Who is Author of Pancasutra Cirantanacarya or Yakinisunu Haribhadra

Author(s): Shilchandrasuri
Publisher: Z_Nirgranth_Aetihasik_Lekh_Samucchay_Part_1_002105.pdf and Nirgranth_Aetihasik_Lekh_Samucchay_Part_2

Page 13

Who is The Author of the....
195
6. Pt. Bechardas Doshi had observed : "From the linguistic point of view, grammarians have given three types of Prakrit : (1) Prakrit that is based upon Sanskrit; (2) Prakrit that is like Sanskrit : (3) Native Prakrit..... The grammar (of Hemacandrācārya) belongs to the first category."61
In consonance with the above-mentioned view, if we examine the language of the original text of the Pañcasūtra, we will be convinced of its being the right time ynga language, observing as it does all the later rules of the Hemacandrīya grammar. The language of the works such as the farifafafyicht and so forth by Haribhadra suri is typologically the same. We can understand this phenomenon after taking into consideration the Prakrit words coming from Sanskrit and those bearing the similarity with Sanskrit, employed by the author, in his works. And the same is the situation with the Pancasūtra. For this very reason, there is no difficulty at all in taking Haribhadra süri as the author of the original text of the Pañcasūtra.
Even though some scholars are led to suppose that the language of the Pancasūtra is not Prakrit (Jaina Mahārāstrī) but is Ardhamāgadhĩ, like the language employed in the ägamas, yet they have not put forward convincing reasons or evidence in corroboration of this supposition. It is possible that, having seen the employment of t in the singular forms of nominative case in construction like pulsata, 4a, R u oafere, gerand,
can0762 etc., those scholars might have been led to stipulate the language of the Pañcasūtra as Ardhamāgadhi. But against it, had they taken into account the 311 unambiguously employed in the Prakrit language in the singular forms of the nominative case elsewhere in many places in this very work in the construction such as melafaya, mafiq ,
49673, faa379 , 37orafg44619163 etc., they would not have arrived at the above supposition. Quoting the view of M. Winternitz, Kulkarni concludes : "The language of the post-canonical Jain works is partly Prakrit--the so called Jaina Mahārāstrī and partly Sanskrit. The language of the other Prakrit works of Haribhadra sūri is Jaina Mahārāstri, whereas the Pañcasūtra is written in Ardhamagadhi prose. So Ācārya Haribhadra sūri was possibly not its author, but it is a treatise written by some ancient Ācārya prior to Haribhadra sūri."$4 But the striking similarity of the language