Nandisutt and Anuogaddaraim

Author(s): Devvachak, Aryarakshit, Punyavijay, Dalsukh Malvania, Amrutlal Bhojak
Publisher: Mahavir Jain Vidyalay

Page 175

... (30)... decidedly about 170 V.N. In other words, they were already in existence 300 years before the commencement of Vikrama Era. The Niśithasutra is nothing but an appendage (cülikā) to the Acaränga. Though the author of the Cūrni considers it to be a work of a ganadhara, the Niryukti which is no doubt anterior to the Cūrni regards it as the work of a sthavira. Hence we should accept the view of the Niryukti; of course, there is difference of opinion as to who that sthavira was. The Pañcakalpa-cūrni explicitly states that it was composed by Bhadrabahu, whereas a găthā occurring at the end of the Niśitha itself states that it is a work of Visakhācārya. However, whether it be a work of Bhadrabāhu or Viśākhācārya or any other old sthavira, it makes no material difference as to its age of composition. It is so because it undoubtedly belongs to the period preceding the Schism. Both the traditions include it in the angabāhya class. Ac. Umāsvāti also refers to it. Moreover, even Bhadrabāhu refers to it under the name of Acara-prakalpa. Considering all these points we can place it in the period about 150 V.N. Even if we were to consider it to be the work of Visakhācārya, we can safely conclude that it had already come into existence even before 175 V.N. In other words, it had already been composed 300 years before the commencement of Vikrama Era.
Out of the four works that are designated as Müla, the date of the Daśavaikälika is definitely known. It is a work of Sayyambhava who left this mortal world in 98 V.N. This means that the composition of the Daśavaikälika took place 372 years before the commencement of Vikrama Era. The cūlikas that occur in it have been added later on. And according to the traditional view they have been added in the time of Sthūlabhadra. Except these cūlikas nothing has been added in the Daśavaikālika and the entire work, barring the linguistic influences that entered into it, has been preserved in its original form. On the basis of the Digambara list of the angabāhya works we can legitimately say that the compilation of the Uttaradhyayanasūtra had taken place before the Schism. The scholars place it in the third or the second century before the commencement of Vikrama Era. Out of the six adhyayanas of the Avaśyakasūtra the four are mentioned even in the Digambara list. In the Angas in all cases of the treatment of a Muni's study reference has been made to *samaiyaim ekādasamgaim'. This suggests that the Samayika-adhyayana was accorded first place in the curriculum prepared for the Munis. Hence, we can maintain that the period of its composition is identical with that of the Angas composed by the gañadharas. Out of the Pindaniryukti and the Oghaniryukti either is included in the mūla class. Both these Niryuktis are very old. There existed certain Niryuktis even before those of Bhadrabāhu. There are evidences to