Agam 39 Chhed 06 Mahanishith Sutra

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

Page 64

MAHĀNISĪHA STUDIES AND EDITION IN GERMANY
57
8.1.5 We can, therefore, say in brief that the period of the MNA lies between the exegetical texts in Prakrit and Haribhadra, who is now placed in the 9th cent. AD. Haribhadra's older contemporary was Dharmadāsa-gani, whose Upadeśa-mālā has many verses in common with our text (see 16.2). The borrower is most probat y Dharmadāsa. 8.1.6 If the date of the compilation of our text is comparatively late, 'how it is, one may ask, that it could secure a place, though not uncontested, in the Canon among the Chedasūtras. The MNA is mentioned only once in the Nandi-sūtras. The commentaries to the Nandi- and Pākşika-sūtra explain the title by merely saying that because it is bigger than the Nisitha-Sūtra it is called Mahānisītha. It is also likely that the title listed in the Nandi-sūtra belonged originally to a different text, whose traces could perhaps be discovered if we consider the Pacchitta-sutta. An examination of the atonements in the Pechs, if compared with those in other parts of the MNA, will show that they are heterogeneous; those in the Pcchs could possibly be a remnant of the older and genuine Mahānisitha. 8.1.7.1 Moreover, since long the inclusion of the MNA in the Canon has not been undisputed. The remark in Sanskrit (IV.818: B,p.182) tells that the text is ārșa, i.e. canonical. Another remark in Prakrit (III.825, esp.11: B,p.63) goes further to give it an archaic authority: the MNA was held, it says, in high esteem (-pamuhehim juga-ppahāņa. suyaharehim bahu-manniyam iņam) by prominent leaders like Siddhasena divākara. ... As this remark contains the name of Nemicandra, it must be dated in the 12th or rather 13th cent. AD. This reniark seems to be directed against certain opponents and can be compared with Jinaprabha-sūri's note in his Vidhimärgaprapā (dated samvat 1363). Such opponents have been refuted also by Dharmasāgara-sūri in his Kupakşa-kausikâditya (samvat 1629). R.G.Bhandarkar (Rep.1883-84,p.148) in his analysis of Dharmasāgara's KKĀ says, "Chandraprabha and his sect as well as the Lumpāka and the Chaityavāsins do not recognise the Mahānisitha at all". Candraprabha founded in samvat 1159 the branch called Purnima-, Paurņimayaka- or Paurņamiyaka-gaccha. 8.1.7.2 We would be happy to know the exact reasons why these dissidents rejected the MNA. Not only the dissidents but also the conservatives must have found some elements in the MNA which they could not easily accept. Hence its sequencenumber among the Chedasūtras is varying in different lists. 8.1.7.3 And for us, there is no doubt that the MNA should not be considered as a canonical text on account of its language, its contents, and also its date.
$3 Ed. Muni Punyavijaya, Pt. Dalsukh Mālvania, Pt. A.M.Bhojak: JAG.1. 1968, p.32: 884), and this reference recurs in thc Pāksika-sūtra, with Yaśodeva's comm. ed. Candrasāgara-gani (srimadVijayabhaktisūrisvara-jaina-granthamālā, 3. sam.2006, p.124, linc 3. Scc Yaśodeva' comm. (op.cit.p.126,lincs 12-13: niśitho madhya-rātris, tadvad rahobhütam yad adhyayanam, tan nísitham ācārânga-pancama-cudety arthah, asmad ova granthârthābhyām mahatlaram mahāniśitham.