Agam 14 Upang 03 Jivabhigam Sutra Jivajivabhigame Terapanth

SR No.: 003570
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Tulsi Acharya, Mahapragna Acharya
Publisher: Jain Vishva Bharati
Publication Year: 1989
Total Pages: 639
Language: Prakrit
Classification: Book_Devnagari, Agam, Canon, & agam_jivajivabhigam
File Size: 13 MB

Page 64

as an authoritative form (årsa), all rules about the correct or wrong usage of words in Prakrit would have been set to naught."
Pt. Bechardas's contention may be valid, but it is not irrefutable. In our view
(1) The original form of 'paseniya' is ‘pasiniya' (Skt. praśnita). In pronunciation , assumption of the form 'i' by fe is quite consistent. We find such departure elsewhere too. For example :-- pihuniņam
pehunenam (Desi) nivvānam
nevyāpam (Skt. nirvānam) nivvuti
nevvuti
(Skt. nirvęttih) tigicchiyam
tegicchiyam (Skt. cikitsitam) binţā
bentā
(Skt. vịttam) bi
be
(Skt. dyi) tikālam
tekālam
(Skt. trikalam) (2) In the Agama-sútras and old scriptures we find the text as rāyapaseniya'. The usage 'rāyapasepaiya' is not available anywhere. In the Nandisutra we come across 'rāyapaseņiya' as mentioned earlier. In 'Pākṣika sūtra' too, fráyappaseniya' occurs. The composer of the avacũri of Päksika sūtra gives its Sanskrit form as 'rājapraśniyam'.
(3) Prasenajit takes the form 'pasepaiya' in Prakrit In the Sthânănga sätra the fifth kulakara is named as 'pasepaiya'.' This form is avajlable at various other places too.
If the subject matter of the present sūtra had been related to King Prasenajit, the name could have been "Rāyapasenajyam". But in fact the subject matter relates to King Paesi; hence the form "rāyapasepaiya" is not compatible. In the Dighani kāya King Pāyāsí is mentioned as a feudal lord to Prasenajit. But here we find no mention of King Prasenajit. Therefore the usage 'Rāyapaseņaiyam' has no basis.
From the point of view of the subject matter we may conjecture about the name "Rāyapaesiyam', but there is no basis for such a conjecture.
King Pradesi's quei ses form the basis of the composition of the sutra in question. Therefore its name must be 'Rāyapaseniya' and none else. Commentaries
Its two commentaries are named as (i) vsiti, and (ii) stabaka tabbā or
1. Råyapasenaiyam, pravesaka, page 6. 2. Päksikasütram, page 76. 3. Pāksikasūtram Avacüri, page 77:
Rājñab pradesi nämnab praśnāni, tänyadhiktya kytam adhyayanam--rājapraśniyam. 4. Thāpam, 7/62