Gunchandra Muni Kaun Hai

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, "Gunchandra Muni Kaun Hai," in English:

Book Title: Gunchandra Muni Kaun Hai (Who is Gunchandra Muni?) Author: Darbarilal Kothiya Publisher: Z_Darbarilal_Kothiya_Abhinandan_Granth_012020.pdf Catalog Link: https://jainqq.org/explore/210449/1

This text delves into the identity of a figure named Gunchandra Muni, who is mentioned by the renowned Jain scholar Acharya Vadiraaj in his work, the Nyayavinishchayavivaran (circa 1025 CE).

The Core Question:

The central question explored in this text is: Who was Gunchandra Muni, and what works did he comment on or write? The author, Darbarilal Kothiya, highlights that while other prominent commentators on the works of Akalankadeva are well-known (such as Vidyānanda and Anantavīrya), the identity and specific contributions of Gunchandra Muni remain elusive.

Vadiraaj's Statement:

Acharya Vadiraaj, in his commentary on Akalankadeva's Nyayavinishchaya, mentions Gunchandra Muni alongside Vidyānanda and Anantavīrya. The verse (quoted in the text) implies that without these three scholars explaining the profound meaning of Akalankadeva's teachings and literature, it would be difficult for anyone to understand them. This strongly suggests that Gunchandra Muni was a significant commentator on Akalankadeva's vast body of work.

The Mystery:

The text points out that while Vidyānanda is known for his extensive commentary on Akalankadeva's Ashtasahasri (Devagamalankara), and Anantavīrya (a disciple of Ravibhadra) wrote a commentary on the Pramanasangraha and a detailed critique of the Siddhivinishchaya, no commentary by Gunchandra Muni on any of Akalankadeva's works is known or available. Furthermore, his existence is not even recorded as having written an unavailable commentary.

Possible Interpretations and Debates:

1. A Distinct Figure: Vadiraaj's clear mention of Gunchandra Muni as a separate individual alongside other prominent commentators indicates that he was likely a distinct person who played a role in explaining Akalankadeva's philosophy.

2. Prabhachandra as Gunchandra Muni?

   • The text considers the possibility that Gunchandra Muni might refer to Prabhachandra, who wrote the commentary Laghiyastrayalankara (also known as Nyayakumudachandra) on Akalankadeva's Laghiyastraya.
   • However, Prabhachandra lived around the same time or slightly after Vadiraaj. If Prabhachandra was already a well-established scholar whose work was known to Vadiraaj, it's unlikely Vadiraaj would use a different name to refer to him. This makes the direct identification of Gunchandra Muni as Prabhachandra less probable based solely on this verse, as Vadiraaj is likely referring to someone who predated him.

3. The "Guṇa" Interpretation by Pt. Jugalkishor Mukhtar:

   • The text then introduces the perspective of the renowned Jain scholar Pt. Jugalkishor Mukhtar. Mukhtar believed that the word "Guṇa" in "Gunchandra" might refer to "Prabha" (light or brilliance).
   • Following this interpretation, Mukhtar suggested that Vadiraaj might be referring to the same Prabhachandra mentioned by Acharya Jinasena in the Aadipuraṇa. Jinasena, using the phrase "Kṛtvā candrodaya" (creator of moonrise), indicated Prabhachandra as the author of the Jain Nyaya text Nyayakumudachandra, which is a commentary on Akalankadeva's Laghiyastraya.
   • Mukhtar's further argument is that the author of Prameyakamalamartanda and the author of Nyayakumudachandra are distinct individuals named Prabhachandra, and they should not be considered the same unless there is supporting evidence.

The Author's Stance and Ongoing Research:

Darbarilal Kothiya presents the following points:

• Agreement with Mukhtar's Consideration: Mukhtar's view that "Guṇa" could mean "Prabha" is considered worthy of thought.
• Author's Hypothesis: The author (Kothiya) believes that the author of Prameyakamalamartanda and Nyayakumudachandra is the same Prabhachandra, who lived in the 11th century during the reign of King Bhoja and his successor Jayasimha. Since Vadiraaj also lived in the 11th century, it is highly probable that he was familiar with Prabhachandra's works. If Prabhachandra was already a senior and renowned author by the time Vadiraaj wrote his Nyayavinishchayavivaran (after his work Parshvanathacharita, circa 1025 CE), it's possible Vadiraaj referred to him as "Gunchandra Muni."
• Call for Further Research: Despite this possibility, the author emphasizes that this is still an area requiring further investigation and research. Scholars should research this matter further to present a definitive introduction to Gunchandra Muni.

In essence, the text poses a significant historical puzzle regarding the identity of Gunchandra Muni, a scholar alluded to by Acharya Vadiraaj as a key interpreter of Akalankadeva's works. While some scholars suggest he might be Prabhachandra, the available evidence is not conclusive, necessitating further scholarly inquiry.