Vaishali Institute Research Bulletin 2

Author(s): G C Chaudhary
Publisher: Research Institute of Prakrit Jainology & Ahimsa Mujjaffarpur

Page 51

42
VAISHALI INSTITUTE RESEARCH BULLETIN NO. 2
transcription (made by Pt. Reghunath Pandey. M. A. Acharya, the then Scribe of the Institute) was supplied to me. On proper scrutiny, it was found to be in the proto-Maithila or eastern variety of Nagari script of about the 11th or early 12th Cent. A. D. Without going into the detailed palaeography of the same it may be observed that the MS shows two or three distinguishable features of the same or a bit different hand writings of the same period as the number of lines and size of the letters in the same sides are not consistent. There are thirty-nine different sides of the folios containing 10 lines, thirty three sides, 9 lines, four sides 8 lines, four sides 7 lines, one side 11 lines, one side only one line and one side of folio No. 42 is completely effaced. The sides containing 7 lines are written quite distinctly in comparatively big size of letters while those of 10 lines in a compressed style with smaller letters. The figure numerals obtained in the pagination may also be compared with those belonging to the early 12th cent. Thus a period between later half of the 11th and early 12th cent. may be fixed approximately to determine the date of our MS.
These are altogether 759 lines in the 41. folios (83 sides or pages). Each line contains 64 syllables (equal to two ślokas, one śloka being of 32 syllables) in average, thus forming the size of available MS, in 1518 ślokas. It appears to be half the size of that referred to above by Mahapandit Rahul Sankrityayan. The authorities in K. P. Jayaswala Research Institute, Patna have been requested to trace the rest. Any way what ever has been made available is also of immense value.
This work seems to have not been translated into Tibetan for it has not been shown in any of the catalogues of the Tibetans' Buddhist canons so far published.
It has been observed that in early transcription there were so many lacuna and misreadings as some of the sides were faded and difficult to be deciphered but in later attempt while collating with the photostate copy so many faded sides have been restored and lacuna filled up after comparing the readings from the important books like the Atmatattva viveka of Udayanācharya, the Pramāņavārtika, the Sam bandha-Parikça and Hetu-bindu of Dharmakīrti, the Tattvasaṁgrah of Santarakṣita, the Mimamsaśloka-vārtika of Kumărila Bhatta and th Jñanastīmitra-nibandhävali and Ratna-Kirtiñibandhävali.
The entire work appears to be written in an ornate style of difficult prose with extensive prose quotations from the Atmatattvavideka and numerous verses from the Pramanavārtikā and others.