Biology in Jaina Treatise on Reals

SR No.: 001656
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: N L Jain
Publisher: Parshwanath Vidyapith
Publication Year: 1999
Total Pages: 210
Language: English
Classification: Book_English, Religion, & Biology
File Size: 13 MB

Page 24

Biology in Jaina Treatise on Reals
17.
version That Which is
N.M. Tatia
et Rajasthan
1994
al.
18.
H. Jacobi
Germany
Later half of 19th century
German Translation, basic text Japanese Translation,
19.
-
Japan
Early 20" Century
(d) Translations/Commentaries in other languages. 20. Hindi translations by P.C. Shastri, K.C. Shastri, Acarya Jnansagarji, Kanaknandiji etc. 21. Gujrati translation by Pt. Sukhlalji (Hindi translation also). 22. Many other translations in different Indian languages. (It is not possible to list all of them). (e) Researches on the Basic Text. 23. The text has also attracted the attention of current research scholars and as many as ten theses have been submitted on various aspects of the text along with comparative studies on its commentaries upto 1996. (f) Revival of Aphorismic Texts. 23. The aphorismic tradition of sacred texts has now been revived by Ganadhipati Tulsiji through his twentieth century composition of a ten chaptered aphorismic book 'Jaina Siddhant Dipika' translated into English entitled as 'Illustrator of Jaina Tenets' containing basic Jaina concepts with modernising trend and eliminating much of the ancient mythology.
It is observed that the D-explanatories/commentaries are mostly based on S.S. of Pujyapada while S-commentaries are based on the so-called autocommentary. The D-commentaries have three forms - (i) prose (ii) semiaphorismic prose and (iii) verse which are represented by Nos. (i) 2, 5-9 (ii) 3 and 4 respectively. In fact, No. 3 and 4 have also autocommentaries on the semi-aphorisms and verses. In contrast, the S-commentaries are in prose form only. This translator concurs with Panditji that the D-commentaries no. 3 and 4 are highly philosophical and advanced in comparison to the S-commentaries. In contrast to the opinions of some scholars, it can be easily pointed out that if there appears simplicity in elaboration and style in the S-autocommentary, it is also there in SS in many cases. Of course, it must be admitted that while the Va caka was a cononist, Pujyapada was grammarian and logician also as is reflected in his SS. This point cannot, therefore, be a sufficient ground to prove the earlier or later period of the two, Secondly, if non-composition of commentaries for longer periods (i.e. about 700 years in case of Kundakunda texts) could be a logic for dating an author, the Vacaka will also appear to be in the same category (Siddhasena commentary being about 400 years later) and his date
19