________________
Who is the Author of the Pañca-sūtra?
131 As regards the language of the Pañca-sūtra, it is possible that scholars might be inclined to identify it as the Ardhamāgadhī, on seeing the use of 'e' in the forms of the nominative singular, such as 'Aņāi jīve bhave kamma-samjoganivattie dukkha-rūve” 62 But if they had taken into consideration the use of 'o' also employed in the forms of nominative singular forms in many places in this very treatise, as in 'Rāga-dosa-visaparama-masto kevali-pannatto dhammo saranam uvagao vivarīo ya saṁsāro anavatthiya-sahāvo ...?,63 and such other constructions, they would not rush to such a conclusion. Quoting the view of M. Winternitz, Dr. Kulkarni concludes: 'The Language of the post-canonical Jaina works is partly Prakritthe so-called Jaina Māhārāstrī Prakrit-and partly Sanskrit. The language of the other Prakrit works of Haribhadrasūri is Jaina Māhārāștrī, whereas the Pañca-sūtra is written in the Ardhamāgadhī prose. So, Ācārya Haribhadrasūri was possibly not its author, but it is a treatise written by some ancient Ācārya prior to Haribhadrasūri.?64 But the apparent striking similarity of the language in other treatises and the Pañca-sūtra and also the similarity of linguistic usage involving the 'saṁskrta-sama' and the 'saṁskrta-bhava' words, positively proves that the language of the work is not the Ardhamāgadhī, but the Prakrit. The argument of Dr. Kulkarni, based on his opinion of the language of the work, is not convincing, since the same genius like Haribhadrasūri, with his linguistic versatility can possibly employ different languages and different diction.
(7) Now, as regards Cirantanācārya, he is no doubt considered to be ancient (cirantana) for us today. But how can it be that he was not known even to Haribhadrasūri, if he had flourished prior to him by a century or two?65 The treatises of Haribhadrasuri are in different strains of Prakrta and in various dictions. As such there is no problem in accepting him as the author of Pañca-sūtra as well, especially as we know that he wielded a facile pen both in prose and verse. If there was a
