History of Canonical Literature of Jainas

SR No.: 001741
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Hiralal R Kapadia
Publisher: Shardaben Chimanbhai Educational Research Centre
Publication Year: 2000
Total Pages: 266
Language: English, Sanskrit, Prakrit
Classification: Book_English, Agam, Canon, & Literature
File Size: 18 MB

Page 57

40
A HISTORY OF THE CANONICAL LITERATURE OF THE JAINAS
form of the ten-fold religion for the clergy, can be designated as Mūlasūtra.
These are the various explanations. My personal view is the same as one expressed by Prof. Schubring! and mentioned on p. 42.
Usually the following works are designated as Mülasuttas :-2
(1) Uttarajjhayaņa, (2) Dasaveyāliya, (3) Āvassaya?, (4) Pindanijjutti and (5) Ohanijjutti.
Occasionally some mention even Pakkhiyasutta as a Mülasutta*. It may be mentioned en passant that none however considers the number of Mūlasuttas as five or six. Their number is either counted as 3 or 4. The Sthānakavāsins ignore Pindanijjutti and Ohanijjutti altogether; for, they do not look upon these works as those composed by Bhadrabāhusvāmin. So they fix 3 as the number of Mülasuttas. Prof. Weber and Prof. Bühler, too, mention this very number, but not for the same reason as advanced by the Sthānakavāsins. It may be that they may have been led to the same conclusion on the following understanding :
Pindanijjutti seems to be alluded to in the following verse of the Nijjutti on Dasaveyaliya (p. 1616) :
"भावस्सुवगारित्ता एत्थं दव्वेसणाइ अहिगारो । तीइ पुण अत्थुजुत्ती वत्तव्वा पिंडनिज्जुत्ति ।।२३९।।"5
41 See page 210 of addition. 1. It may be noted that Prof. Schubring has offered another explanation for Mülasutta
(vide. 36). But there I differ from him. 2. The earliest source I can mention in this connection at present is Bhāvaprabha Sūri's
com. (p. 94) on Jainadharmavarastotra (v. 30). There it is said : "अथ उत्तराध्ययन १ आवश्यक २ पिण्डनियुक्ति तथा ओघनियुक्ति ३ दशवैकालिक ४ इतिचत्वारि
wafur 1" It seems that the word tathā is to be construed as "or"; if not, the number of the
Mülasuttas will be five and not four. 3. In the Introduction (p. III) to "Dasaveyāliya Sutta" Prof. Schubring has made an
erroneous statement (this is probably his slip). For, instead of Avassaya, he has mentioned Āvassaganijjutti. The pertinent lines are as under: "Together with the Uttarajjhāyā (commonly called Uttarajjhayana Sutta), The
Avassaganijjutti and the Pindanijjutti it forms a small group of texts named Mülasutta.” 4. See A His. of Ind. Lit. (Vol. II, PP. 430 and 471) 5. While commenting upon this verse Haribhadra Sūri says on p. 162 and p. 1626 :
"सा च पृथक्स्थापनतो मया व्याख्यातैवेति नेह व्याख्यायते." The editor of this work has written a foot-note on this as under :"पिण्डनिर्युक्तेः पृथक्स्थापितत्वात् तत्र भद्रबाहुस्वामिनाऽर्थयुक्तिर्व्याख्यातेति नात्राध्ययनार्थाधिकारे तद्व्याख्यानम् । अन्यथा वाऽस्ति हरिभद्रसूरिकृता पिण्डनियुक्तिवृत्तिरिति तामाश्रित्यापि स्यादिदं वचः ।"