Mahavira and his Teaching

Author(s): C C Shah, Rishabhdas Ranka, Dalsukh Malvania
Publisher: Bhagwan Mahavir 2500th Nirvan Mahotsava Samiti

Page 12

JAINA EXEGETICAL LITERATURE
5
the Jainas, p. 63): "As long as such insertions were limited, the title of Nijjutti remained but when the size of the latter had swollen up owing to an extraordinary number of Bhāṣya verses, it was they who gave the whole work its title." What this explanation fails to make clear is the relation between Bhasya and Curni. According to Schubring, the Curni is a commentary on the Nijjutti as well as on the Bhasya, but in some cases the Curni follows immediately on the Nijjutti without a Bhasya in between. I am afraid these views are based on a misunderstanding of the true character of the Bhasya. My own opinion will be given with some reserve; it may have to be modified after a more extensive study of the whole Bhasya literature. But a comparison of the Viseṣāvasyakabhāṣya with the Avasyakacurni leaves to me no doubt that the former is a mere versification of the prose tradition represented by the latter. I believe that, certainly in this case and probably also generally, Tikā and Bhāṣ ya represent two parallel developments: the Tika changes the Prakrit language of the Curni to Sanskrit but keeps to the prose form; the Bhasya versifies the traditional prose but keeps to the Prakrit language. It is perhaps not too bold to see in the Bhasya an attempt at continuing beside the new Sanskrit exegesis the old Prakrit tradition in a new form. This new form may indeed have been suggested by the progressive insertion of Bhāṣ ya stanzas into the Nijjuttis; but that the Bhāṣya really marks a new departure is shown by its very size which is a multiple of that of the average Nijjutti; it is underlined by distinguishing the 257 Bhāṣ va stanzas inserted into the AvasyakaNijjutti as Mulabhāṣ ya from the Viseṣāvasyakabhāṣ ya of Jinabhadra. Studying this latter work, Leumann has noted that its language is much more correct and its style more intelligible than that of the old Nijjuttis and their Bhāṣya insertions; Jinabhadra, Leumann remarks, "has done away with that old slovenliness". I should prefer to say that the Bhasyas are a new departure also linguistically: perhaps it would not be too much to speak of a kind of Prakrit renaissance.
What I have said so far might have given rise to the notion that there exists for every, or almost every, text of the canon a set of the four types of exegetical works. Actually, tradition has a list of ten Nijjuttis only and ascribes their composition to one Bhadrabahu. If he is at all a historical personality, he cannot be the great father of the church of that name in the third century
1. "Übersicht über die Avasyaka-Literatur", 31b.