Jain Journal 1994 01

Author(s): Jain Bhawan Publication
Publisher: Jain Bhawan Publication

Page 34

134
JAIN JOURNAL
chedasūtras, two more mülasūtras, 2012 and, if Haribhadra's explanation of isibhāsiai is correct,1013 to painna 7 fgg.
If we compare these statements with those in the commentary of Rsimandalasūtra in Jacobi, Kalpas, p. 12, in reference to the ten nir yuktis composed by Bhadrabahu, it is manifest that they are identical (instead of kalakasya in the passage in Jacobi we must read kalpakasya), and that Bhadrabahu must be regarded as the one who in our passage speaks in the first person. This conclusion, however, is not supported by the Theravali in chap. 1, which, as we have seen, p. 7, is much later than Bhadrabahu. Nevertheless, we have just above formed the opinion that this contradiction is immaterial, since this pițhikā is to be regarded as not extant at the time of the composition of chap. 2. (59). The greater is, however, the contradiction which is disclosed by other parts of the text, notably the first verse of the oghaniryukti cited as 6,89, and chapter 8, etc. The statements made there refer to a period much later than that of Bhadrabahu, the old bearer of this name, and who is assumed to be the last cauddasapuyvi (+ Vira 170). All these statements must either be regarded as alien to the original text, or the person in question may be one of the later bearers of the name of Bhadrabahu, to whom these ten Niryuktis might be referred. The further course of the - account would then determine to what and to how late a period this Bhadr, belonged. All this is, however, on the supposition that we should have to assume that all the other chapters of the Nijjutti were the work of but one hand ! In this connection the distinction is of significance which Haribhadra-see above pp. 54, 55— draws in reference to the separate constituent parts of the Nijj. The fourteenth chapter is expressly stated by him to have been composed by another author, viz. Jiņabhadda. See my remarks on pp. 61, 62 in reference to the incorporation of the oghanijjutti. The result is that chap. 14 and several other chapters (9, 11, 12, 20) exist in a detached form in the MSS., without any connection with āv. nijj. At any rate the statements made in the text remain of extreme interest since they show the interconnection of the ten niryuktis mentioned in the text, and their relation to one author. A good part of these niry, appears to be still extant. [60] As regards the MS. of the niryuktayah, mentioned above p. 58", we must confess that Peterson's account does not make it clear in which of the above ten texts it is contained. On the acăraniryukti see p. 258, Peterson, Palm-leaf 62, Kielhorn's
012 das avealiam is undoubtedly referred to under dasakaliam. See the same
denotation in v. 1 of the four gåthas added there at tho close. For the
abbreviation see note 3 on p. 57 in reference to uttarajha. 1013 This is, however, extremely doubtful as regards the existing painnam called
devendrastaya, See pp. 442, 259, 272, 280, 281, 402, 429, 431, 43.