Agam 15 Upang 04 Pragnapana Sutra Part 02

Author(s): Shyamacharya, Punyavijay, Dalsukh Malvania, Amrutlal Bhojak
Publisher: Mahavir Jain Vidyalay

Page 464

... [435] ...
Pt. II, p. 63. But we have not come across this manuscript. And we do not find the mention of this manuscript in the catalogue of the manuscripts preserved in this very Bhandara—the catalogue recently prepared by Muni Shri Punyavijayajī. So, we have to believe that at present the concerned manuscript is not there in this Bhaņdāra. This. Prajñāpanāsūtrasāroddhāra' and Ac. Abhayadeva's Prajñāpinoddhāra' alias Prajñāpanāsangrahanl' are two different works. This is so because Prajñāpanāsároddhāra is in prose whereas Prajñāpanoddhāra is in verses.
(13) Prajñāpanāparyāya
The title of the manuscript in Muni Shri Punyavijayaji's Collection (No. 4801) preserved in L. D. Vidyamandir is Sarvasiddhāntavişamapadaparyāya'. The work is that type of commentary which gives simply the synonyms (paryāya) of difficult terms (vişamapada). It begins with the paryāyas of the terms from Pañcavastuka. Then from folio 2 B there occur the paryayas of the terms from Ācāranga etc. Therein from folio 5 A there occur the paryāyas of the terms from Prajñāpanā. First the author gives the term which he wants to explain. Then he gives its explanation. The explanation is mainly in the form of synonyms. First of all it takes up for explanation the term 'anāhāraka' from chapter XVIII. And in folio 6 B the author finishes Prajñapanāparyāya and starts to give paryāyas of the terms from Niśithacūrni etc. Folios 63 A to 64B contain the paryāyas of difficult terms from Prajñapanavivarana. 'Pakşikasūtraparyāya' ends in 26th folio. There exists, in the Bhandāra of Cambay, one palm-leaf manuscript resembling this much portion (i. e. folios 1 to 26) of the present manuscript. Refer to Catalogue of Palm-leaf manuscripts in the Sāntinātha Jaina Bhandara, Cambay (part one]' p. 128. Therein the title is 'Nihsesasiddhanta paryaya'. On the basis of the author's prasasti found at the end of the manuscript in Santinātha Bhandara we know that the author of the Paryayas upto 'Pakşikasūtraparyāya' is Candrakirtisūri (1212 V.S.) But in the concerned manuscript in L. D. Vidyamandir there does not occur author's prasasti on folio 26th wherein ends Paksikasūtraparyaya.' Not only that, but it contains, after. Pākṣikasūtraparyāya,' other Paryāyas (Niriyāvaliyașūtraparyāya, etc.). And the last folio is 69th. Even at the end of the entire manuscript of 69 folios we are not told as to who is the author. So, we surmise that this manuscript in L. D. Vidyamandir is a collection of two different works of the same nature. In other Bhaņdāras too such manuscripts are available.