________________
SACRED LITERATURE OF THE JAINS.
OCTOBER, 1892.]
the citation is from the Nandi and not from anga 4. The Nandi and not anga 4 is therefore indisputably the source whence these citations are drawn. But whether or no the account here is really to be regarded as the source whence came the account in anga 4, appears to me to be still in dubiis. This assumption is rendered improbable by the fact there are very great differences in these accounts, not to mention that that of anga 4 is much more detailed. If, however, we regard the account in the N. as the source, then that in anga 4 is secondary and enlarged after it had effected a lodgment in that anga. [19] But on the other hand it is a perfectly legitimate conclusion that the account in N. and in anga 4 were drawn from a common source now no longer extant. Finally, it must be stated that the entire section in N. almost gives me the impression of being a secondary insertion. The fact that it too contains the most wonderful statements, called into existence by the effort of pure fancy (cf. especially the statements concerning anga 6 and anga 12), cannot readily be reconciled with that tradition which regards the Nandi as the work of Dêvarddhigani, the nominal redactor of the whole Siddhanta. Dêvarddhigani would have expressed himself in a more sober, definite way, and would not have given rein to such monstrous figments of the imagination. We must not, however, suppress the fact that the Pâkshikasûtram takes no notice of this detailed statement of contents and extents of the 12 angas, but limits itself merely to the enumeration of the twelve names.88
301
Then, too, the general observations in reference to the duvâlasamgam ganipidagam, which are joined on to the account of each of the twelve angas, are found here in just the same form as in anga 4; cf. pp. 368, 369. The five kârikâs form the conclusion. They contain statements in reference to the correct [20] attainment of the suanâņam; the last one reads: suttatthô khalu padhamô, bô nijjntti(!)-misiô bhaniô I taiôn niravasêsô, êsa vihi hội anuôê || 5 | According to Leumann, the reference in Bhag. 25, 3 cites this verse as the conclusion of this entire account (java suttatthô... annôê). The nijjutti is also mentioned.
Next follow some statements which are not noticed by the author of the avachûri, from which we may conclude that they were inserted at a later period, though they may in reality be of great age. They comprise a section in prose in reference to the anunnâ, anujnâ, and a renewed repetition of the titles of the 12 angas and a reference to Usabhasêna, as the original source of the anunnâ. See p. 15.
The commentary, which I have before me (avachûri), the work of an anonymous author, is very short. The Calcutta edition contains the commentary of Malayagiri, according to Leumann. We have already seen that a Nandivṛitti is frequently cited. -see pp. 353, 354 (Vichârâmritasaṁgraha), 360 (Abhayadê va), the citations from it being partly in Prakrit (güthâ), partly in Sanskrit. In the scholium on the Ganadharasárdhasata (see pp. 371, 458) Sarvarajagani ascribes a nandivṛitti to the old Haribhadra, who is said to have died 75 years after Dêvarddhigani. The author of the Vichárámṛitasamgraha appears to ascribe such a nandivṛitti to Umâsvâmivâchaka who was about 50 years older (see pp. 371, 372). He says (fol. 3a of the Berlin MS.) tathâ châ "ha bhagavân Umâsvâmivâchakaḥ: samyagdarśanajnânachâritrâni mokshamârga iti Namdivṛittau, vâchakasabdaś cha pûrvagataśrutadharê rûḍhô, yatha: pûrvagatam sûtram anyach cha vinêyân vâchayamti 'ti vâchakaḥ, Namdivṛittau: [21] vâdî ya.. (see p. 353a). Such statements as these in reference to commentaries of so great an age are of great importance as regards the age of the Nandi.
XLII. The Anuyogadvarasûtram is an encyclopedic review of everything worth knowing," composed in anuôgas, questions and answers. It is composed in prose though there is
I call attention here to the mention of the name Bhaddabahu on anga 13, pp. 360, 367. It is noteworthy that he appears in the same gradation (though last in order) as the names Dasara, Baladeva, Vasudeva, Harivansa, and consequently as a mythological personage.
This is introduced in just the same manner as the previous one. See pp.10, 13:-namo têsim khamisamaanam jehim imam vaiyam duvalasamgam ganipidagarh, tarh jaha.., and concludes in the same way: savvéhim pi éyammi duválasamnge ganipidage bhagavamte aasutte...
An account of the method of defining and explaining the Sastras, Kash.
