The Sutrakrtanga-niryukti

Summary

“The Sūtrakṛtāṅga‑niryukti” is a philological essay on one of the canonical commentaries in the Jain tradition. Niryuktis are mnemonic verse summaries appended to early Jain scriptures; over time they became interwoven with commentaries (bhāṣyas) and later additions. The article begins by classifying Niryuktis into three groups: (1) those whose texts are preserved in a relatively pure form; (2) those where verses from the Mūla‑bhāṣya have been added to the original Niryukti; and (3) works now called bhāṣyas or bṛhad‑bhāṣyas in which the original Niryukti can no longer be separatedfile:///home/oai/share/split/article_4.pdf#:~:text=The%20Satrakrianga%20Niryukti%27%20is%20one,to%20say%20that%20this%20explana. The Sūtrakṛtāṅga‑niryukti falls into the first category and is noteworthy for its relative purity and brevity. The author explains that the function of a Niryukti is to elucidate the name of the text and the titles of its chapters, often providing a summary of contents. The Sūtrakṛtāṅga‑niryukti comprises only 205 gāthās and avoids the lengthy digressions found in other commentaries. It focuses on explaining technical terms through the four Anuyogadvāras (topics of exposition) rather than indulging in synonym lists or etymological speculationfile:///home/oai/share/split/article_4.pdf#:~:text=The%20Satrakrianga%20Niryukti%27%20is%20one,to%20say%20that%20this%20explana. Because of this, the work preserves an authentic picture of the early exegetical method. Dating the Niryukti is challenging. The text mentions numerous philosophical schools and figures, but none provide a firm terminus post quem since the schools in question already existed in the early centuries CE. Names like Abhaya, Śreṇika, and Kevalin appear, but these are contemporaries of Mahavira rather than later thinkersfile:///home/oai/share/split/article_4.pdf. The author therefore rejects previous attempts to date the work on the basis of internal references and instead analyses its relationship with other Niryuktis. He notes that certain verses summarise material found in the Daśavaikālika‑niryukti, suggesting that the Sūtrakṛtāṅga‑niryukti was composed later than the commentary on the first aṅga. By comparing parallel passages, he shows that the Sūtrakṛtāṅga‑niryukti may have been written after the Daśavaikālika but before the elaboration of the Nisītha‑bhāṣya, placing it early in the exegetical traditionfile:///home/oai/share/split/article_4.pdf. The essay also discusses the division of the Anuyogadvāras and responds to the question raised by the scholar Leumann about their subdivision. The traditional fourfold division—nāma, sthāpanā, dravya and bhāva—is further analysed into categories such as āgamatta and anāgamatta, reflecting the exegetical strategies used by Jain commentators. By examining these categories, the author shows how the Niryukti systematically relates names and topics to their underlying realities, demonstrating an early form of Jain hermeneutics. Overall, the paper argues for the philological value of the Sūtrakṛtāṅga‑niryukti and calls for more critical editions of early Jain commentaries. Its careful analysis illustrates how concise verse commentaries provide insight into the transmission and interpretation of canonical texts.