Mahanisiha Studies And Edition In Germany

Author(s): Chandrabhal Tripathi
Publisher: Chandrabhal Tripathi

Page 72

Chandrabhal Tripathi
assertion that the original (puvv'āyarisa, mūl’ādarisa) was quite damaged', nor even the fact of this original having been patched up by one or more revisors. This, for one thing, would in some degree account for the numerous grammatical and metrical peculiarities of our text. Yet as soon as we consider the names referred to in III.825 our suspicion is raised, and justly so. Even Haribhadra's dealing with our text cannot be proved beyond doubt?. As for the list of teachers who are said to have held the MNA in high esteem, it is too much a heterogeneous muddle (even from the chronological point of view) to deserve great credit?. Not to mention the role attributed to Vajrasvāmin (1st cent.) and the existence of Niryuktis, Bhāşyas and Cūrņis which exegetical stages could not possibly develop but on the well-defined texts of the old canon."
19. PASSAGES
19.0 Some passages of the MNA have, because of their unusual contents, attracted the attention of A.Weber and W.Schubring, who quote and discuss them. In our Report also they are mentioned at more than one place. We give their wording and in the case of passages 1-5 attach also the English translation by Deleu.
1 It is even possible that our text has superseded an older work of the same name, see MNSt.A,p.99.
2 I do not believe, however, that some later namesake of the famous Haribhadra (8th cent.) is meant in III.$25.10 and in the colophon of IV. According to Prabhācandra's Haribhadra-carita (see above fn.54) it was the author of the "Samarárka-caritra" who saved the MNA: cira-likhita- (etc.) (vs.219). Yet according to Jinaprabhasūri's Vividhatirthakalpa (samvat 1389 ...) it was Jinabhadra the Kşamāśramaņa: ittha (i.e. in Mathurā) deva-nimmiya-thübhe pakkha-kkhamaņeņa devayam ārāhittā Jinabhadda-Khamāsamanehim uddehia-bhakkhiya-putthaya-pattattaneņa tuttam bhaggam Mahānisiham samdhiam (p.19). ... Perhaps the author of the Visesavassayabhasa and the Jiyakappa (7th cent.?) is meant. See also MNSt.C.p.66 where Schubring points out a prophecy (in MNA VII.$44) bearing on the beginning of the 8th cent.
3 Vpddhavādin's pupil, the famous logician Siddhasena Divākara, and the well-known commentator Jinadāsa-Ganin (both belonging to the 7th cent.) are mentioned in one breath together with the equally wellknown author Nemicandra (13th cent.). The other names either are wholly unknown (Yakşasena) or leave us in doubt as to who is meant. One Devagupta (Umāsvāti's commentator?), who is called a mahākavi, is mentioned in the praśasti of Uddyotanasūri's Kuvalayamālā (Saka 700, see Sandesara, Literary Circle of Mahāmātya Vastupāla (SJS.33.1953),par.17). There is one Yasovardhana who wrote a Pramāṇāntaḥstava (Jesalmere, No.1194) and we know a Ravigupta who was the author of a Candraprabhavijaya (Madras Govt.(Or.Mss.]Libr. Velankar, 3.8.60). Their dates are unknown. Since the term Ksamāśramaņa, as a rule, follows the name, I think that Kşamāśramanaśişya refers to Yasovardhana. The rather obscure Yaśovardhana is not likely to have been called a kşamāśramana himself. The title is generally used with reference to the famous Devarddhi Ganin (5th cent.) but it has also been conferred on Siddhasena Divākara, Jinabhadra, Dinna Gaņin, one Jakkhadatta and one Simha. Note, finally that sonorous terms such as pși and yugapradhāna completely loose their specific meaning in this context and, consequently, fail to impress us.