Mahanisiha Studies And Edition In Germany

Author(s): Chandrabhal Tripathi
Publisher: Chandrabhal Tripathi

Page 54

54
Chandrabhal Tripathi
16.4 Daśavaikālika-sūtra, IV.10*a, is cited e.g. in III.84.2 (B,p.52.1): padhamam nāņam tao dayā. Vyavahāra-bhāșya, 1.291, corresponds to MNA III.119* (Ernst Leumann). Many passages in the MNA remind us of similar or identical wordings in other canonical and post-canonical texts.
Even the title Mahānisiha-ajjhayaņa or -suyakkhandha tries to connect our text with the Niśītha-sūtra which is a genuine, and an older, Chedasūtra, and thus with the Canon. The mutual relationship between the Kalpa-, Vyavahāra-, and Niśitha-sūtra has been discussed in detail by Schubring. In Lehre he says: "A reminiscence of the Niśīthasūtra is to be found only in the fact that within the VIIth Chapter, in the so-called Pacchitta-sutta, are presented lighter forms of punishment for a great number of offences. At the same time, [the MNA,] this work of the later period tries to secure for itself a legitimacy through some connection with the old text of the Niśītha-sūtra"82.
16.5 In the subsequent time the MNA has been reflected in some later compositions, some of which may be mentioned here. (See also 91.12 for more details.) (1) As Schubring (MNSt.A,pp.48-50) has proved, the Susadha-kahā / -carita of Devendra-sūri is a "metrical recast" of the VIIIth Chap. (Susadha-kahā) of the MNA. Even the story of Lakkhaṇadevi (Chap.VI.204*ff.) was inserted by Devendra into his work, which is full of his own embellishments and avoids any verbatim citations of verses from the MNA. (2) Ratnaśekhara-sūri has, in his Ācāra-pradipa (Skt), composed in samvat 1516, cited in extracts a large part of MNA III.33.15-836.1 as his classical and canonical source. (3) Some interesting passages of the MNA (e.g. III.$25, IV.$18Skt) were regarded as canonical and therefore worth citation and discussion by Dharmasāgara-sūri in his Kupakşa-kausikâditya (Chap.III), composed in samvat 1629. Schubring (MNSt.A, pp.46) and Deleu (MNSt.B, pp.1f.) study the original also in the light of Dharmasāgara's comments. It is remarkable to observe how the MNA was drawn into later controversies amongst the Jaina clergy; this observation finds further support in the fact that
32 It may be added here that the MNA claims for the Pancamangala-tract a series of Niryukti-BhāşyaCūrņi commentaries which, it says, are extinct! See III.$25.2.