North Indian Inscriptions

LITERATURE

describes himself as Munīśvara devoted to the feet of Pūjyapāda (Mahāvīra) and as a disciple of the illustrious Paṇḍita Viśālakīrti, who was an admantine goad to the elephants in the form of disputants. He complied the work for the sake of Harichandra, a disciple of Nāga- chandra, who was himself a disciple of Mēghachandra of the Mūlasaṅgha.[1]

..There are two recensions of the Jainēndra-vyākaraṇa, the smaller one containing about 3000 sūtras, and the larger 3707 sūtras.[2] The former was composed by Dēvanandin alias Pūjyapāda, whose date is not definitely fixed. K.B. Pathak, on the evidence of an inscription at Lakshmēsvara, stated at first that he was a native of Raktapura or Alaktakapura and flourished in Śaka 651 (A.D. 729-30)[3], but later on he revised his view and placed him in the latter part of the fifth century A.D.[4] The arguments on which both these views of Pathak are based do not appear plausible.[5] The tradition that makes Pūjyapāda a contemporary and guru of the Gaṅga king Durvinīta, who flourished in circa A.D. 540-600, may be correct.[6]

.. Devanadin’s work is divided into five adhyāyas and is, therefore, called Pañchādhyāyī. As Kielhorn has observed,[7] it is on the whole a copy of Pāṇini, pure and simple. It has tried to abridge Pāṇini’s sūtras by various means. It omits all sūtras which relate to the Vedic language and, except for the definitions of udātta, anudātta and svarita, those dealing with the accents also. It omits also the Pratyāhāra-sūtras, though it uses the pratyāhāras formed with their aid. Again, it does not include the sūtras dealing with the Ēkaśēsha-vṛitti[8] and is, therefore, called Anēkaśēsha-Vyākaraṇa. Moreover, it has tried to economise letters in the wording of the sūtras by inventing a number of technical terms such as pra (for hrasva), dī (for dīrgha), ep (for guṇa), aip (for vṛiddhi ), mṛid (for prātipadika) etc. after the manner of Pāṇini’s gha, ghi, ghu etc.[9] It uses, however, many of the short technical terms of Pāṇini such as pha, ḍha, kha etc.[ 10]

.. Devanandin’s work is commented on by Abhyanandin. His commentary is known as the Mahāvṛitti. He has cited several vārttikas to supplement the sūtras of Dēvanandin.

.. The author of the larger recension, called Śabdārṇava, of the Jainēndra Vyākaraṇa is Guṇanandin, who is identified with the homonymous disciple of Bālakapichchha and the disciple’s disciple of Gṛiddhrakapichchha, mentioned in several inscriptions at Śravaṇa Beḷgoḷ as well-versed in logic, grammar and rhetoric.[11] He flourished in the Vikrama Saṁvat 957 (A.D. 900).

.. In his work Guṇanandin has incorporated the vārttikas on Dēvanandin’s recension. He has also added the Pratyāhārasūtras and the sūtras of the Ēkaśēsha-vṛitti. His work exceeds that of Dēvanandin by more than 700 sūtras. He has framed some new technical terms such
_________________

[1] श्रीमूलसंघजलजप्रतिबोधभानोर्मेधेन्दुदीक्षितभुजंगसुधाकरस्य ।
सिद्धान्ततोयनिधिवृद्धिकरस्य वृत्तिं रेभे हरीन्दुयतये वरदीक्षिताय ॥
[2] Kielhorn gives the number of sūtras as 3712, but the edition of the Śabdārṇavachandrikā published by the Bhāratīya-Jaina-siddhānta-prakāśinī Saṁsthā gives the number as 3709 including the prathyāhāra-sūtras. The number of Sūtras in Dēvanandin’s original work was 3067.
[3] Ind. Ant., Vol. XII, p. 20. The inscription at Lakshmēśvara (ibid., Vol. VII, p. 112) on which this view is based does not describe Pūjyapāda as the author of the Jainēndra-vyākaraṇa.
[4] The arguments for this view also appear vague.
[5] See above, n. 4. The reference to this Vyākaraṇa in the Kāśikā in not certain.
[6] It has to be noted, however, that inscriptions refer to Durvinīta as the author of Śabdāvatāra, which may or may not be identical with the Jainēndra-vyākaraṇa. See the Gazetter of Mysore Kurga, Vol. I, p. 373.
[7] Ind. Ant., Vol. X, p. 76.
[8] Cf. स्वाभाविकत्वादभिधानस्यैकशेषानारम्भ: । in the Mahāvṛitti on I, i, 96.
[9] Ind., Ant., Vol. X, p. 77.
[10] See e.g. आयनेयीनीयिय : फढखछघाम प्रत्ययादीनाम् । V, 1, 2.
[11] See H.L. Jain, भारतिय सम्स्कृति में जैनधर्म का योगदान, p. 186, and Nathuram Premi’s Introduction to Jainendramahāvṛitti, p. 26.