Dravyalankara Swopagna Tika

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, Dravyalankara Swopagna Tika, focusing on the introductory sections and the author's intent as presented in the initial pages:

The provided text is an introduction and excerpt from a commentary on the Dravyalankara, a Jain philosophical work. The commentary itself is titled Dravyalankara Swopagna Tika.

Authorship and Lineage:

• The original Dravyalankara was composed by Acharya Ramachandra and Acharya Gunachandra.
• They were prominent disciples of Jainacharya Shri Hemachandrasuri, a renowned scholar and author of works like Siddha Hema Shabdanushasana. Hemachandrasuri was also known as "Kalikal-sarvajna" (Omniscient of the Present Age) and was instrumental in converting King Kumarapala.
• Ramachandra was considered the chief disciple among Hemachandrasuri's numerous students, which also included Gunachandra, Mahendra, Vardhamana, Devachandra, Udayachandra, and Balachandra.
• Ramachandra and Gunachandra collaborated on other significant works, including the Natya Darpana (a treatise on dramaturgy) and its commentary, and the Dravyalankara Vritti (the commentary on Dravyalankara).
• Ramachandra was bestowed the title 'Kavikataramalla' by King Siddharaja. Merutunga mentions that Ramachandra was one-eyed.

About the Dravyalankara:

• Subject Matter: The Dravyalankara is a work that systematically explains the Jain philosophy of substances (Dravya).
• Jain Conception of Substances: According to Jainism, there are two main types of substances: Jiva (soul) and Ajiva (non-soul). Ajiva is further categorized into five types: Pudgala (matter), Dharma (principle of motion), Adharma (principle of rest), Akasha (space), and Kala (time). Thus, in Jainism, there are six fundamental substances. It's also noted that time (Kala) can sometimes be considered subsumed within Jiva and Ajiva, leading to a five-substance classification in some contexts.
• Originality and Approach: While the nature of these substances is described in many Jain texts in an agamika (scriptural) style, the Dravyalankara is significant for presenting this doctrine in a tarkika (logical) style. The authors state that there wasn't a dedicated work in the Jain tradition that expounded the nature of substances in a purely logical manner, and thus they undertook this task.
• Structure: The Dravyalankara is divided into three sections or Prakasha:
  1. Jiva Prakasha: This section refutes the Charvaka (materialist) viewpoint and establishes the existence of the soul. It then discusses the nature of the soul according to Jainism, refuting other philosophical views on the soul.
  2. Pudgala Prakasha: This section, similar to the first, refutes opposing views and describes the nature of Pudgala (matter) according to Jainism.
  3. Akampaprakasha: This section covers the remaining substances – Dharma, Adharma, Akasha, and Kala – also in a refutational and descriptive manner.
• The Commentary (Swopagna Tika): The authors themselves composed an extensive commentary (Swopagna Tika) on the Dravyalankara.

The Manuscript and Editorial Work:

• Manuscript: A single palm-leaf manuscript of the Dravyalankara and its commentary is available in the Jinabhadransurisansthapita Granthabhandara in Jaisalmer Fort. This manuscript was written in Vikrama Samvat 1202 (AD 1145-1146).
• Incompleteness: Unfortunately, the commentary for the first Prakasha (Jiva Prakasha) is missing from this manuscript. Only the commentaries for the second and third Prakasha are present.
• Notes: The manuscript itself is not the original text but a commentary, although the notes within it refer to the original sutras.
• Other Manuscripts: Other manuscripts of the Dravyalankara sutras are mentioned, one in Ahmedabad (V.S. 1492) and another in Rajasthan (Beda).
• Textual Variations and Amendments: The manuscripts indicate that the authors themselves revised the Dravyalankara. The Jaisalmer manuscript's notes reference these revisions, and the editorial work highlights the presence of commentary that refutes earlier, non-revised versions of the sutras.
• Dating: The death of Ramachandra is recorded as Vikrama Samvat 1230 (AD 1174). The Jaisalmer manuscript of the commentary is dated V.S. 1202 (AD 1145-1146), confirming that the work was revised by the authors and is considered authoritative.
• Editorial Endeavor: The current editor, Muni Jambūvijaya, with the help of Muni Dharmachandra Vijay, has begun editing this work, with publication planned by the L.D. Institute of Indology, Ahmedabad.

Content Highlighted (Focus on Refutations):

The text emphasizes that the Dravyalankara Swopagna Tika extensively quotes from various philosophical schools like Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Samkhya, and Buddhism. The editor has specifically compiled the passages quoted from Buddhist texts. The excerpts presented show detailed refutations of Buddhist arguments on various philosophical points, including:

• The nature of relationship (Sambandha) (referencing Sambandhapariksha).
• The perception of atoms and their properties.
• The nature of knowledge and its relation to the object of knowledge (Pramana and Prameya).
• The Buddhist concept of momentariness (Kshanikata) and impermanence.
• The theory of causal efficacy (Shakti) and the existence of unmanifested states.
• The nature of negation (Paryudasa).
• The concept of dependent origination and the role of causes and conditions.

The editor notes that many citations from Buddhist works, particularly from Dharmakirti's Pramanavinishchaya Tika, are presented, and where the Sanskrit originals are unavailable, Tibetan translations are referenced and provided in an appendix. The editor acknowledges the vastness of these sources and the difficulty in pinpointing all references, expressing hope for future scholarly efforts to complete this task.

In essence, the provided text is an academic introduction to a critical edition of a significant Jain philosophical work and its commentary, highlighting its authors, their lineage, the work's unique approach to presenting Jain ontology, and its engagement with Buddhist philosophical arguments through extensive refutation.