मूलाचार की टीकाएँ एवं उनकी पाण्डुलिपियाँ
By Prem Suman Jain
Summary
This PDF discusses the Mūlācāra, an ancient and foundational Prakrit text on Śramaṇācāra (ascetic conduct) attributed to Ācārya Kuṇḍakuṇḍa or Ācārya Vaṭṭakera. The authorship is debated, with both names appearing in commentaries, suggesting they were contemporary, prominent Ācāryas. The text is considered to have been composed before the second century CE, as it is referenced in the Tiloya Paṇṇatti. The Mūlācāra is a key text for the Digambara Jain tradition, providing a code of conduct for ascetics. Several commentaries on the Mūlācāra exist, including the Ācāravṛtti Sanskrit commentary by Ācārya Vasunandi, the Mūlācāra Sadavṛtti Muni Janacintāmaṇi Kannada commentary by Meghacandrācārya, the Mūlācāra Pradīpa by Muni Sakalakīrti, and a Hindi commentary by Paṇḍita Nandalal Chavada and Paṇḍita Ṛṣabhadasa. Vasunandi’s Ācāravṛtti explains 1,252 Prakrit gāthās across twelve adhikāras, while the Kannada commentary contains 1,403 gāthās. The additional 151 gāthās in the Kannada version are not included in Vasunandi’s commentary, though he incorporates their meanings. Vasunandi’s commentary is notable for defining key terms for ascetics, such as śramaṇa, saṃyata, ṛṣi, muni, sādhu, vītarāga, anagāra, bhadanta, dānta, and yati. It also discusses the ten śramaṇa dharmas: kṣamā, mārdava,
Conclusion
The analysis of the Mūlācāra manuscript traditions and commentaries, particularly the comparative study of Vasunandi's Sanskrit commentary and Meghacandra's Kannada commentary, reveals significant textual variations, including 151 additional Prakrit verses in the Kannada version. This suggests that multiple recensions of the text existed, with Vasunandi likely omitting certain verses while incorporating their meanings. The discovery of dated manuscripts, such as the 1730 VS copy from Udayapur, provides crucial chronological evidence, placing Ācārya Vaṭṭakera in the early second century CE. These findings resolve long-standing authorship debates, confirming Vaṭṭakera as the primary author while acknowledging Kundakunda's influence. The detailed definitions of monastic terms in Vasunandi's commentary offer invaluable insights into early Jain monastic practices. Future critical editions incorporating all available manuscript traditions will further illuminate the development of Śramaṇācāra and its role in shaping Digambara monastic