________________
E. Leumann, An outline of the Avaśyaka literature
special representative of the Bhāsya genre, and of the micro-structure of the units defined.
As for the exegetical tradition on Jinabhadra's Bhāsya, its components are clearly described: "Jinabhadra's commentary is actually the only one which has been written before Śīlānka, and after Śīlānka the Bhāsya was commented on again firstly by Hemacandra” (p. 149) 24 The susbsequent paragraphs of the same page (to which the reader is referred) firmly characterize Jinabhadra's exegetical approach and its results. Through the efforts of Indian scholarship, our documentation has progressed. Jinabhadra's own commentary on his Bhāsya was not accessible in Leumann's time, although its existence was confirmed by the references and extensive quotations of later commentators on the Bhāsya. They are collected and discussed in a section of the Ubersicht so as to reconstruct so-to-say a large portion of it ("Jinabhadra's commentary on his Bhāsya”, p. 132ff.). They include the material provided by Śīlānka, by Jinavallabha's glosses as found in the relevant manuscript used by Leumann, by Hemacandra Maladhārin and by Malayagiri. Leumann's translations and discussions of these selected excerpts show the highly technical nature of the topics considered, and imply some amount of speculation. On the other hand, the fact that Malayagiri, the 12th century commentator on the Āvasyaka-niryukti, often refers to the Bhāsya but seldom to Jinabhadra's commentary thereupon, is adduced to explain the lack of manuscripts of the latter (p. 147). Leumann's intuition that Jinabhadra's commentary was not a widely disseminated work was correct. Since his time, only a single palm-leaf manuscript of it has been discovered in Patan (Gujarat) - an old library of which the wealth was known but which was not accessible in the early years of the 20th century. This manuscript was the basis for the edition prepared by the late D.D. Malvania (1966ff.). It reveals that Jinabhadra could not finish the task, which was continued by a certain Kotyārya. This auto-commentary is a laghuvrtti, which is concise and precise but not lengthy, as Leumann rightly supposed (p. 149). Large parts of the Bhāsya are left uncommented upon. Could this mean that in Jinabhadra's time a Bhāşya was considered a sufficient exegetical format? On the other hand, the commentator whom Leumann calls "Sīlānka” throughout, placing him "ca. 870 A.D.” (p. 41), perhaps identifying him with the commentator on the Acārāngasūtra and the Sūtrakstängasūtra, is named Kotyācārya by modern Indian scholarship, on the basis of the name used by his successors, as already shown by one extract quoted by Leumann: “Kotyācārya (i.e. Šīlānka)" (p. 143[52640]). Indian scholars consider that he could have been a contemporary of Haribhadra (8th cent.). Hemacandra Maladhārin (12th cent?), the last link in the exegetical chain on the Bhāsya, is a less obscure figure than his predecessors. Given the numerous references to earlier exegeses on the Bhāşya and on the Niryukti, his commentary is significant to the understanding of the formation of the whole corpus. At the same time, his purpose is explicitly defined as pedagogical (and his commentary is called sisya-hitā). This affects the manner in which he deals with the material, as Leumann critically remarked (“it will now become apparent that, in any case, he arranges the references to his predecessors for readers who do not give it any further thought”, p. 140).
Leumann's description is meant to help to understand the development of the concept of "ävaśyaka" and related literature. Chronological considerations are one important aspect of Leumann's investigations. His concern for the early history of
24 Übersicht p. 54641-43: "Jinabhadra's Commentar ist überhaupt der einzige, der vor Silānka geschrieben worden ist, und nach Sīlānka ist das Bhāsya erst von Hemacandra wieder commentirt worden".
xiv For Personal & Private Use Only
Jain Education International
www.jainelibrary.org
