________________
B. K. Khadabadi
"To quote Schubring (Doctrines., p. 63): “As long as guch insertions were limited, the title of Nijjutti remained .... but when the size of the latter had swollen up owing to an extraordinary number of Bhāșya verses, it was they who gave the whole work its title.” What this explanation fails to make clear is the relation between Bhāșya and Cürņi. According to Schubring, the Cürņi is a commentary on the Nijjutti as well as on the Bhäşya, but in some cases the Cūrņi follows immediately on the Nijjutti without a Bhāşya in between, I am afraid these views are based on a misunderstanding of the true character of the Bhāşya. My own opinion will be given with some reserve; it may have to be modified after a more extensive study of the whole Bhāșya literature. But a comparison of the Vises = Avaš yakabhasya with the Āvas yaka-cūrņi leaves to me no doubt that the former is a mere versification of the prose tradition represented by the latter. I believe that certainly in this case, and probably also generally, Țika and Bhāșya represent two parallel developments: the Țikā changes the Prakrit language of the Cūrņi to Sanskrit but keeps to the prose form; but the Bhāșya versifies the traditional prose yet keeps to the Prakrit language. It is perhaps not too bold to see in the Bhäşya an attempt at the continuing, beside the new Sanskrit exegesis, the old Prakrit tradition in a new form. This new form may indeed have been suggested by the progressive insertion of Bhāșya stanzes into the Nijjuttis; but that the Bhāșya really marks a new departure is shown by its very size which is a multiple of that of the average Nijjutti; it is underlined by distinguishing the 257 Bhäșya stanzas inserted into the Avaśyaka-nijjutti as 'Mülabhāșya' from the Vibes = Avaí yaka-bhas ya of Jinabhadra.
After going through this passage we find that Alsdorf proposes to present here (of course, with some reservation and subject to modifications after thorough investigation), his opinion about the true character of Bhāsya mainly through the following lines of thinking :
The comparison of the Vises = Āvašyaka-bhāsya with the Avašyak-cūrni undoubtedly shows that the former is a mere versification of the latter.
(ii) Tikä and Bhäşya (the Avas yaka-tikä and the Vises - Avaš yaka-bhāsya and also other Tikās and Bhāşyas) represent two parallel developments :- (a) The Tikā changes the Prakrit language of the Cūrņi to Sanskrit but keeps to the prose form; (b) the Bhāşya versifies the traditional prose but keeps to the Prakrit language.
(iii) In the Bhāşya one sees an attempt at continuing, besides the new Sanskrit exegesis, the old Prakrit tradition in a new form.
Now examining the first line of thinking of Alsdorf's opinion, of course on the basis of my own comparison of the two works of the Jaina exegetical literature, namely the Vises - Avaš yaka-bhasyale and the Āvaf yaka-cürni,17 I find that the learned Professor's attention has, some how, missed the narrative element which prominently appears in the Avas yaka-cūrņi, wherein the kathāna kas are narrated in beautiful Prakrit prose. On the other hand, the Vises- Avar yaka-bhagya is
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
