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 205

Acārya Vijayaśīlacandrasūri
also in the fagfafafa [8/3], though in a different contextual sense. There it bears the meaning "Adoration conferring all-sided auspiciousness (सर्वमंगलकारिणी पूजा). In the tenth verse of the ninth षोडशक this adoration has been styled fat, but the commentator Yasovijaya has suggested that worship to have been published by समंतभद्दा 8.
194
[14] Lastly, let us glance at the sentences in the ending portion of the Pañcasūtra. It has been written in the last aphorism that f लिंगविवज्जयाओ तप्परिण्णा । तयणुग्गहट्टाए आमकुंभोदगनासनाएणं एसा करुणत्ति वुच्चइ 59 et cetera. The sense which is embodied in the above aphorism, appears exactly in the same significance in the concluding portion of the योगदृष्टिसमुच्चय :
'हरिभद्र इदं प्राह नैतेभ्यो देय आदरात् ॥ २२६॥ अवज्ञेह कृताऽल्पाऽपि यदनर्थाय जायते । अतस्तत्परिहारार्थं न पुनर्भावदोषतः ॥ २२७॥ 60
Jambu-jyoti
The contents given in these works, if passed to unworthy persons, the persons will become victims in any sort of calamity; therefore, it is a favour to them in not giving them the contents. Such a compassionate attitude, even in different words, can be impartially seen here.
All afore-recorded references unambiguously show that, it is very positively Haribhadra sūri and none else who emerges as the author of the original text of the Pañcasūtra. Had it not been so, the content-references of the Pañcasūtra cannot bear similarity with the several corresponding references from the many works-Prakrit as well as Sanskrit-of that Acarya to such an extent.
Despite this clear internal evidence, if the view of attributing the authorship of the Pañcasutra to an unknown ancient (f) ācārya or the one by name 'Cirantana' who might have flourished prior to Haribhadra sûri be maintained, we will be forced to accept that Haribhadrācārya might have borrowed verbally as well as sensewise all the above recorded references from 'the others' works compared with the references of the Pañcasūtra and the contents discussed therein and, simultaneously with this, the originality of Haribhadra sūri observable in the presentation of matter, thoughts, and all of his works would come to nil. A conclusion such as that would amount to doing the gravest injustice to him and to his works.