________________
118
Studies in Haribhadrasūri
of some very ancient preceptor; (2) Cirantana is the proper name of the preceptor who composed this work. Out of these two, the former view has been generally accepted.
Since the problem of the real authorship of this work has been rarely discussed critically the general consensus has been that the real author of the work is unknown. The various opinions to be considered here are as follows: 1. In the Introduction to the Pañca-sūtra, Prof. V. M. Shah has
referred to two views: (i) It is composed by Cirantanācārya, meaning ancient preceptors or a preceptor named Cirantana, the first alternative being more likely. It is difficult to assign individual authorship to a work like this.3 (ii) The usage Cirantanācāryaiḥ does not help us much in deciding the authorship. The plural form may have been used to show respect for the author. At the same time, it is very likely that ancient authors might have composed the
Sūtras and Haribhadrasūri might have put them together. 4 2. Prof. K. V. Abhyankar holds that the Pañca-sūtra is a small,
elegant treatise written by some ancient writer whose name
has still remained unknown. 3. Dr. A. N. Upadhye observes that it is not possible to talk of
individual authorship with regard to works like the Pañcasūtra. The basic contents of this work are as old as Jainism. They are literary heirlooms preserved in the memory of the Jain monks. Prof. V. M. Kulkarni explicitly states: The language of the post-canonical Jaina works is partly Prakrit—the so-called Jaina Māhārāstrī, and partly Sanskrit. The language of the known Prakrit works of Haribhadra is the Jaina Māhārāstrī, whereas the present work is written in the Ardhamāgadhī prose; and this prose shares quite a few peculiarities of the diction and style of the canonical works. This fact suggests that Ācārya Haribhadra was possibly not its author. It is
