Mulachar

Here is a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text about "Mulachar":

The provided text is an introductory study of the Jain text Mulachar. It aims to explore the significance, authorship, and tradition of this important work within the Digambara Jain tradition.

Mulachar's Significance and Position in the Digambara Tradition:

• Agam-like Status: Mulachar is considered an Agam-sthaneya grantha (a text of Agamic stature) within the Digambara Jain tradition.
• Focus on Ascetic Conduct: The primary focus of Mulachar is the conduct (achar) of monks and nuns.
• Replacement for Acārāṅgasūtra: It is believed that when the Acārāṅgasūtra (a foundational scripture for ascetic conduct) was considered lost in the Digambara tradition, Mulachar began to be viewed as its replacement. This is supported by references in the Dhavala and Jayadhavala commentaries that quote Mulachar's verses as those from the Acārāṅgasūtra.
• Importance in Digambara Literature: The text highlights a significant scarcity of ancient scriptures detailing monastic conduct in the Digambara tradition, making Mulachar particularly valuable. It serves as the foundation for later works like Viranandi's Ācāraśāstra and Āśādhara's Aṇagāradharmāmṛta.

Authorship Debate: Kundakunda vs. Vaṭṭakera:

• The Kundakunda Claim: Some believe Mulachar was authored by Acārya Kundakunda. This belief is primarily based on a final inscription in some manuscripts: "Kun̄kudācāryapraṇītamulācārāsya vivṛtiḥ kṛtiriyam vasunan̄dīnaḥ śrīśramaṇaḥ" (This commentary on Mulachar composed by Acarya Kundakunda is by Vasunandi, the Śramaṇa) and a similar mention in Muni Cintamani's commentary.
• The Vaṭṭakera Claim: The text strongly argues for Acārya Vaṭṭakera as the author. This is supported by Vasunandi's own commentary, which explicitly states that Mulachar was authored by Acārya Vaṭṭakera at both its beginning and end. The author contends that later inscriptions mentioning Kundakunda are likely due to the immense reverence for Kundakunda in the Digambara tradition and not indicative of authorship.
• Rejection of Kundakunda Authorship: The text refutes the idea of Kundakunda's authorship based on several points:
  • Limited Verse Overlap: While only about 21 verses are common between Kundakunda's known works and Mulachar, a significant number of verses are shared with Śvetāmbara texts.
  • Shared Verses with Śvetāmbara Texts: A striking observation is that over 300 verses from Śvetāmbara Prakīrṇakas and Niśchaya are found in Mulachar. The text questions the logic of attributing Mulachar to Kundakunda based on minor overlaps while ignoring the massive textual similarities with Śvetāmbara literature.
  • Scholarly Opinions: Prominent scholars like Pandit Nathuram Premi and Dr. Phoolchand Jain (the author's subject of research) strongly reject Kundakunda's authorship, with Premi specifically stating that Mulachar does not appear to be from Kundakunda's tradition.
• Meaning of Vaṭṭakera: The name "Vaṭṭakera" is identified as likely being a place name, possibly from Kannada, meaning a settlement near a mountain or road, rather than a Sanskrit or Prakrit descriptor. This aligns with the tradition of prefixing village names to personal names in South India.

Is Mulachar a Compilation?

• Evidence for Compilation: The text presents strong evidence suggesting Mulachar is a collection (sangraha grantha) rather than a wholly original composition by a single author.
  • Extensive Borrowing: A significant portion of Mulachar's verses are directly taken from Śvetāmbara tradition texts such as Uttaradhyayana, Daśavaikālika, Piṇḍaniryukti, Āturapratyākhyāna, Mahāpratyākhyāna, and Āvaśyaka Niryukti.
  • Explicit References: The author of Mulachar himself references other texts, for example, stating he will discuss the "Āvaśyaka Niryukti" before quoting verses from it. This implies that the Niryuktis were considered older and were being incorporated.
  • Chapter Naming: The chapter titles in Mulachar often correspond to the names of these Śvetāmbara texts.
  • Repetition and Contradictions: The presence of repeated verses and apparent internal contradictions further supports the idea of a compilation.
• Purposeful Compilation: Despite being a compilation, the author emphasizes that it was a purposeful composition with the objective of expounding the conduct of monks. Acārya Vaṭṭakera is seen as a gardener who meticulously gathered various flowers (verses) to create a well-arranged garland (Mulachar).
• Critique of Counter-Arguments: The text addresses arguments against the compilation theory, particularly those that suggest a shared tradition before the Digambara-Śvetāmbara split and the loss of Niryuktis in the Digambara tradition. The author counters that the explicit referencing of Niryuktis by the Mulachar author indicates their existence and use at that time, and questions why they were later lost if they were integral to the Digambara tradition.

Language of Mulachar:

• Śauraseni Prakrit with Influences: The language of Mulachar is primarily Śauraseni Prakrit. However, it exhibits a noticeable influence from Ardhamāgadhī and Māhārāṣṭrī Prakrit, as evidenced by specific word forms and grammatical constructions that differ from the pure Śauraseni found in Kundakunda's works. Examples include variations in verb endings and the use of certain consonants.

Mulachar's Tradition and Relationship with Śvetāmbara Texts:

• Connection to Yapaniya Tradition: Based on the extensive use of Śvetāmbara texts, the author suggests that Mulachar likely originated in the Yāpanīya tradition, which studied and incorporated these texts.
• Rejection of Kundakunda Tradition: Pandit Nathuram Premi's arguments are presented to further solidify the idea that Mulachar is not from Kundakunda's Digambara tradition. These arguments focus on:
  • Shared Verses with Bhagavatī Ārādhanā: Numerous verses are common with Bhagavatī Ārādhanā (considered a later text, possibly Yāpanīya or from that sphere).
  • Specific Kalpas and Practices: Certain kalpas and practices mentioned in Mulachar (like the inclusion of diet from medicine for the sick) are characteristic of Śvetāmbara or Yāpanīya traditions, not strictly Digambara ones.
  • References to Śvetāmbara Texts: Mentions of Ācāradashā, Jeetakalpa, etc., which are Śvetāmbara or Yāpanīya texts.
  • Differences in Tīrthaṅkara Conduct: The text notes discrepancies in the depiction of Tīrthaṅkara conduct between Mulachar and the accepted Digambara view, aligning more with Śvetāmbara interpretations found in texts like Āvaśyaka Niryukti.
  • Use of Specific Texts: The Mulachar author's familiarity with and citation of texts like Āvaśyaka Niryukti, Uttaradhyayana, etc., is highlighted, with the observation that these texts are not prominently referenced or found in the literature of Kundakunda's direct tradition.

Conclusion:

The study concludes that Mulachar, while accepted as an Agam-like scripture for monastic conduct in the Digambara tradition, is most likely authored by Acārya Vaṭṭakera. Furthermore, it is presented as a purposeful compilation that heavily draws from and reflects the intellectual and literary traditions of the Śvetāmbara and Yāpanīya schools, rather than being a purely original work of Kundakunda's Digambara lineage. The extensive use of Śvetāmbara sources and the linguistic influences point towards a broader Jain literary milieu from which Mulachar emerged.