Jaina World of Non Living

Author(s): N L Jain
Publisher: Parshwanath Vidyapith

Page 26

The Jaina world of Non-living
the early D-commentaries originate from the south and Scommentaries from the north (This point seems to favour the two versions by two different authors. However, 83% similarity overrules this point). The main available commentaries (and translations) are mentioned below in Table 1 on next page with their approximate periodrange collected from various sources along with infomations about the recent research trends and revival of the composition of aphorismic texts. It is observed that the D-explanatories/commentaries are mostly based on S.S. of Pujyapada while S-commentaries are based on the so-called autocommentary. The D-commentaries have three forms- (i) prose (ii) semi-aphorismic prose and (iii) verse which are represented by Nos. (i) 2, 5-9 (ii) 3 and 4 respectively. In fact, No. 3 and 4 have also autocommentaries on the semi-aphorisms and verses. In contrast, the Scommentaries are in prose form only. This translator concurs with Panditji that the D-commentaries no. 3 and 4 are highly philosophical and advanced in comparison to the S-commentaries. In contrast to the opinions of some scholars, it can be easily pointed out that if there appears simplicity in elaboration and style in the S-autocommentary, it is also there in SS in many cases. Of course, it must be admitted that while the Vācaka was a canonist, Pūjyapada was grammarian and logician also as is reflected in his SS. This point cannot, therefore, be a sufficient ground to prove the earlier or later period of the two, Secondly, if noncomposition of commentaries for longer periods (i.e. about 700 years in case of Kundakunda texts) could be a logic for dating an author, the Vā caka will also appear to be in the same category (Siddhasena commentary being about 400 years later) and his date could also be about 6" century i.e. about 100 years earlier than Siddhasena. This leads to an approximate contemporariness of Pūjyapada and Vācaka - one in south and other in north, per chance without normal chances of mutual personal communication. This seems to be an anomalous point for the debating scholars. Pt. P.C. Shastri and recently S.M. Jain (and many others) have dealt with this issue which requires more exhaustive studies to yield plausible conclusion.
One of the vexed problems associated with the socalled autocommentary of Vācaka Umāsvāti is whether he is only a commentator or author-cum-commentator of the text. The following points indicate that he could be only commentator-cum-remodeller of the original text under the title “Vācaka': 1. Generally, no panegerics are found in ancient texts upto the from the days of scholastic schismisation).
21 www.jainelibrary.org