Shanti Namak Surio

Here's a comprehensive summary in English of the provided Jain text, "Shanti Namak Surio" by Hiralal R Kapadia:

This excerpt from "Shanti Namak Surio" by Hiralal R Kapadia meticulously investigates and identifies various Jain scholars and ascetics (Sūri) named Shanti, belonging to different lineages and periods. The author aims to clarify their historical context and contributions based on available texts and inscriptions.

Key Discussions and Identifications:

• Shantisūri of the Pūrṇatalgachchha: The author begins by discussing a Shantisūri associated with the Pūrṇatalgachchha, identified through a commendatory verse on the commentary of Tilabhringarī. This Shantisūri is also credited with composing the commentary on the Meghadūta and four other yamaka poems (Vr̥ndāvanakāvya, Ghaṭakhaparakāvya, Śivabhadrakāvya, and Candradūta). The author agrees with Pandit Lalchand's view that this Shantisūri lived between the 11th and 12th centuries Vikram era.

• The Nyāyāvatāra Commentator and Shantisūri: A significant portion of the text delves into the identity of the commentator of the Nyāyāvatāra. The author examines the arguments presented by Pandit Lalchand and, subsequently, M.D. Desai, who believe the commentator of the Nyāyāvatāra's Vārtika and Vr̥tti (Vivṛtikāra) is the same Shantisūri from the Pūrṇatalgachchha.

  • The author critically analyzes Malavaniya's reasoning, which suggests this Shantisūri is the same as the Vārtikāra and Vr̥ttikāra because the name "Vardhamana" is not known as the guru of other Shantisūris, and a clear connection to other Shantisūris is not established.
  • The author questions the direct identification. He points out that the Vārtikāra does not explicitly mention his father's name. While Malavaniya infers the name "Shanti" from the Vārtikāra's self-identification as "Chandra" (compared to the sun-like Siddhasena), suggesting coolness, the author finds this inferential.
  • The author notes that the Vr̥ttikāra, when explaining the word "Raha" in the 19th kārikā, does not name the Vārtikāra, which the author believes is not due to ignorance but because the Vr̥ttikāra implies it. He draws a parallel to the commentator on Sanjayamanchari, who referred to the author as "Prakaranakāra" without naming Maheshvarasūri. The absence of a Vr̥tti for the 57th kārikā also supports this line of thought.
  • The author acknowledges that some works from the Vārtikāra's time were written by the same author for both the kārikā and its commentary. He argues that the Vārtika is not so ancient that its author's name would be forgotten.
  • The author notes that the Vr̥ttikāra identifies the father as belonging to the "Chandra" lineage and calls him a "śiṣyāvayava" (disciple or descendant of disciples) of Vardhamanasūri. The Vr̥ttikāra refers to the father's work as a vivṛti named "Vichārakalikā." The term "śiṣyāvayava" can mean either a junior disciple or a grand-disciple, and sometimes the head of a lineage is referred to as the guru. Therefore, the author is not entirely prepared to state that the Vr̥ttikāra Shantisūri was a direct disciple of Vardhamanasūri.
  • He also mentions that Chandrasenasūri, a disciple of Pradyumnasūri (Hemachandrasūri's guru-brother), composed Utpādādisiddhiprakaraṇa and its commentary in 1207 V.E. This commentary mentions "Vichārakalikā," and the arguments in the Sarvasiddhivāda reference "Vichārakalikā." This places Vichārakalikā before 1207 V.E.
  • The author further states that Sammata-payaṛaṇa's commentary was used in Vichārakalikā. The author of this commentary, Abhayadevasūri, lived between 950 and 1050 V.E., indicating that the author of Vichārakalikā, Shantisūri, lived after him.
  • The mention of Anantakīrti and Anantavīrya in Vichārakalikā (p. 77) suggests Anantavīrya, the author of Sarvajñasiddhī, lived between 840 and 982 V.E. Prabāchāndrasūri lived between 1037 and 1122 V.E., and Anantavīrya preceded him.
  • The author confirms that six kārikās from the Nyāyāvatāra Vārtika are quoted in the commentary of Utpādādisiddhī, dating the Vārtikāra before 1207 V.E.
  • The 53rd kārikā of the Vārtika is found in Vādīdevasūri's Syādvādaratnākara (lived 1174-1226 V.E.). If this kārikā belongs to the Vārtikāra, then the Vārtikāra can be placed around 1175 V.E.
  • The author mentions that Devabhadra's commentary on Nyāyāvatāra contains the fourth kārikā of the Vārtika, written while Devabhadra was studying under Maladhari Hemachandrasūri (completed in 1175 V.E.). This supports the earlier estimation.
  • Based on these findings, Malavaniya considers the Vārtikāra and Vr̥ttikāra as identical and places them between 1050 and 1175 V.E., a timeline that aligns with Pandit Lalchand's estimation of the 11th to mid-12th century.

• Shantisūris of Other Lineages: The text then proceeds to discuss Shantisūris from various other lineages:

  • Nāgendrakāna Shantisūri: Udayaprabha composed a commentary on Upadeshamālā, mentioning his guru lineage as Shantisūri, the successor of Mahendrasūri of the Nāgendrakula. His grand-disciple Amarachandra was highly honored in the court of Siddharaja (reigned 1150-1199 V.E.), suggesting this Shantisūri lived during or slightly before Siddharaja's time. An inscription from 1288 V.E. mentions a Shantisūri as a descendant of Mahendrasūri, implying he might not be a direct disciple. Another inscription from 1288 V.E. mentions Shantisūri consecrating idols in a temple built by a Yovīra of the Khaṇḍerakagachchha.
  • Brihadgachchha Shantisūri: In 1631 V.S. (1161 V.E.), Shantisūri, a disciple of Nemicandra of the Brihadgachchha, composed the Pr̥thvīchandra-charitra for his disciple Munichandra. He also authored Dharmarachana-payaṛaṇa (Dharmaratnaprakaraṇa). An inscription from 1515 V.E. mentions a manuscript of the Pr̥thvīchandra-maharṣicharita by Kavi Shantisūri.
  • Kavi Shantisūri: Shri Chandrasūri composed Sārṇakumārachariya in 1214 V.E., praising many poets, including a Shantisūri. The author questions if this is the same Shantisūri.
  • Khaṇḍilagachchha Shantisūri: A commentary on the Bhaktāmara Stotra is attributed to Shantisūri of the Khaṇḍilyagachchha.
  • Tapāgachchha Shantisūri: Vādīdevasūri, in the 12th century, appointed twenty-four disciples as Acharyas, one of whom was Shantisūri. His period is estimated to be from the latter half of the 12th century to the first half of the 13th century.
  • Paramanand's Guru Shantisūri: In the praise of his commentary on Karmavibhāga (part of the Karmabandhuvarga), Paramanand mentions his guru lineage: Bhadreshvarasūri -> Shantisūri -> Abhayadeva -> Paramanand. Abhayadevasūri's commentary on Nāyādhammakahā was written in 1221 V.E.
  • Nānakīya Gachchha Shantisūri: An inscription from 1265 V.E. mentions this Shantisūri, whose guru was Kalyāṇavijaya.
  • Chandragachchha Shantisūri: Jeyadevasūri, who composed Upmithibhava-prapanchakathāsāra in 1298 V.E., is described as a descendant of Shantisūri of the Chandragachchha, with the lineage being Bhadreshvarasūri -> Haribhadra -> Shantisūri -> Abhayadeva -> Prasannachandra -> Muniratna -> Kīrchāndrasūri -> Jeyadevasūri.
  • Maḍāhaḍīya Gachchha Shantisūri: An inscription from 1387 V.E. records a Shantisūri of the "Maḍāhaḍīya" Gachchha consecrating the idol of Devabhūri of the "Mahāhaḍīya" Gachchha. The author speculates that this Shantisūri might belong to the "Maḍāhaḍīya" Gachchha itself, as it's unusual for a monk from one lineage to perform such an act for another. He questions if "Mahāhaḍīya" is a branch of the Brihadgachchha, given that Vardhamāna of the Maḍāhaḍīya Gachchha calls his lineage the "Haṁsa" Gachchha.
  • Chandragachchha Shantisūri (another instance): Muni Dev, the author of Shantinathacharita (1022 V.E.), had Devānanda as his guru, who composed Siddhasarasvata (a grammar). Devānanda's lineage is given as Chandrapraha -> Dhaneśvara -> Shantisūri -> Devabhadra -> Devānanda.
  • Sandhera Gachchha Shantisūri: An inscription from 1597 V.E. refers to Shantisūri of the "Sandhera" Gachchha.

The author also includes a note requesting the publication of corrigenda for important editions of Jain texts, particularly mentioning the work of Pandit Sukhalaal and Pandit Becherdas, and appealing to Vidvan Labh Muni Shri Punyavijayaji to publish errata for the Agamādhāraka's editions of Āgamas.

In essence, "Shanti Namak Surio" is a scholarly endeavor to meticulously trace and distinguish the various Shantisūris in Jain history, shedding light on their specific gachchhas, times, and literary contributions, primarily through the analysis of textual evidence and inscriptions.