Who Is Author Of Pancasutra Cirantanacarya Or Yakinisunu Haribhadra - Book Summary

Here is a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text:

The article "Who is The Author of the Pañcasūtra: Cirantanācārya or Yākinisūnu Haribhadra?" by Acārya Vijayaśīlacandra sūri addresses a long-standing debate regarding the authorship of the Pañcasūtra, a revered and concise treatise among Svetambara Jain monks. While traditionally attributed to a "Cirantanācārya" (meaning "ancient ācārya"), the author argues strongly that Ācārya Haribhadra sūri is the sole author of both the Pañcasūtra and its commentary.

The author begins by acknowledging the Pañcasūtra's importance, its elegant Prakrit composition, and the well-known commentary by Haribhadra sūri. The central problem is the lack of explicit reference to the Pañcasūtra's author in existing sources and the prevailing acceptance of the "Cirantanācārya" attribution. The term "Cirantanācārya" is interpreted as either an ancient author or a specific appellation.

The article then presents the views of several scholars who generally conclude that the author of the Pañcasūtra is unknown, or that Haribhadra sūri is unlikely to be the author. These scholars base their arguments on factors like:

The possibility of ancient preceptors or an author with a similar name composing the work.
The difficulty in assigning individual authorship to works with foundational Jain contents.
The language of the Pañcasūtra being Ardhamāgadhī prose, with features similar to canonical works, distinct from Haribhadra sūri's known Jaina Māhārāstrī.
The speculation that Haribhadra sūri might have compiled existing sūtras.

However, the author of the article directly challenges these views, asserting with strong evidence that Haribhadra sūri is indeed the author. The evidence presented includes:

Analysis of the Commentary's Ending: The author highlights the specific phrasing at the end of Haribhadra's commentary, particularly the phrase "समाप्तं पञ्चसूत्रकं व्याख्यानतोऽपि" (completed the Pañcasūtra along with the commentary). The inclusion of "अपि" (also/even) and the implication that the Pañcasūtra is completed "together with the commentary" strongly suggests that the commentator and the author of the Pañcasūtra were the same person. Had they been different, the phrasing would likely have been different, perhaps referring to the completion of the Vrtti (commentary) itself.
Devotional Sentences: After the completion of the commentary, Haribhadra appended several devotional sentences in Sanskrit. The author argues that this is a departure from the established convention where commentators only provide elucidations and do not add their own material. This liberty suggests Haribhadra's ownership of the original text. The style and content of these appended sentences are also found to be similar to the original sūtras.
Yasovijaya Gani's Testimony: The 17th-century epistemologist Yasovijaya Gani, in his work Nyāyāvatāra, explicitly attributes the Pañcasūtra to Haribhadra sūri ("हरिभद्रसूरिभिरप्येतद्भव-सम्बन्धि भवान्तरसम्बन्धि वा पापं ..."). This clear attribution by a respected scholar, the author argues, indicates a reliable tradition or direct knowledge that Haribhadra was the author, rather than a guess or blind following.
Naming Conventions: The author points out that the specific title "Pañcasūtraka" is characteristic of Haribhadra sūri's naming conventions, distinguishing his works. Other authors might have used simpler titles.
Linguistic and Stylistic Parallels: A significant portion of the article is dedicated to demonstrating striking similarities in language, diction, and specific phrases between the Pañcasūtra and Haribhadra sūri's other known works, such as the Vimsati-Vimsika, Dharmabindu, Yogadrstisamuccaya, and Sodasaka. Numerous examples are provided, showing the use of identical or similar terms, sentence structures, and conceptual expressions. This extensive parallel evidence strongly supports the idea of a single author.
Linguistic Analysis (Prakrit vs. Ardhamāgadhī): The author addresses the argument that the Pañcasūtra's language is Ardhamāgadhī, thus not Haribhadra's. The author contends that the language is consistent with Jaina Māhārāstrī, particularly in its adherence to later grammatical rules found in works like Hemacandrācārya's grammar, which Haribhadra's works also exhibit. Furthermore, the author argues that it is perfectly plausible for a learned scholar like Haribhadra to use different Prakrit dialects or styles in different works.
The "Cirantanācārya" Confusion: The author traces the origin of the "Cirantanācārya" attribution to later medieval times (around the 15th-17th centuries of Vikrama Era). The confusion likely arose from manuscript colophons that mistakenly distinguished the author of the original text from the commentator. The absence of the specific identifier "Haribhadri" at the end of the Pañcasūtra text itself (though present in the commentary's description) also contributed to this misunderstanding. The author emphasizes that such attributions are not ancient but rather a later misinterpretation.
Chronological Ordering of Works: The author suggests, based on the linguistic evidence and stylistic progression, that the Pañcasūtra might have been composed in the later part of Haribhadra sūri's life, perhaps as a concise summary of his extensive studies and earlier works.

In conclusion, Acārya Vijayaśīlacandra sūri presents a compelling case, supported by internal textual evidence, linguistic analysis, and the testimony of later scholars, that Ācārya Haribhadra sūri is definitively the author of the Pañcasūtra. The traditional attribution to "Cirantanācārya" is deemed a later misattribution. The article aims to correct this misunderstanding and firmly establish Haribhadra sūri's authorship.