Mahanisiha Studies And Edition In Germany

Author(s): Chandrabhal Tripathi
Publisher: Chandrabhal Tripathi

Page 67

MAHĀNISĪHA STUDIES AND EDITION IN GERMANY
67
Pcchs, if compared with those in other parts of the MNA, will show that they are heterogeneous; those in the PcchS could possibly be a remnant of the older and genuine Mahānisītha. 8.1.7.1 Moreover, since long the inclusion of the MNA in the Canon has not been undisputed. The remark in Sanskrit (IV.$18: B,p.182) tells that the text is ārşa, i.e. canonical. Another remark in Prakrit (III.925, esp.11: B,p.63) goes further to give it an archaic authority: the MNA was held, it says, in high esteem (-pamuhehim juga-ppahāņasuyaharehim bahu-manniyam iņam) by prominent leaders like Siddhasena divākara. ... As this remark contains the name of Nemicandra, it must be dated in the 12th or rather 13th cent. AD. This remark seems to be directed against certain opponents and can be compared with Jinaprabha-sūri's note in his Vidhimārgaprapa (dated samvat 1363). Such opponents have been refuted also by Dharmasāgara-sūri in his Kupakşa-kausikâditya (samvat 1629). R.G.Bhandarkar (Rep.1883-84, p.148) in his analysis of Dharmasāgara's KKĀ says, "Chandraprabha and his sect as well as the Lumpāka and the Chaityavāsins do not recognise the Mahānisītha at all". Candraprabha founded in samvat 1159 the branch called Pūrnimā., Paurņimāyaka- or Paurņamiyaka-gaccha. 8.1.7.2 We would be happy to know the exact reasons why these dissidents rejected the MNA. Not only the dissidents but also the conservatives must have found some elements in the MNA which they could not easily accept. Hence its sequencenumber among the Chedasūtras is varying in different lists. 8.1.7.3 And for us, there is no doubt that the MNA should not be considered as a canonical text on account of its language, its contents, and also its date.
18.2 Schubring, MNSt.B,pp.171-174. 8.2.1 ... Regarding the Mss. used by us, my colleagues have given all details; on my part I would like to join them in heartily thanking Muni Shri Punyavijaya, whose willingness to help us by getting the film of one Ms. (Pu) prepared and sending it to Hamburg and lending us also the original of another Ms. (K) has been of immense value for our understanding of the textual transmission. The Ms. K belongs to the collection of Pravarttaka Shri Muni Kāntivijaya and could be lent with the friendly consent of the local authorities, to them also we tender our sincere thanks. As we have been informed,