Jambu Jyoti

SR No.: 006503
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: M A Dhaky, Jitendra B Shah
Publisher: Kasturbhai Lalbhai Smarak Nidhi Ahmedabad
Publication Year: 2004
Total Pages: 448
Language: English
Classification: Book_English, Philosophy, & Religion
File Size: 21 MB

Page 196

Who is The Author of the....
probably may be the author of the Paficasūtra. Inspite of this sensing, in the absence of definite evidence, Munivara Jambūvijaya did not commit to any positive statement but conceded to the tradition, and prefixed the title of the work with the phrase चिरन्तनाचार्यविरचितम् .
185
It should, however, be clear that, as against this established tradition and the opinions of the aforenoted scholars, the author of the Pañcasūtra is definitely Haribhadra sūri 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 Pañcasūtra.
1. There are three significant sentences at the end of the commentary of the Pañicasūtra: प्रव्रज्याफलसूत्रं समाप्तम् । एवं पञ्चमसूत्रव्याख्या समाप्ता ॥ समाप्तं पञ्चसूत्रकं व्याख्यानतोऽपि ॥
Among these, the third sentence deserves special consideration. It comes from the pen of the commentator and therefore implicitly written to mean समाप्तं पञ्चसूत्रकं व्याख्यानत: ' Had the commentator and the author of the Pañcasūtra been different, the phrase in question, ought to have been in the form समाप्ता पञ्चसूत्रकवृत्तिः', while here it is समाप्तं पञ्चसूत्रकं व्याख्यानतोऽपि and the last word of the phrase, f, holds a suggestive significace. The term 3+fq implies that the Pañcasūtra has been completed in the sense of "together with the commentary." If 3ft is deleted from this sentence, it would mean. that the Pañcasūtra 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 'a' 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