Page Text
________________
106
EDITOR'S NOTE
by adding unnecessary and unwanted topics and discussions. Exposition of the original text is very rarely found in his commentaries. Being quite ignorant of the various traditions of interpreting Agamas, he has employed derogatory terms and phrases for the learned ancient commentators. His inclusion of the topic of idol-worship, which has no bearing whatsoever on the original text, betrays his lack of propriety. He has discussed this irrelevant topic at length. Thus he proves himself to be lacking in the sense of proportion. He does not know as to where the term 'vệddhasampradaya' could be employed. On this account, while giving quotations from the Agamas, he employs, in his commentaries, the term 'vệddhasampradaya' instead of the terms 'århatasiddhāntah', 'jinapravacanam', jināgamah' etc.
Those Sthanakavāsi Jaina monks, who have favoured him with their kind opinions, seem not to have read his commentaries. Ghasilalji has betrayed his ignorance while interpreting easy and well known terms like prajñāpakadiśā. His explanation of the term prajñapakadiśā is : dravyadig eva prajñāpakadikśabdenăpy ucyate. If he were to study Seriously the following gathā from the Ācārānganiryukti, he would not have committed this mistake. The gāthā in point is: jattha u jo pannavago sähai kassai disāsu nemittaṁ jattomuho ya thāi să puvvā pacchao avarā ll. Again, his study of Silānkācārya's Tikā would have removed mistakes committed by him regarding the classification of the Sūtras. He seems not to have understood ancient commentators because he has adopted, with hesitation, the explanations from their commentaries. As a result, in his commentaries there have crept in mistakes of various types at many places. The Sthānakavāsi monks who have favoured him with their kind opinions seem not to have realized their responsibility in doing so. On the basis of the phrase "jahā nandie' occurring in the Samavāyangasūtra, the Bhagavatīsūtra and the Rājapraśnīyasūtra he has arrived at the conclusion that a gañadhara-and not Devavācakais the author of the Nandisūtra (his tikā on Nandisūtra, p. 7-8). This proves his ignorance of history. Had he attempted to understand the meaning of words 'kodillayam' etc. occurring in the text of the Nandisūtra (p. 29 sūtra 72 [1] in this edition), then he would have felt difficulty in ascribing the authorship of the Nandisūtra to a ganadhara. It is so because Kautilya (the author of the Arthaśāstra) and others mentioned there flourished many centuries after a ganadhara. He has not inherited the tradition that the statements
jaha nandie', jahā pannavaņāe', 'jahā pannattie' etc. occurring in the Bhagavatīsūtra, the Samavayāngasūtra, the Rajapraśniyasūtra, etc. have found place there only at the time of compiling recension of the Agamas. How far can the interpretation of the śāstra be regarded as
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
| SR No. | 001062 |
| Book Title | Nandisutt and Anuogaddaraim |
| Original Sutra Author | Devvachak, Aryarakshit |
| Author | Punyavijay, Dalsukh Malvania, Amrutlal Bhojak |
| Publisher | Mahavir Jain Vidyalay |
| Publication Year | 1968 |
| Total Pages | 764 |
| Language | Prakrit |
| Classification | Book_Devnagari, Agam, Canon, Ethics, agam_nandisutra, & agam_anuyogdwar |
| File Size | 14 MB |