________________
102
Pravacanasāra
many points of similarity: Tātpar yavrtti is the name of both the commentaries; it is the longer recension that is accepted; the introductory remarks of many gāthās and the verbal explanations are often the same word for word; and lastly there is a close agreement even in longer passages as seen from the opening passage given below from the Kannada tīkā:
sva samvitti-samutpanna-paramānamdaika-laksana-sukhāmịta-viparīta-caturgatisainsāra-duḥkha-bhaya-bhitanum samutpanna-parama-bheda-vijñāna-prakāśātisayanum niräkrta-samasta-durnayaikānta-durāgrahanum āsanna-bhavyanum appa Sivakumāra-mahārājam parityakta-satru-mitrādi-pakşapātādinātyanta-madhyasthanāgi sakala-puruşārtha-surabhūteyum atyantātma-hiteyam avinasvareyum bhagavat pamca-paramesthi-prasādot panneyumappa mukti-sriyanupādeyam mādi gauņamukhya-rupa-bahistattväntas tattva-prarūpaņa-Pravacanasāradādiyolu satendravandya-śrī Vardhamāna-svāmi-tīrthakara-parama-deva-pramukha-pamca-paramesthigalam dravya-bhāva-namaskāradim bandisi parama-cāritramanāśraysuvenemdu pūņkeyam mādidapam // sūtrāvatāram // pamca-kulakam // esa surāsura etc. Many similar passages [p. 107:] can be selected from Bālacandra's commentary; and the above passage is almost the same as that of Jayasena with a few Kannada terminations etc. added here and there which are not italicised.
Bālacandra's commentary is shorter than that of Jayasena. The topical analysis and grouping of gāthās, the high-flowing concluding remarks at the close of literal interpretation of certain important gāthās, the supplementary discussions containing many original suggestions and quotations, the critical insight of textual explanation with the help of grammatical rules, beautiful quotations here and there, references to his commentary on Pañcāstikāya, alternative interpretations of certain gāthās:3 these and many others are the peculiar features of Jayasena's commentary; but all these points, which are so essential in a genuine commentary, are conspicuously absent in the Kannada commentary of Bāļacandra. Bālacandra merely explains the gāthīs word for word in Kannada, and sometimes he adds a few remarks by way of analysis and explanation and some quotations, which in that very context, are found in more details in the commentary of Jayasena.
PRIORITY OF JAYASENA'S COMMENTARY.---Taking into consideration these close similarities between the commentaries of Jayasena and Bāłacandra one has to say something on the relative priority of one or the other. The points of agreement are such that these commentaries are not independent of each other. Pt. Jugalkishore holds that Jayasena is later than Bāļacandra. From the comparison of the two commentaries drawn above, it would be clear to any one that Bālacandra has written his commentary placing before him that of Jayasena alone. Bālacandra's commentary is a mechanical performance; and, so far as I have compared both, I have no hesitation to say that there is no discussion of Bālacandra which is not found in Jayasena's commentary. The individual traits of Jayasena's commentary,
1 The common words between Jayasena and Bālacandra are put in italics, while the Kan
nada terminations and words, which are the only items of difference, are not italicised. 2 See for instance I, 15. 3 See for instance II, 46-7. 4 Svami Samantabhadra p. 167, foot-note.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
