Agam 39 Chhed 06 Mahanishith Sutra

Author(s): Punyavijay, Rupendrakumar Pagariya, Dalsukh Malvania, H C Bhayani
Publisher: Prakrit Granth Parishad

Page 61

54
MAHĀNISIHA STUDIES AND EDITION IN GERMANY
57.7 The Jaina tradition does not, on the one hand, ascribe the authorship of the MNA to any person of mythological or historical character, but it does, on the other hand, connect either one person like Jinabhadra-gani or ācārya Haribhadra or several authoritative names with the "editorship" of the MNA. 17.8 The Ms(s), it says, being defective, some scholarly authority had to undertake an "edition", see e.g. the Vividha-tirtha-kalpa or the Prabhāvaku-carita (18.1.7). (Similar reports are current about the Mahabhāsya of Patanjali or the Natyaśāstra "of Bharata", too). These legends may have originated in the remarks which appear in the MNA itself, which contains some passages in Chap.II-III-IV (see 19) wherein the very deplorable condition of "original Ms(s)" and the regulating efforts to create order in its text by Vajrasvāmin or Haribhadra are clearly mentioned. 97.9 The implications of the term "authorship" in Jaina context in particular are surely not the same as those which are now prevalent. A Jaina author would not, for instance, feel guilty of plagiarism if he cites verbatim or with modifications passages and especially verses from earlier literature, the less so if his source and his activity betong to the "sacred" or "ritual" domain. Mostly he quotes from memory, hence there are ample possibilities of an increase of variants or of standardizing or even normalizing the wording; he may at times use archaic forms to "lend his work a flavour of antiquity" (Deleu,p.1). Such was, it seems, the case with the compiler of the present MNA. He inserted remarks about his "work" at different places, and these remarks later on attracted further remarks (some sentences in III.925, perhaps whole of IV.918). 17.10 In the last century Ernst Leumann believed in the "editorship" of Haribhadra, but, as a result of his further studies for more than twenty years, he revoked his opinion in a letter dated 20th March, 1917, see MNSt.B,p.174,fn.2. Similarly Schubring accepted some connection of the MNA with Haribhadra in his first study in 1918, but in 1963 he is more cautious in his expressions. 17.11 In brief, it should now be established clearly that neither Jinabhadra-gain, the bhäsyakst, nor ācārya Haribhadra, the Yākini-mahattarā-sūnu, can be credited with the composition or the editorship of the MNA. Equally certain is the result arrived at by Schubring and others that the MNA owes its present form to one person who was zealous in his ideas and strong in his views but less competent to fulfil his task as far as the language and the metrics are concerned.