Mahāprajña’s Exegetical Approach in Ācārāṅga-bhāṣyam

This paper investigates the exegetical approach of Śvetāmbara Terāpanthi leader Ācārya Mahāprajña (1920-2010) in order to illustrate how a learned Jain mendicant leader adapted his exegetical style for a modern context.  Mahāprajña’s commentary on the canonical text of the Ācārāṅga Sūtra or his Ācārāṅga-bhāṣyam reinterprets ancient Jaina descriptions of ascetic practice and proposes a new format for understanding scripture tailored for a contemporary audience.

The contemporary bhāṣya tradition demonstrates a practice of adapting old models for novel purposes through a process of recontextualization. This phenomenon aligns with the concept articulated by E. Hobsbawm (1983:5), wherein he refers to the utilization of ancient materials to construct new content as an "invented tradition of a novel type for quite novel purposes." Such new interpretation open the door to modernism. Peter Flugel (2007: 6) suggests that principal feature of Jain Modernism is “the prominence of academic study and interpretation of the tradition.” Such notion is clearly at play in Mahāprajña’s bhāṣya style. He takes liberties in interpreting ancient terms in a modern context. This paper presents Mahāprajña’s approach and his new interpretations as part of a longer development within the Jain exegetical tradition.

The terms employed in Jaina literature that refer to a type of commentary include the following: vṛtīti, bhāṣya, ṭīkā, vivaraṇa, dīpikā, ṭabbā and ṭippaṇa, to name a few. According to Monier Williams, terms like ṭippaṇa, ṭīkā, vṛtti, and bhāṣya convey similar meanings. Although these terms semantically refer to commentary, the term ṭippaṇa is used polysemously. In a polysemous word, its semantic content can encompass various related but distinct senses or connotations. It reflects the richness and versatility of language, where a single word can convey different meanings depending on the context or usage. In this paper, I explore the polysemous nature of the ṭippaṇa and Mahāprajña’s use of it, aiming to analyse whether its theoretical complexity aligns with its functional diversity. I articulate and develop a model outlining the key characteristics of a textual ṭippaṇa. Subsequently, I assess the model's applicability, particularly in the context of Mahāprajña’s endnote ṭippaṇa.

Before discussing Mahāprajña’s endnote ṭippaṇa, I will analyse the semantics of the lexicon around this term in this way and initiate textual tippaṇa in the historical context, drawing on sources such as Hemacandra. Etymologically, ṭippaṇa refers to a comment, but Hemacandra distinguished his ṭippaṇa by creating a new text through his commentary, whereas the end-note ṭippaṇa in Ācārāṅga-bhāṣyam remains loyal to the original scripture, without acquiring the identity of a new text. He uses his sources

Thus, works such as Hemacandra's commentary on Haribhadra's ṭīkā of the Āvaśyaka Niryukti were designated as ṭippaṇa, prominently conceived of as a commentary on a commentary, exemplifying a trend within the Jaina tradition of writing commentaries this way, such as found in the Āvaśyaka Niryukti. Additionally, Viśeṣāvaśayaka includes an auto-commentary to this text, and Koṭyācārya provides a commentary. The prevalence of such clusters of commentaries represents a norm within the Jaina tradition.

But, the ṭippaṇa for Jain mendicant scholars such as Mahāprajña (as well as Muni Jambuvijaya) referred to their footnotes and endnotes. In his ṭippaṇa, Mahāprajña demonstrates his exegetical expertise without producing an entirely new commentary text. My study explores early side-notes found in ancient manuscripts to the modern endnotes of Mahāprajña, which include their own footnotes. Furthermore, these endnotes with footnotes serve to replace the conventional commentary, establishing a distinctive genre of endnote commentary.

Identifying the characteristics of commentary to discern what defines it as such is a pivotal inquiry; its fundamental criterion is a text that elaborates on another text. In the case of Mahāprajña's ṭippaṇa, his style is at once in conformity to Jain commentary as it is disruptive in its footnote or endnote form, adding impetus to any intellectual work. This indeed is a unique feature of  Mahāprajña's ṭippaṇa. What remains an explicit fact is that the side-note, end-note, and foot-note have served as a comfort domain for scholars from historical to modern times, contributing beyond the limits or confines of certain rules that need to be applied in the main body of the text. The absence of commentary in the current trend does not diminish the capabilities of contemporary Jaina scholars. This observation not only echoes the essence of Mahāprajña's pursuits but also prompts numerous inquiries about the nature and role of Jaina scholars and their engagement with commentaries and their ability to adapt to modern times.