________________
IV]
THE EXTINCT ĀGAMAS OF THE JAINAS This means that the text of nimittaśāstras, Angas apart, comes to 1250 slokas, its vrtti to 12500 and its paribhāşā to 12 lacs and a half. It remains to be ascertained as to which this text is. Is it Nimittapāhuda or some other work probably based upon it ?
There is a work known as Prašnavyākarana on which the late Mr. C. D. Dalal has noted 3 commentaries viz. Cūdāmani, Jyoti and anonymous. He has suggested that Jayaprābhrta is another name of Praśnavyākarana, but Muni Kalyāņavijaya expresses his doubt about it. Vide Jainayuga (1, 3, p. 93).
Pāhudas 9 to 13-We have practically no details available about these Pāhudas except what I have practically already noted. About Saddapāhuda I may add that Hemacandra Sūri while commenting upon a grammatical portion (p. 1506) occurring in Anuogaddāra (s. 130 ) expresses his inability to explain some part of it as Śabdaprābhrta is lost (vide Chap. VII).
Jinamaņdana Gaņi, in his Kumārapālaprabandha (pp. 986–99a) has said that 21 names of Satruñjaya are noted in Vidyāprābhrta.
In the svopajña vịtti (p. 566) of Śrāddhavidhi we have:"प्रतिष्ठाप्राभृतात् श्रीपादलितोद्धृतप्रतिष्ठापद्धतौ च यथामणितम्"
From this it follows that Padalipta's Pratisthāpaddhati is based upon Pratişthāprābhrta.
Siddhapāhuda—This is defined in Kahāvalë as below:"जस्थ पायलेबंजणगुडिवाईहिं सिद्धा स(: ? पोरूविजंति तं सिद्धपाहुडं" .
It appears that Aryasamita Sthavira could stop the flow of a river by yogacūrna on account of his knowledge of Siddhapāhuda. That Pādalipta Sūri and Nāgārjuna Sūri could fly by applying some thing on the sole of a foot, is probably due to their knowledge of this work. It may be added that probably it was the knowledge of this Pāhuda that helped the two pupils of Susthitācārya in remaining invisible by means of some asjana applied to eyes and in sharing the food of King Candragupta.
In this connection it may not be amiss to state that we have another work available at present and named as Siddhapāhuda. It is extracted from Aggānīya (vide p. 88), but it should not be on that account confounded with the one in question.
