Reflections On The Jaina Exgetical Literature

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, "Reflections on the Jaina Exegetical Literature" by B. K. Khadabadi:

This essay, "Reflections on the Jaina Exegetical Literature" by B. K. Khadabadi, delves into the nature and development of the extensive body of explanatory literature that surrounds the foundational canonical texts of Jainism. It aims to provide a connected and comparative view of the four main classes of this literature, tracing their historical progression and commenting on the challenges and significance of their study.

The Jaina Canonical Tradition and Exegesis:

• The teachings of Jina Mahavira were initially compiled by his disciples, the ganadharas, into sutras.
• According to the Svetambara tradition, these teachings were orally transmitted and later codified into the "Ardhamagadhi canon," comprising 45 sacred texts, through several redactions over about a millennium.
• To explain and elaborate on these canonical texts, Jaina acaryas produced a vast amount of explanatory literature, known as agamika vyakhyas or Jaina exegesis. This literature was written in Prakrit, Sanskrit, and Old Gujarati between approximately 100 AD and 1800 AD, making a significant contribution to Indian thought and literature.

The Four Classes of Jaina Exegetical Literature:

The essay identifies four main classes or layers of this exegetical literature, generally representing a chronological progression:

1. Nijjutti (Skt. Niryukti):

   • These are the earliest form of commentaries, developed by early Jaina teachers.
   • They are versified memorial verses containing catch-words designed to aid oral transmission and instruction.
   • A key feature is the niksepa, a unique Jaina method of investigating words and concepts from multiple viewpoints.
   • While providing a basis for understanding, Niryuktis were not always sufficient for full comprehension of the canonical text's meaning.
   • Ten Niryuktis are known, traditionally attributed to Bhadrabahu I (c. 300 BC), though modern scholarship suggests a later dating, possibly post-Valabhi Synod II (c. 454/457 AD or 503/516 AD).
   • They were composed for the most important canonical texts and typically contain a few hundred verses. The Avassaya-nijjutti is noted for its size and scientific presentation.

2. Bhāsa (Bhāşya):

   • Bhāşyas emerged from later additions and insertions of further explanatory verses into the Niryuktis.
   • The relationship between Niryukti and Bhāşya is described as partially intermingled, with Bhāşyas often containing some Niryukti verses and vice-versa, though the Bhāşya verses typically preponderate.
   • There are currently 11 known Bhāşyas, broadly dated between 500-700 AD.
   • Most Bhāşyas consist of several thousand Prakrit verses.
   • Extraordinary commentaries like the Vibhasa = Āvafyaka-Bhasya (c. 585-590 AD) were produced through detailed explanation.
   • Prominent Bhāṣyakāras include Jinabhadra gani Kşamāśramaņa and Sanghadāsa gani Kşamāśramaņa.

3. Cunni (Curņi):

   • Cūrnis represent a new phase in Jaina exegesis, marked by a shift in form and linguistic style.
   • They are primarily in Prakrit prose, with varying degrees of Sanskrit admixture, indicating a growing adoption of Sanskrit by Jaina acaryas.
   • Cūrnis were written on about 20 canonical works between 600-700 AD.
   • Jinadāsagani Mahattara is a prominent Curṇikāra.
   • The chronological distinction between Bhāşya and Cūrņi is not always clear-cut.
   • Cūrnis are valuable for preserving old Prakrit narratives in their original style and often quote from lost works. They are considered to contain the full oral exegetic tradition.

4. Vitti (Vrtti) or Tika:

   • Ṭikās exhibit distinct features in form, language, and exegetic methodology.
   • They are written in Sanskrit prose.
   • Often, they preserve narrative parts in Prakrit, similar to Cūrnis.
   • Ṭikās explain both Niryukti and Bhāşya verses, frequently adopting the techniques of the Brahmanical Nyaya school.
   • Almost every canonical work has at least one Ṭikā.
   • Haribhadra Sūri (8th century AD) is considered the first major commentator, with most others flourishing between 800-1300 AD, although Ṭikās continued to be written until 1600 AD.

Scholarly Contributions and Challenges:

• Western scholars like A. Weber and Hermann Jacobi pioneered Jaina studies. Initially, scholars focused on Ṭikās for deeper study, as knowledge of the other three classes was limited, leading to confusion among scholars like Jacobi.
• Leumann is credited with initiating a systematic study of Niryuktis about 90 years prior to the essay, focusing on the Avassaya-nijjutti and coining the term "Āvassya Literature."
• Despite Leumann's foundational work, his study of Jaina exegetical literature has not been continued, a state attributed to several factors:
  • The incomplete revelation of exegetical material.
  • The existence of uncritical and unsatisfactory texts, with mixed and intermingled commentaries.
  • The unavailability of texts due to the rarity of manuscripts and out-of-print published works.
  • Limited or difficult access to available texts.

Debate on the Relationship Between Niryukti, Bhāşya, and Cūrņi:

• The essay highlights a debate, particularly concerning the relationship between Bhāşya and Cūrņi, referencing observations by Walther Schubring and Ludwig Alsdorf.
• Alsdorf proposed that the Vises Āvasyaka-bhāşya is a versification of the prose tradition in the Āvasyaka-cūrṇi, and that Ṭikā and Bhāşya represent parallel developments: Ṭikā translating Cūrņi's Prakrit to Sanskrit prose, while Bhāşya versifies traditional prose in Prakrit. He saw Bhāşya as an attempt to continue the old Prakrit tradition in a new form.
• However, Khadabadi challenges Alsdorf's view by pointing out the prominent narrative element in the Āvasyaka-cūrṇi, which is only briefly summarized in the Viśeṣa Āvasyaka-bhāṣya. He also notes that the Viśeṣa Āvasyaka-bhāṣya comprises multiple layers (Mūlabhāşya, Bhāşya, Viśeṣabhāşya), suggesting it's not a simple versification of one prose tradition.
• Further, comparisons with other Bhāşyas like the Dasa-veyaliya-bhāsa and Uttarajjhayana-bhāsa, which are much shorter than their corresponding Cūrnis, suggest that Bhāşyas are not simply versifications of Cūrņi prose.
• Khadabadi also refutes the idea of parallel developments between Ṭikā and Bhāşya, reiterating that Ṭikā adapts the prose Cūrņi to Sanskrit, while Bhāşya represents a different evolution. He argues that the attempt to continue the Prakrit tradition in a new form applies only to extraordinary commentaries like the Viśeṣa Āvasyaka-bhāṣya.

Schubring's Observation and Khadabadi's Elaboration:

• Khadabadi supports Schubring's aphorism: "The commentaries on the canonical texts represent the apprehensions of their time."
• He elaborates:
  • Niryuktis provided an early versified nucleus.
  • Bhāşyas were composed to further explain Niryuktis and canonical Sutras, sometimes growing significantly for detailed explanations of philosophical and disciplinary matters.
  • Cūrnis adopted prose, formalizing the oral tradition and showing a tendency towards Sanskrit admixture.
  • Ṭikās fully embraced Sanskrit, incorporating Brahmanical scholastic techniques.

Future Directions:

• The essay concludes by posing questions about the unevenness of exegesis (e.g., why no Bhāşya for every Niryukti, why some Cūrnis are independent of Bhāşya).
• It emphasizes the urgent need for critical editions of available exegetical works and intensive, extensive, and comparative study.
• This research is crucial for answering these questions and uncovering new facts about Jaina tradition, history, dogmatics, theology, philosophy, and metaphysics, ultimately highlighting Jainism's contribution to Indian thought and literature.
• The essay calls for scholars like Leumann to emerge in India and Japan, as well as in the West, to produce scholarly studies on specific "literatures" (e.g., Āyāra Literature, Daśavaikālika Literature).

In essence, Khadabadi's essay provides a structured overview of the Jaina exegetical tradition, categorizing its major components, discussing their historical development and interrelationships, and highlighting the critical need for further scholarly engagement with this rich and complex body of literature.