________________
Contribution of Śramaņas to the Indian .... : 79 also refers to the name of his vidyguru, Pradyumna Kșāmāśramana along with his own name as its author. The Cuņņis on Anuyogaddāra, Dasaveyāliya, and Uttarājjhayana appear to have been written by Jinadāsa Gaņi Mahattara. The Cuņņi on various Agamas are believed to have been written in the period commencing from the fourth century to the eighth century of the Vikrama Era. Before dealing with the Țīkā, we may note that out of the terms Nijjuttī. Bhāsa and Cuņni, the first does not appear to have been used for a commentary on any of the non-Āgamic texts. Such is not however the case with Bhāsa and Cuņņi; for these are used for other works too, though seldom. Thus, it will be seen that the nonĀgamika works of which the commentaries are styled as Bhāsa, and Cuņņi are few and far between, and at least, so far as the Śvetāmbara literature is concerned, these terms seem to have been used for works of sufficient antiquity."14 Kapadia's sums up his discussion on the evolution, development and the fundamental as well as the most distinguishing features of the different types of the exegetical literature in following words, "All the Nijjuttīs attributed to Bhadrabāhusvāmī must have been concise and written in gāthās as can be inferred from the eight printed ones. They were surely compiled before the redaction of the Jaina canonical works. It is certain that these Nijjuttīs were later on followed by several other commentaries. Out of them the two types of commentaries known as Bhāsa and Cuņni seem to be the oldest. After their composition, there came an age when the commentaries began to be freely composed in Sanskrit, thus making the exegetical literature on the Āgamas of the Jainas of four type: (1) Nijjuttis, (2) Bhāsa, (3) Cuņņi and (4) Țīkā. I use this last word to denote Sanskrit commentaries. These Nijjuttīs etc. are mostly in the chronological order of development. For, Cuņņī seems to be an intermediate stage between Bhāsa on the one hand and Țīkā on the other, on the ground that it is neither entirely in Prakrit like its predecessors Nijjuttīs and Bhāsa, nor mostly or completely in Sanskrit like its successor Țīkā; but it is a mixture of Prakrit and
