works compared with the references of the Pancasutra and the contents discussed therein and, simultaneously with this, the originality of Haribhadra suri 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 Hemacandracarya) belongs to the first category."61 In consonance with the above-mentioned view, if we examine the language of the original text of the Pancasutra, we will be convinced of its being the right time ynga language, observing as it does all the later rules of the Hemacandriya 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 Pancasutra. For this very reason, there is no difficulty at all in taking Haribhadra suri as the author of the original text of the Pancasutra. Even though some scholars are led to suppose that the language of the Pancasutra is not Prakrit (Jaina Maharastri) but is Ardhamagadhi, like the language employed in the agamas, 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 Pancasutra as Ardhamagadhi. 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 Maharastri and partly Sanskrit. The language of the other Prakrit works of Haribhadra suri is Jaina Maharastri, whereas the Pancasutra is written in Ardhamagadhi prose. So Acarya Haribhadra suri was possibly not its author, but it is a treatise written by some ancient Acarya prior to Haribhadra suri."$4 But the striking similarity of the language

Page #14
196 Acarya Vijayasilacandrasuri Jambu-jyoti discernible in other works of Haribhadracarya and in the Pancasutra, as also the similarity of linguistic usages involving saMskRtasama and saMskRtabhava 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 Ardhamagadhi prose and so it is not written by Haribhadra suri 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 Gujarati or Maharastrian 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 suri can write works in different varieties of Prakrit ? 7. The second point of importance is that the Pancasutra probably is believed to have been the work of Cirantanacarya and until now the tradition continues that the name of the 'Cirantanacarya' is unknown. Now, a question arises : This Cirantanacarya 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 Cirantanacarya and his name might be unknown to Acarya Haribhadra suri ? Kulkarni believed that this Cirantanacarya might have flourished a century or more before Haribhadra surios. And if we are to proceed on the line that the Pancasutra is a postcanonical composition, we must accept the above inference of Kulkarni. Could it be consistently rational that the name of Cirantanacarya, who might have flourished a century or two before Haribhadra suri may be an author unknown or unfamiliar to Haribhadra suri ? Definitely not. Like this work, its author also (if he were a different person) cannot be unknown to Haribhadra suri 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 suri 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 suri is the author of the commentary of the varich, in the same way he himself is the author of the Sutra-text of the Pancasutraka. 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 suri is the author of the Pancasutra, 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 Pancasutra, which in all probability were written between the 12th and the 14th century of Vikrama Era, as recorded by Muniraja Jambuvijaya, 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 : 'pAJcasUtraM prAkRtamUlam, sUtrANi 210. 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 Pancasutra and therein it has been reported that the commentary thereon is 'Haribhadri.' 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 Pancasutra in the Prakrit language having 210 sutras, 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 Sutra (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 Acarya Vijayasilacandrasuri Jambu-jyoti the Sutra-text, were led to believe that the qualification 'Haribhadri (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 cirantanAcAryakRtaM or ajJAtakartaka.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 Pancasutra, 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 Pancasutra 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: 'samattaM paMcasutrakaM // cha / kRtaM cirantanAcAyairvivRtaM ca jAkinImahattarAsUnu zrIharibhadrAcAryaiH // 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 Pancasutra 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 Pancasutra-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 suri, the term face which appears as a signifier of Haribhadra's work, is not present in the concluding portion of the Pancasutra text. Now, when we know that the belief of attributing the authorship of the Pancasutra text to Cirantanacarya 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 Pancasutra as well as

Page #17
Who is The Author of the.... 199 the commentary thereon, the sentence ofa: fakat' is positively by Haribhadra suri 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 Pancasutra, 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 Pancasutra : esA karuNa tti vuccai egaMtaparisuddhA avirAhaNAphalA tiloganAhabahumAgeNaM nisseyasasAhiga tti pavvajjAphalasuttaM 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 suri, the term face is nowhere noticeable ! And on that ground the authorship of Haribhadra suri 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 suri. Regarding the authorship of the Pancasutra, M. A. Dhaky, in his communication some years ago to me, wrote: "Your Holiness believes this text to be the composition of Haribhadra suri instead of Cirantanacarya. 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 suri 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 suri arguably is the author also of the text proper of the Pancasutra. The Pancasutra, 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 Acarya Vijayasilacandrasuri Jambu-jyoti the sastras. 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 Pancasutra, probably more charmingly and in brief and pithy sentences as also a quotation from that work?' at one place in the commentary of the Pancasutra, 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 Pancasutra. Abhyankar, too, with reference to this very point, records his own opinion as underquoted : "etai racitAnAM teSAM teSAM granthAnAM kramapratipAdane TIkAgranthAH prAyaH prathama racitA anantaraM dharmakathA racitAstadanantaramanekAntajayapatAkA-lokatattvanirNayAdayaH prAdhAnyena jainasiddhAntapratipAdanaparA granthA nirmitAstadanantaraM SaDdarzanasamuccaya-zAstravArtAsamuccaya-paJcAzakAdayo darzanagranthAstadanantaraM ca yogadarzanapratipAdakauyogabindu-yogadRSTisamuccayau racitAviti bhAti / sarveSAmante pariNataprajJairebhirAgamasArabhUtaH svakIyagranthapratipAditAnAM vividhAnAM viSayANAM saGgrahasthAnabhUtazcAsau vizativizikAnAmA grantho fryrelfa 171" To this we may add : "1617 THAN A F5 51 paJcasUtrakasya saTIkasya racanA sandabdhA syAditi / " 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 Bhagavan Haribhadra suri, 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. Pancasaka 2. Vimsika 3. Sodasaka 4. Astaka 5. Pancasutraka

Page #19
Who is The Author of the.... 201 In the medieval biographical tradition, Haribhadra suri 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 Pancasutra, 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; Acarya Haribhadra suri Granthmala, Vol. No. 1, General Editor : V. M. Kulkarni, Ed. Muni Jambuvijaya, Delhi 1986. 2. Pancasuttam, Ed. V. M. Shah, Bombay 1934, "Introduction," p. 17. 3. Ibid., p. 20. 4. Ibid., "Foreword", p. 69. 5. Pancasutrakam, Ed. Muni Sri Jambuvijayaji, Delhi 1986, "Introduction," p. 33. 6. Ibid. 7. Ibid., Prastavana, pp. 4-5. 8. Ibid., p. 80. 9. Ibid., p. 80. 10. Ibid., p. 81. 11. Ibid., p. 80. 12. Ibid., Prastavana, 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. Pancasutrakam, Jambuvijaya, "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