A History of the Canonical Literature of the Jainas c10.4

c10.4

A student conversant with the *Jaina* system of education knows it full well that first of all, the meaning (attha) of a sutta is explained, then is given an explanation associated with *Nijjutti*, and this is followed by a detailed exposition which is not necessarily confined to what is explicitly expressed in the *sutta*.¹ It seems a similar process must have been followed at least by the 11 *Gaṇadharas* of Lord Mahāvīra. This means that several types of literature may have been then evolved. We do not know precisely what their natures must have been. Equally ignorant we are regarding their generic name and specific names, too, if any. For, the very first type of the *Jaina* explanatory works on the *Agamas* which form a part of our valuable legacy, is known as *Nijjutti* in Prākṛta and *Niryukti* in Saṃskṛta, and that its authorship is attributed to Bhadrabāhusvāmin, *cara-masayalasuyaṇāṇī* who died in *Vīra Saṃvat* 170. He has composed 10 *Nijjuttis*. But we do not know their specific names except those like *Āvassayanijjutti* etc., coined by taking into account the work of which it is the *Nijjutti*. Further, we do not know the exact dates of their composition. All the same, we may say almost with certainty that none of them is composed after *Vīra Saṃvat* 170. This date is at times questioned on the ground of anachronisms etc.² But this does not seem to be justifiable; for, these anachronisms are in all probality due to the procedure adopted at the time of the Redaction of the *Jaina* canon, and further the question of salutation to himself and the like are an outcome of the sweet confusion due to the intermixture of some of the verses of the *Bhāsa* with those of the *Nijjutti*. As a corroborative evidence of the latter fact, it may be mentioned that in the *Āvassayanijjutti* one comes across at least some verses belonging to its *Bhāsa* (vide p. 177). Same is the case with *Dasaveyāliyanijjutti*. In its edition (having Haribhadra Sūri's com.,) its learned editor has pointed out that 63 verses of *Bhāsa* have been incorporated in this *Nijjutti*. See p. 278 of this edn. That some of the verses of the *Bhāsa* on *Kappa* have got mixed up with those of its *Nijjutti*, is a remark made by Malayagiri Sūri in his com. (p. 2) on this *Kappa*. There he has observed that it is well-nigh impossible to separate these two elements. It may be further noted that *Pañcakappa* which is an offshoot of either the *Kappabhāsa* or more probably that of *Kappanijjutti* seems to contain the *gāthās* of both of them. Perhaps the 1st 4 or 5 *gāthās* may be definitely pointed out as belonging to the *Kappanijjutti*. As regards the rest, it is very difficult-almost impossible to decide as to which *gāthā* is that of the corresponding *Nijjutti* and which is that of the pertinent *Bhāsa*. This is the view held by Muni Puṇyavijaya, a learned disciple of the late Muni Caturavijaya.¹