Gangeyabhanga Prakaran Sastabak Name Krutina Karta Vishe Uhapoh

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, focusing on the authorship debate surrounding the "Gangeyabhanga Prakaran":

Book Title: Gangeyabhanga Prakaran Sastabak Name Krutina Karta Vishe Uhapoh (An Examination of the Author of the Gangeyabhanga Prakaran) Author: Shilchandrasuri Publisher: ZZ_Anusandhan

Core Subject: The text "Gangeyabhanga Prakaran" deals with the intricate questions and answers regarding "bhanga" (divisions or permutations) posed by the sage Gangeya to Lord Mahavir, as described in the ninth chapter, 32nd discourse of the Jain Agama scripture, Shri Vivahaprajnapati (Bhagavan Sutra). Due to the complexity of this subject matter, various smaller treatises (prakarans) have been composed to aid understanding.

Authorship Debate: The primary focus of Shilchandrasuri's work is to resolve the confusion surrounding the authorship of the "Gangeyabhanga Prakaran."

Key Findings and Arguments:

• Two Main Versions: The author notes the existence of two main versions of the "Gangeyabhanga Prakaran":

  • 35-verse version: Attributed to Upadhyay Shri Yashovijayji. This version has a commentary (tika).
  • 41-verse version: Attributed to Shri Padmavijayji, a disciple of Shri Uttamvijayji.

• Evidence for Yashovijayji:

  • The commentary (tika) accompanying the 35-verse version often attributes the work to Yashovijayji, sometimes mentioning his guru Nayavijay.
  • The commentary's introductory verses (shlokas 1 & 2) suggest the author of the main text might also be the commentator. However, the language and style of these verses are found to be inconsistent with Yashovijayji's known works by experienced scholars.
  • The commentary found in a manuscript dated Samvat 1850 mentions a disciple named Veeravijayji (also known as Shubhaveer), and it states that this pandit Veeravijayji wrote the commentary with the main text. This muddies the waters, as it points to Veeravijayji as the commentator, but not necessarily the author of the original 35 verses.

• Evidence for Padmavijayji:

  • The 41-verse version explicitly names Shri Padmavijayji, disciple of Shri Uttamvijayji, as the author in its final verse (gatha 41).
  • The six additional verses found in the 41-verse version are absent in the 35-verse versions.
  • When the six additional verses are removed from the 41-verse versions, the remaining 35 verses and their order match the 35-verse versions attributed to Yashovijayji.

• The Author's (Shilchandrasuri's) Conclusion:

  • Shilchandrasuri leans towards the conclusion that Shri Padmavijayji is the true author of the "Gangeyabhanga Prakaran."
  • The attribution to Yashovijayji is likely due to someone's lack of respect for Padmavijayji or excessive devotion to Yashovijayji.
  • The commentary by Veeravijayji (dated Samvat 1850) is considered to be merely an adherence to earlier manuscripts, as Veeravijayji was likely still a student at that time.
  • A significant point is that the "Gangeyabhanga Prakaran" is not listed in any known comprehensive lists of Upadhyay Yashovijayji's works.
  • Furthermore, Shilchandrasuri argues that the scholarly depth and brilliance expected from Upadhyay Yashovijayji are not evident in this work. The introductory verses of the commentary, in particular, do not align with Yashovijayji's characteristic style.
  • The text also mentions that Padmavijayji had his work revised by Shri Pujyodayasagarsuri.

Summary of the Debate's Core: The presence of two distinct versions with conflicting attributions of authorship creates the central conflict. While one version explicitly names Padmavijayji, another widely circulated version is attributed to the more renowned Yashovijayji. Shilchandrasuri meticulously examines manuscripts and historical context to argue that the attribution to Yashovijayji is likely erroneous and that Padmavijayji is the original composer. The work was possibly attributed to Yashovijayji later due to personal biases or a desire to associate it with a more prominent figure.