मूलाचार की टीकाएँ एवं उनकी पाण्डुलिपियाँ
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,
Summary reviewed by a volunteer editor.
Conclusion
Dr. Prem Suman Jain’s article *“Commentaries on Mūlācāra and Its Manuscripts”* examines the textual tradition, commentarial history, and manuscript transmission of *Mūlācāra*, an early and foundational Prakrit text on monastic conduct in the Digambara Jain tradition. The study discusses the authorship debate between Acharya Kundakunda and Vattakera, noting references in commentaries and historical evidence suggesting Vattakera’s antiquity while acknowledging both names in textual traditions. It reviews major commentaries, particularly Vasunandi’s Sanskrit *Ācāravṛtti*, Meghachandra’s Kannada commentary, and later Hindi vernacular explanations, highlighting their role in clarifying doctrinal and technical terminology, monastic categories, ethical virtues, and disciplinary practices. The article also compares manuscript traditions, including variations in the number of Prakrit verses, omitted or repeated passages, Sanskrit renderings, and regional copies preserved in Rajasthan, Karnataka, Bihar, and Uttar Pradesh. It concludes that a critical comparative edition based on detailed manuscript study could clarify authorship, textual history, linguistic development, and important dimensions of Jain monastic culture.