Niryukti Sahitya

This document is a scholarly re-examination of the "Niryukti Sahitya" (Niryukti Literature) by Professor Sagarmal Jain. Here's a comprehensive summary:

1. Introduction and Definition of Niryukti Sahitya:

• Purpose: Niryuktis are the earliest commentaries on Jain Agamas (scriptures), akin to "Nirukta" for Vedic texts. Their primary purpose is to clarify the meaning of specialized Agamic terms and concepts.
• Nature: They are characterized by brevity, providing mere hints and suggestions for understanding complex terminology. Deeper comprehension requires referring to commentaries like Bhashyas and Tikas.
• Language: Niryuktis are primarily written in Prakrit gathas.
• German Scholar's View: German scholar Sharpen tier defined Niryuktis as primarily serving as a table of contents, briefly outlining all detailed events.

2. Classification of Niryuktis:

The text outlines two main classification systems for Niryuktis:

• Based on Anuyogadvarasutra:

  1. Nikshepa (निक्षेप): Clarifies the meaning of technical terms based on the Nikshepa (categories of attribution).
  2. Upo'dghata (उपोद्घात): Provides a preliminary explanation of the Agamic subject matter.
  3. Sutrasparshika (सूत्रस्पर्शिक): Mentions the subject matter of the Agamas.

• Based on Professor Ghatke:

  1. Pure (शुद्ध): Niryuktis uninfluenced by the passage of time, e.g., those for Acārāṅgasūtra and Sūtr̥kr̥tāṅgasūtra.
  2. Mixed but Separable (मिश्रित किन्तु व्यवच्छेद्य): Niryuktis mixed with original Bhashyas but still separable, e.g., those for Daśavaikālikasūtra and Āvaśyakasūtra.
  3. Bhashya-Mixed (भाष्य मिश्रित): Niryuktis integrated into Bhashyas or Mahābhashyas, making separation difficult, e.g., those for Niśīthasūtra.

3. Key Characteristics and Significance:

• Clarification of Terms: Niryuktis ensure the precise meaning of Agamic technical terms and subjects.
• Contextual Meaning: Many Jain terms have specific technical meanings (pāribhāṣika) rather than their etymological ones (e.g., Dharma, Adharma in the context of Astikāyas; Karma; Syāt in Syādvāda). Niryuktis help determine the context-specific meaning of words within Agamas.
• Use of Nikshepa and Nayavad: Their explanatory style is primarily based on the Nikshepa system (Nāma, Sthāpanā, Dravya, Bhāva) and Naya (standpoints). This method allows for the exclusion of irrelevant meanings and the adoption of the relevant one.
• Synonyms: Niryuktis often compile synonyms for important terms.
• Brief Overview: They provide a concise introduction to the subject matter and studies of Agamas.

4. Prominent Niryuktis:

Professor Sagarmal Jain lists ten Niryuktis mentioned in the Āvaśyakaniryukti:

1. Āvaśyakaniryukti
2. Daśavaikālikaniryukti
3. Uttarādhyayanniryukti
4. Ācārāṅganiryukti
5. Sūtr̥kr̥tāṅganiryukti
6. Daśāśrutaskandhaniryukti
7. Br̥hatkalpaniryukti
8. Vyavahāraniryukti
9. Sūryaprajñaptiniryukti
10. Ṛṣibhāṣitaniryukti

Currently, only eight of these are available; the last two are lost. The author discusses various possibilities for their non-availability: death of the author before completion, decision to suspend writing due to controversial content, intentional removal from study, or simple loss over time.

5. Other Niryuktis and their Status:

• Piṇḍaniryukti and Ōghaniryukti: These are not independent works but parts of Daśavaikālikaniryukti and Āvaśyakanyukti, respectively. They are now found separately.
• Ārādhana-Niryukti: Mentioned in some texts, but Professor A.N. Upadhye's belief in its existence is contested by Professor Jain, who argues it's a misunderstanding of a verse in Mūlācāra.
• Gōvindaniryukti: Mentioned in various texts, its author is believed to be Ārya Gōvinda, who converted from Buddhism. Its subject was establishing life in monadic organisms (ekendriya). It's considered a "Darśanaprabhāvaka" (philosophy-influencing) text.
• Saṁsaktaniryukti: Mentioned as discussing 84 Āgamas, it's considered a later and inconsistent work due to the large number of Āgamas cited.

6. Chronological Order of the Ten Niryuktis:

Based on internal references, the author reconstructs the likely order of creation:

1. Āvaśyakaniryukti (first, as it promises to write the others)
2. Daśavaikālikaniryukti
3. Uttarādhyayanniryukti
4. Ācārāṅganiryukti
5. Sūtr̥kr̥tāṅganiryukti
6. Daśāśrutaskandhaniryukti
7. Br̥hatkalpaniryukti
8. Vyavahāraniryukti
9. Sūryaprajñaptiniryukti (status uncertain)
10. Ṛṣibhāṣitaniryukti (status uncertain)

7. Author and Period of Composition:

This section is the most detailed and critical.

• Traditional View: The traditional view attributes the Niryuktis to the last Śrutakevalin, Ārya Bhadrabāhu I, the author of the Chedasūtras.
• Scholarly Re-evaluation (Professor Jain's Argument): Professor Jain, heavily influenced by Muni Punyavijaya, strongly argues against this traditional attribution. His key arguments are:
  • Mentions of Later Acāryas: Niryuktis mention Ārya Singha'giri, Ārya Vajrasvāmi, Ārya Rakṣita, Kālakācārya, and others who lived after Ārya Bhadrabāhu I.
  • Mentions of Controversial Doctrines: They refer to the emergence of the 7 Nihnavas and the Bōṭika sect, which appeared centuries after Bhadrabāhu I.
  • Internal References to Earlier Works: References like "We have said before..." imply the existence of earlier Niryuktis or commentaries.
  • Lack of Self-Reference: If Bhadrabāhu I wrote them, he wouldn't refer to himself in such a manner or mention later Acāryas' works as prior.
  • Textual Evolution: The presence of Bhashya-gathas within Niryuktis suggests later additions and compilations.
  • The "Bhadrabāhu" Conundrum: The text highlights the confusion between Ārya Bhadrabāhu I (the Śrutakevalin) and Bhadrabāhu II (an astrologer, brother of Varāhamihira).
  • Arguments Against Naïmittika Bhadrabāhu (Bhadrabāhu II):
    • Chronological Inconsistencies: Niryuktis mention events and doctrines that occurred after Varāhamihira's time.
    • Absence of Guṇasthāna Concept: The concept of Guṇasthāna (stages of spiritual development), which emerged by the 6th century CE, is absent in Niryuktis, suggesting an earlier origin.
    • Alignment with Mathuri and Valabhi Recensions: The text argues that Niryuktis reflect the content of Āgamas as they existed before the major recensions (Mathuri and Valabhi), not after.
• Proposed Author: Professor Jain, following Muni Punyavijaya's line of reasoning, proposes that the Niryuktis were likely authored by Ārya Bhadra, a disciple of Ārya Śivabhūti (Kashyapa lineage), or possibly Ārya Bhadra (Gautama lineage), a disciple of Ārya Kālakācārya. These Acāryas lived around the 3rd-4th century CE, which aligns with the evidence of their earlier existence and the development of the Āgamas.
• Challenges: The main challenge in accepting Ārya Bhadra (disciple of Śivabhūti) as the author is the detailed and respectful mention of Ārya Rakṣita, who is believed to have performed the final rites (niyāpanā) for Bhadragupta. If Bhadragupta wrote the Niryuktis, this detailed mention of Rakṣita would be unusual unless the interpretation of a key verse is altered. The author also suggests that the mention of Nihnavas and Bōṭikas might be interpolations.

8. Conclusion:

Professor Sagarmal Jain concludes that the traditional attribution of Niryuktis to Ārya Bhadrabāhu I is incorrect. He also dismisses the possibility of Naïmittika Bhadrabāhu as the author. He leans towards Ārya Bhadra (either the Kashyapa or Gautama lineage disciple) as the most plausible author, placing their composition around the 3rd-4th century CE, before the formal schisms in the Jain tradition. He acknowledges the difficulty in definitively identifying the author and the need for further research, especially to separate original Niryukti verses from later interpolations (Bhashya-gathas and other additions). The preservation of these texts in the Yapaniya tradition also supports an earlier date.