Niryukti Sahitya Ek Punarchintan

This is a comprehensive summary of the Jain text "Niryukti Sahitya Ek Punarchintan" by Sagarmal Jain, based on the provided pages:

The book, "Niryukti Sahitya Ek Punarchintan" (A Reconsideration of Niryukti Literature), by Prof. Sagarmal Jain, delves into the nature, classification, authors, and chronology of Jain Niryuktis, which are considered the earliest exegetical works on Jain Agamas.

What are Niryuktis?

• Purpose: Niryuktis are ancient commentaries written to clarify the meaning of technical terms and subject matter found in Jain Agamas. They are seen as analogous to the Nirukta in Vedic tradition, which explained Vedic terms.
• Nature: They primarily serve as a concise exposition of the content of the Agamas, often providing a subject index or brief outlines of events. They are characterized by their brevity, containing only hints of meaning that are further elaborated in Bhashyas and Tikas.
• Language: Niryuktis are predominantly composed in Prakrit gathas (verses).
• Clarification of Terms: A key function of Niryuktis is to clarify the specialized, technical meanings of words in Jain tradition, which often differ from their etymological meanings (e.g., Dharma, Adharma, Karma, Syat). They determine the appropriate meaning of a word based on its context within the Agama.
• Methodology: Niryuktis predominantly follow the Nikssepa (placement) method, a Jain principle for determining the meaning of words and sentences. This method involves explaining a word's meaning through its four possible placements: Nama (name), Sthapana (representation), Dravya (substance), and Bhava (mode). Niryuktis also compile synonyms for important terms.

Classification of Niryuktis:

The text outlines several classifications:

• According to Anuyogadvara Sutra:

  1. Nikshepa-Niryukti: Explains terms based on nikshepas.
  2. Upodghata-Niryukti: Provides a preliminary explanation of the Agama's subject matter.
  3. Sutrasparshika-Niryukti: Mentions the content of the Agama.

• According to Prof. Ghatke:

  1. Shuddha-Niryuktis: Unmixed works, like those for Acaraanga and Sutrakrtanga.
  2. Mishrita kintu Vyavachchhedya-Niryuktis: Mixed with original bhashyas but separable, such as those for Dasavaikalika and Avasyakasutra.
  3. Bhashya Mishrita-Niryuktis: Integrated into bhashyas or Brihadbhashyas, making separation difficult, like those for Nisiitha.

Major Niryuktis:

The text identifies ten primary Niryuktis:

1. Avasyak-Niryukti
2. Dasavaikalika-Niryukti
3. Uttaradhyayana-Niryukti
4. Acaraanga-Niryukti
5. Sutrakrtanga-Niryukti
6. Dashashrutaskandha-Niryukti
7. Brihatkalpa-Niryukti
8. Vyavahara-Niryukti
9. Surya-Prajnapti-Niryukti
10. Rishi-Bhashita-Niryukti

Currently, only eight of these are available; the last two (Surya-Prajnapti and Rishi-Bhashita) are lost, and their existence is debated.

Inclusion of Other Works:

• Pind-Niryukti and Ogha-Niryukti are considered parts of Dasavaikalika and Avasyakasutra respectively, not independent works, although they are now found separately.
• Aradhana-Niryukti is considered a non-existent concept; the reference in Mulasutra is to Aradhana (a Prakirnaka or Bhagavati Aradhana) and Niryukti (referring to all Niryuktis collectively).

Authorship and Chronology:

This is a central and highly debated topic in the book.

• Traditional View: The traditional attribution for the Niryuktis is to Arya Bhadravahu I, the last Shruta-kevali and author of the Cheda Sutras. Several ancient commentaries support this view, with the earliest traceable to Arya Shilaanka (9th-10th century CE).

• Challenging the Traditional View: Prof. Sagarmal Jain, drawing heavily on the work of Muni Punyavijayaji, presents extensive arguments against the traditional attribution to Arya Bhadravahu I. The key counter-arguments include:

  • Mentions of Later Acharyas: Niryuktis contain explicit references to and salutations of acharyas like Arya Singhagiri, Arya Vajraswami, Padaliptacharya, Samitisuri, and Kalkaacharya, all of whom lived significantly later than Arya Bhadravahu I.
  • Chronological Discrepancies: Niryuktis discuss events and philosophical concepts (like the emergence of the seven Nihnavas and the Bottic sect) that occurred centuries after Arya Bhadravahu I.
  • Content Not Aligned with Bhadravahu's Era: The scale and content of the Niryuktis, if they were written by a Chaturdasha-Purvadhara, should have been much vaster and more comprehensive, reflecting the state of Agamas in his time. The existing Niryuktis align with later recensions (Mathuri and Valabhi Vachanas).
  • Absence of Key Concepts: The Niryuktis lack the concept of Gunasthana (stages of spiritual development), which was developed later.
  • Inconsistent Attributions: The Mangala Gatha in the Dashashrutaskandha Niryukti, which salutes Bhadravahu as the author of several texts, is argued to be a later interpolation.

• Alternative Candidates:

  • Naimittika Bhadravahu: The book explores the possibility that Naimittika Bhadravahu, the brother of the astronomer Varahamihira (6th century CE), might be the author. Arguments for this include his proficiency in astrology (mentioned in the promise to write a Niryukti for Surya Prajnapti) and the mention of divination in the Acaraanga Niryukti. However, this is also challenged due to the earlier existence of Niryuktis as evidenced by the Nandisutra and Pakshikasutra, and the lack of references to later events or the Valabhi Vachana in the Niryuktis.
  • Arya Bhadra of Kasyapa Gotra (disciple of Arya Shivabhuti): This candidate is considered plausible because his period (around 3rd century CE) aligns with the estimated age of Niryuktis. His association with the achev (unclothed) tradition, which was prevalent before later Śvetāmbara developments, is also noted. However, the detailed and respectful mentions of Arya Rakshita within the Avasyak-Niryukti (where Arya Bhadra is said to have been delivered by Arya Rakshita) pose a significant challenge to this attribution.
  • Arya Bhadra of Gautama Gotra (disciple of Arya Kalka): This candidate is also considered, his timeline fitting with the Mathuri Vachana. However, the evidence is scarce, and the connection relies heavily on name similarity.

• Current Scholarly Consensus (as presented by the author): Prof. Sagarmal Jain concludes that neither the Chaturdasha-Purvadhara Arya Bhadravahu nor Naimittika Bhadravahu are the likely authors. He proposes that the author might be Arya Bhadra of Gautama Gotra, a disciple of Arya Kalka, who lived around the 3rd-4th century CE. This conclusion is based on the need to reconcile the early existence of Niryuktis (evidenced by Nandisutra and Pakshikasutra), the acceptable time frame for the author, and the shared acceptance of Niryuktis in both Śvetāmbara and Yāpanīya traditions.

Conclusion:

The book is a rigorous academic re-examination of the Niryukti literature. It critically analyzes traditional attributions, introduces new theories about authorship and chronology, and highlights the complexity of distinguishing original Niryukti verses from later interpolations (bhashya and prakshipta verses). The author emphasizes the need for further research to resolve the remaining scholarly disputes. The work is presented as a critical engagement with the findings of scholars like Muni Punyavijayaji, offering both agreement and disagreement on certain points.