Nandisutt and Anuogaddaraim

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

Page 250

ABOUT THE PRESENT EDITION
105
There arises a question as to why the 7th Sutra devoted to the discussion of adhikari-anadhikari has come in between these two sutras. Regarding this, we place before the scholars our humble opinion. It is as follows: while explaining the deep and meaningful texts of the śāstras the instructor should take into consideration the calibre of the instructed. So, in other Agamas we come across the discussion on this topic of adhikari-anadhikari at the outset. But in the Nandisutra this topic is discussed in the 7th sutra. Hence we should not question the propriety and originality of the 7th sūtra. Again, in support of our opinion we adduce a fact that the author of the Curni and two Tikas have commented upon this sutra.
It is interesting to note that the mss. except o, o, o and yo contain the other interpolated gathās which have been added later on to expand the short text of the Sutra No 7. No commentator has commented on these interpolated gāthās (p. 9 n. 3.) And the four mss. out of those utilized by us do not contain this portion. We have not included it in the body of the text proper, though it has been recognised as original in the mss. other than these four. We have noted it in the foot-note. We have scrutinized all the eleven editions of the Nandisutra that have been published upto this time. All these editions except the one prepared by Muni Shri Ghasilalji accept the reading given by us in foot-note and include it in the body of the text. Ghasilalji's edition does not include it in the body of the text. Not only that but in his edition the text of the sutra No. 7 is not printed at all. This means that Ghasilalji has not attempted to give the faithful version of the text.
The study of Ghasilalji's commentaries on the Agamas makes it quite clear that to determine and finalise the original readings of the Agamas is not his aim in publishing the texts of the Agamas. We have been disheartened whenever we have even cursorily read his editions of the Agamas. Hence we deem it proper to say something even digressing from the topic in hand.
Ghasilalji has not the slightest respect for the ancient commentators whose commentaries he has profusely utilized in writing his own. Not only that but he has no respect even for the authors of the Sutras. He has studied the old commentaries not with the seriousness and attention they require. Hence his own commentaries are fraught with horrible mistakes. Even Acāryas like Haribhadrasūri, Silänkācārya and Malayagirisuri acknowledge their indebtedness to the old commentators by respectfully remembering them in the beginning of their works. But Ghasilalji has not acknowledged his indebtedness to the ancient commentators whose commentaries he has utilized. On the contrary, he has run them down at many places. Moreover, he has increased the volume of his commentaries