Agam 39 Chhed 06 Mahanishith Sutra

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

Page 68

MAHĀNISIHA STUDIES AND EDITION IN GERMANY
61
78.3 Deleu, MNSt.B,pp. 1-2
"...We may further point out the fact that such symptul..s as the tantrism of the vidyās (App.74ff.) and the caityavāsin way of living (denounced by our author, esp[ecially) in Chap.V) are typical of a period of decadence.
In view of these facts the many devices the author uses to lend his work a flavour of antiquity are not very convincing. Neither are some of the allegations we read in 1.828.2f. and III.825, 846. I would not go so far, however, as to reject all of them. After all, the words bahu-ganham parigaliyam (1.828.3) might apply to the dubious passage we indeed find in I.145*ff. And, esp(ecially] because of the interpolation concerning upadhāna, the construction of Chap.III is, in fact, as loose as III.825.7 contends it is. Moreover, the passages from the suya-samudda (III.846.7) that are said to have taken the place of a bahum gantham vippanatham are perhaps nothing but the many quotations we find in III.844. Consequently, I do not think it necessary to disbelieve the assertion that the original (puvv'āyarisa, mūl'adarisa) was quite damaged', nor even the fact of this original having been patched up by one or more revisors. This, for one thing, would in some degree account for the numerous grammatical and metrical peculiarities of our text. Yet as soon as we consider the names referred to in III.825 our suspicion is raised, and justly so. Even Haribhadra's dealing with our text cannot be proved beyond doubt?. As for the list of teachers who are said to have held the MNA in high esteem, it is too much a heterogeneous muddle (even from the chronological point of view) to deserve great credit'. Not to mention the role attributed to Vajrasvāmin (1st cent.) and the existence of Niryuktis, Bhäşyas and Cūrņis which exegetical stages could not possibly develop but on the well-defined texts of the old canon."
nace of a bahuman. consequently mad'adarisa) was quite
was quite danary to disbelily quoten Haribhad. the names rohmatical and
It is even possible that our text has superseded an older work of the same name, scc MNSI.A,p.99.
? I do not believe, however, that some later namesake of the famous Haribhadra (8th cent.) is meant in III.$25.10 and in the colophon of IV. According to Prabhācandra's Haribhadra-carita (sce above fn.54) it was the author of the "Samarárka-caritra" who saved the MNA: cira-likhita- ctc.) (vs.219). Yet according to Jinaprabhasūri's Vividhatinthakalpa (samvat 1389 ...) it was Jinabhadra the kşamāśramana: ittha (i.c. in Mathura) deva-nimmiya-thüthe pakkha-kkhamanena devayam arūhitta Jinabhadda-Kiamāsananchim uddehia-bhakkhiya-putthaya-pattattanena tuffam bhaggam Mahānisiham sandhiam (p.19). ... Perhaps the author of the Viscsavassayabhasa and the Jiyakappa (7th cent.?) is mcant. See also MNSt.C.p.66 where Schubring points out a prophecy (in MNA VII.844) bearing on the beginning of the 8th cent.
Vrouhavădin's pupil, the famous logician Siddhascna Diväkara, and the well-known commentator Jinadasa-Gaņin (both belonging to the 7th cent.) are mentioned in one breath together with the cqually wellknown author Nemicandra (13th cent.). The other names cither are wholly unknown (Yakşascna) or Icave us in doubt as to who is mcart. One Devagupta (Umāsvāti's commentator?), who is called a mahākay, is mentioned in thc prasasti of Uddyotanasūri's Kuvalayamālā (Saka 700, scc Sandesara, Literary Circle of Mahămătya Vastupala (SJS.33.1953),par.17). There is one Yašovardhana who wrote a Pramāṇāntahstava (Jesalmere,No.1194) and we know a Ravigupta who was the author of a Candraprabhavijaya (Madras Govt.(Or.Mss. Libr. Velankar, 3.8.60). Thcir dates are unknown. Since the term kşamāśramana, as a rule, follows the name, I think that kşamāśramana işya refers to Yasovardhana. The rather obscurc Yaśovardhana is not likely to have been called a kşamåśramana himself. The title is generally used with reference to the famous Devarddhi Gasin (Sth ccnt.) but it has also been confcrred on Siddhasena Divākara, Jinabhadra, Dinna Ganin, onc Jakkhadatta and one Simha. Notc, finally that sonorous terms such as si and yugapradhāna completely loose their specific mcaning in this context and, consequently, fail to impress us.