Mahanisiha Studies And Edition In Germany

This report, "Mahāniśīha: Studies and Edition in Germany" by Chandrabhal Tripathi, published in May 1992, provides a comprehensive overview of scholarly work done on the Jain text Mahāniśīha (MNA) primarily in Germany. The report aims to make the findings of German scholars, many of which were published in German, accessible to a wider audience, particularly Indian scholars.

Here's a summary of the key aspects covered in the report:

1. Introduction and Purpose:

• The report was commissioned by Padmabhuṣaṇa Śri Dalsukhbhai Mālvania to accompany a new publication of the Mahāniśīha.
• It synthesizes the extensive studies and critical editions of the Mahāniśīha undertaken by German scholars like Albrecht Weber, Ernst Leumann, Walther Schubring, Frank-Richard Hamm, and Jozef Deleu.
• The goal is to present the findings of these scholars, particularly those whose works were in German, in an accessible English format.

2. Key Publications and Scholars: The report details the significant publications related to the Mahāniśīha in Germany:

• Albrecht Weber: His early work, "Über die Heiligen Texte der Jainas" (HTJ) and its English translation "Sacred Literature of the Jainas" (SLJ), provided an initial study based on a single, often incorrect, manuscript. His "Verzeichnis" catalogued manuscripts in Berlin.
• Walther Schubring: He is central to the German studies. His major contributions include:
  • Das Mahāniśīha-sutta (MNSt.A, 1918): A foundational study based on multiple manuscripts, covering its introduction, content, parallels, teachings, monastic rules, language, and summary.
  • Studien zum Mahānisiha (MNSt.C, 1951): Co-authored with F.-R. Hamm, it provided an edition and study of Chapters VI-VIII.
  • Studien zum Mahānisiha (MNSt.B, 1963): Co-authored with Jozef Deleu, it presented an edition and study of Chapters I-V, including English and German translations.
  • Kleine Schriften (1977): A collection of his works.
  • Die Lehre der Jainas (1935) / The Doctrine of the Jainas (1962): A general work on Jainism that includes relevant information on the MNA.
• Frank-Richard Hamm: Co-edited MNSt.C.
• Jozef Deleu: Co-edited MNSt.B, contributing significantly with an English translation and detailed analysis.
• The report also mentions the crucial support from scholars like W. Norman Brown, Keshavlāl Premchand Mody, and Muni Punyavijayaji, who facilitated access to manuscripts.

3. Manuscripts Utilized: The report meticulously lists and describes the manuscripts used in the German studies:

• Berlin State Library: Ms.or.fol.764 (Weber's primary source, described as flawed) and Ms.or.fol.1887 (used by Schubring).
• Cambay, Śāntinātha Jaina Bhāṇḍār: Several palm-leaf manuscripts (sigla c, C), with Ms. 'c' being highly praised for its accuracy.
• Poona (Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute): Several paper manuscripts (sigla P, p, a), including those used by Schubring.
• Pāṭan, Sanghavinā pāṇāno bhandar: A palm-leaf manuscript (Pu) and a modern transcript (M).
• Baroda, Muni Kāntivijayaji Bhandār: A paper manuscript (K).
• The report acknowledges the significant role of microfilms and transcripts made available by Indian scholars.

4. Contents of the Mahāniśīha: The report provides summaries of the MNA's content as described by different scholars:

• Schubring (Lehre): A concise chapter-by-chapter outline.
• Weber (SLJ): An older, more general overview, noting key themes like confession, consequences of deeds, descriptions of "kusilas" (bad monks), and the story of Sumati and Nāila. Weber also highlights Weber's observations on early Jaina practices and scriptural citations.
• Schubring (MNSt.A): A detailed breakdown of Chapters I-V, describing their themes, verses, and prose sections, including discussions on confession, karma, monastic conduct, and the story of Sumai and Nāila.
• Hamm (MNSt.C): A description of Chapter VI, focusing on legends like Nandisena and Asaḍa, and discussions on atonement, particularly the "Giyattha-vihāra" (company of learned and experienced monks).

5. Language:

• The language of the MNA is characterized as Jaina Māhārāṣṭri with influences of Ardhamāgadhi.
• Deleu's detailed analysis of the phonetics, morphology (noun, adjective, numeral, pronoun, verb, word-formation), and syntax is reproduced, drawing on Schubring and Hamm's observations.
• Points of interest include anaptyxis, assimilation, Sanskrit influences, and various grammatical peculiarities.
• Master's review (T10.1) questions the linguistic significance of the "Jaina Māhārāṣṭri" designation, suggesting it's more about stylization and the unavoidable influence of Ardhamāgadhi and copyist variations.

6. Metres:

• Schubring notes that anuṣṭubh is the prevalent metre, even though āryā was dominant in his time.
• Hamm and Deleu provide statistical surveys of metrical irregularities, pointing out a significant percentage of pādas with incorrect syllable counts and deviations in cadence and opening patterns in the anuṣṭubh verses.
• The āryā (gāhā) metres are found to be generally more regular, but the report notes that the author's use of metres indicates either carelessness or a deliberate attempt at antiquity.

7. Date and Authorship:

• Determining the exact date and sole authorship is problematic.
• Authorship: The MNA appears to be the work of a single, unknown compiler who consolidated various elements, some of which might be older. The hand of a single personality is evident in its language and structure, but not identifiable by name.
• Date:
  • The MNA is likely anterior to the anonymous Gacchâcāra and Dharmadāsa-gani's Upadeśamālā (circa 900 AD).
  • Some remarks within the text might date as late as the 13th century AD.
  • The main parts could belong to an earlier period, possibly pre-Haribhadra.
  • Schubring's cautious conclusion is that the MNA lies between the Prakrit exegetical texts and Haribhadra (9th century AD).
  • Deleu concludes the MNA is of comparatively late date and is apocryphal in relation to the old genuine canon.
• Haribhadra and Jinabhadra-gani: The report refutes claims that either Jinabhadra-gani or Haribhadra were editors or authors of the MNA. While Haribhadra may have seen a copy, his direct revision is doubtful.
• Canonical Status: The MNA's inclusion in the Jain Canon has been contested. Its position among the Chedasūtras varies in lists. It is described as not fitting the Canon due to its language, content, and date.

8. Conclusions (Schubring and Deleu): The report summarizes the key conclusions drawn by Schubring and Deleu:

• Nature of the MNA: It's not a canonical text but apocryphal, distinct from the namesake mentioned in the Nandi-sūtra. It is later than older exegetical texts but earlier than the Gacchâcāra and Upadeśamālā.
• Compiler: The work bears the imprint of a single, unknown compiler who was zealous in his ideas but perhaps less competent in language and metrics. He used a blend of Jaina Māhārāṣṭri and Ardhamāgadhi, showing a neglect of grammatical gender and stylistic clumsiness.
• Deliberate Antiquity: The author may have consciously used archaic forms and styles to lend his work an air of antiquity.
• Context: The MNA reflects a period of decadence in the Jaina clergy, possibly influenced by historical events (e.g., Kalkin) and internal controversies.
• Manuscript Issues: The text's current form is influenced by damaged and interpolated manuscripts, and the compiler's attempts to order it.
• Internal Evidence: The text itself references older literature and later commentaries, indicating its position in the Jaina literary development.
• Rejection by some schools: Some schools rejected the MNA due to its content (e.g., idol worship) or perceived deviations from canonical norms.

9. Passages: The report highlights specific passages that have attracted scholarly attention due to their unusual content, including discussions about the condition of original manuscripts, the nature of atonement, and the lineage of scholars.

10. Reviews: The report includes reproductions of reviews of MNSt.B and MNSt.C from notable scholars like Alfred Master (JRAS), A.N.Upadhye (ZDMG), K.R. Norman (BSOAS), and Ludo Rocher (JAOS). These reviews generally praise the scholarly rigor of the editions while also offering critical observations on certain methodological aspects, the interpretation of language, and the presentation of data.

11. Epilogue: Tripathi reiterates the main findings: the MNA is apocryphal, later than earlier exegetical texts, earlier than the Gacchâcāra and Upadeśamālā, possibly containing late interpolations, characterized by linguistic and metrical peculiarities attributed to a single compiler, and its canonical status has always been contested. He acknowledges his own responsibility for the report, noting that English and German are not his mother tongues.

In essence, the report is a testament to decades of German scholarship on the Mahāniśīha, illuminating its complex textual history, its place within Jain literature, and the scholarly debates surrounding its dating, authorship, and canonical validity.