Date of Kundakundacharya

Author(s): M A Dhaky
Publisher: Z_Aspect_of_Jainology_Part_3_Pundit_Dalsukh_Malvaniya_012017.pdf
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/250071/1

Page #1

THE DATE OF KUNDAKUNDACARYA
M. A. Dhaky
Back in 1935, A. N. Upadhye fixed the date of the illustrious Ācārya Padmanandi of the anvaya or monastic order Kondakunda of the Southern Nirgrantha (Digambara) Church at the beginning of the Christian Era. The current Digambara Jaina scholarship by and large accepts this date, or perhaps its alternative the third century of Vikrama Era (c. A.D. 146-243) determined by Pt. Kailashchandra Shastri'. This is regarded by many as definite, virtually an invarial temporal bracket for Acarya Padmanandi, more widely known by the alias Kondakundācārya (after his anvaya) and still more after the anvaya's Sanskritised form, Kundakundācārya, since late medieval times. A few Western scholars who had an occasion to refer to him, his works, or thinking, in general seem to regard him as an early Jaina philosopher and religious teacher.3
The contemporary Svetāmbara Jaina writers,-late Muni Kalyanvijaya, 4 late Pt. Sukhlal Sanghvi", Pt. Dalsukh Malvania, and no less poignantly K. K. Dixit-on the grounds of the content of his works, were not convinced of such an early date for Kundakundācārya. They felt more secure with fifth, or still better with the sixth century as the chronal zone, and preferably posterior to Umāsváti (c. A. D. 375-400) as well as Siddhasena Divākara ( c. active first half of the 5th cent. A. D.). A re-examination of the various facets of the problem in somewhat deeper depth for refixing Kundakundācārya's date in light of the potential directions inherent (but hitherto ignored) in the available evidence is therefore in order. In the process, the premises on which the different writers earlier suggested the plausible (but differing) dates for Ācārya Kundakunda will also be reviewed and tested vis-avis the known evidence.
I shall begin with the review of the external evidence-direct, negative, or inferential.
1. Ācārya Padmanandi is not referred to, nor is the influence of his "original” teachings (embodied particularly in his celebrated work, the Samaya-pāhuda ) anywhere overtly, clearly, or even indirectly implied in the writings of the pre-medieval Digambara Jaina thinkers, epistemologists, and scholiasts like Svāmi Samantabhadra (active c. A. D. 575-625)", Pūjyapāda Devanandi (active c. A. D. 635-685)10, and Bhatta Akalarikadeva (c. A. D. 720-780)11, the trio held in the highest esteem in the Digambara Church.12 The contemporaneous Svetāmbara Jaina writers of equal stature, -Mallavādi ksamāśramana (c. A. D. 525-575)"3, Jinabhadra gani ksamāśramana (active c. A. D. 550-594), Simhaśūra ksamāśramana (c. latter half of the 7th cent. A. D.), Gandhahasti Siddhasena (c. A. D. 725-770 ) and Yakin[sūnu Haribhadra Sūri (active c. A. D. 740-785), the latter two authors being aware of the

Page #2

188
M. A. Dhaky
writings of Akalankadeva -(Haribhadra Süri even quoting Samantabhadra in the Anekāntajayapat ākā and earlier, without naming him, in his Nandi-vrtti, c. A. D. 750 )-are likewise ignorant of the writings and teachings of Kunda kundācārya.
2. The Digambara Jaina author Indranandi in his Śrutāvatara ( c. late 10 cent. A. D.) tells us about a commentary written by Samanta bhadra on the Tattvārthasūtra (Tattvārthadhigama-śāstra of Umāsvāti );14 Pujyapāda Devanandi, too, wrote the famous commentary, the Sarvärthasiddhi ( c. 2nd-3rd quarter of the 7th cent. A. D. )15, on the Digambara adoption of the selfsame Tattvārthasūtra; and Akal nkadeva wrote his Tattvārtha-vārtika on the Sarvārthasiddhi and also a commentary Astašati (c. 2nd quarter of the 8th cent. A. D.) on the Aptamimārsā olim Devägama-stotra of Samantabhadra (c. A. D. 600 ). Significantly, none of them chose to comment on any of the highly significant works of Kundakundā cārya, for instance his famous and very important Prabhịta-traya-the Samaya-pāhuda ( Samaya-Prabhịta olim Samayasāra ), Pavayana-pāhuda ( Pravacana-prabhrta olim Pravacanasāra ) or Pañcātthikāya-sangaha-sutta ( Pāñcāstikāya-saṁgraha-sūtra olim Pañcāstikāyasāra),-or for that matter on the Niyama-pähuda ( Niyama-prābhrta olim Niyamasāra ), Barasa-aņuppkkha ( Dvādaśa-anuprekşah ). etc. The Digambara sect, since it possessed no āgamas, would have avidly sought and commented upon Kundakundācārya's remarkable prakaranas, no less than Samantabhadra's profound dialectical and epistemology-based works.
3. The earliest known commentaries on Kundakundācārya's works are by Amrtacandrācārya16 who seem to have flourished, on well reasoned evidence, in late ninth and early tenth century A. D.17 It seems intriguing, even inexplicable, as to why on the works of this justly celebrated and for the past thousand years the most venerated Digambara Jaina philosopher-saint, -supposed by modern Digambara Jaina writers to have flourished at the beginning of the Christian ( now 'Common') Era, -no commentaries were written for eight or nine centuries that may have followed his writings !
4. To add to this surprise is the complete silence on Kundakundācārya by the Digambara Ācārya Jinasena of Punnāta-gana in his Harivaṁsapurāna (A.D. 784) where he invokes and pays tribute to Samantabhadra, Siddhasena (Divākara ), and, apart from them, several other pre-medieval Nirgrantha (exclusively Digambara ) writers of eminence. Similarly, Jinasena of Pancastūpānvaya, another preeminent Digambara Jaina writer, in the commentary Jayadhavala (completed A. D. 837) on the Kasāya-pahuda-sutta (Kașāya-prābhrta-sūtra : c. 2nd-3rd cent. A. D.)18 pays tribute to great Jaina writers beginning with Siddhasena and Samantabhadra but fails to allude to Padmanandi alias Kundakundācārya, True, eulogies have been continually lavished on this great thinker; and a miraculous myth of his possessing magical power of levitation (cārana-rddhi ) and his visiting Jina Simandhara in the Mahāvideha-ksetra, a mythical land of Nirgrantha cosmography, is duly woven for him, indeed commensurate with his greatness as is understood in the

Page #3

The Date of Kundakundacārya
189
sampradāya; but all of these begin to appear only from the tenth century onwards in literature, the inscriptions follow suit somewhat later. It is customary, and rather natural, that the name of a very distinguished pontiff is frequently adopted by monks of the subsequent periods, as for example Siddhasena or Prabhācandra or for that matter Māntunga, Akalanka and Haribhadra. However, in this case, the appelation "Padmanandi" is not repeated till almost a thousand years hence, if we accept first century B. C.--A. D. as his period.
In their dating, neither Upadhye nor Pt. Kailashchandra Shastri, or for that matter other prominent Jaina writers, took into account these significant omissions and their consequent implications; this fact leaves vital gaps in their otherwise detailed, if not objectively critical, examination of the problem or evidence either. To a letter sent in regard to some of the puzzling questions a propos of the sectarial relationship between Umāsvāti and Kundakundācārya by Pt. Sukhlal Sanghvi to the distinguished Digambara Jaina historian Pt. Nathuram Premi, the considered and candid reply he got also contained, by way of a bye-note, the following observation : “My own understanding is that Kundakunda was the founder of a particular idealogical subsect; he sought to shape Jaina religion after the mould of the Vedanta. It appears that, till the time of Jinasena etc., his standpoint had not won universal recognition and so he was not held in regard by these authors."19
Pt. Premi's observation represents one of the two plausible explanations of the phenomenon of "ancient omissions”. ( It does not, though, clarify as to why for nine centuries his writings and thoughts, did not meet with approval or recognition. Also, why his unacceptable teachings were not refuted by any scholar; and how it came about that his works continued to be copied-even when disrecognized, for over the long centuries.) The other is that the Kundakundācārya, in reality, may not have flourished at that early date as assumed by some of the noted writers of our time to the august list we must also include late Pt. Jugalkishor Mukhtar. 20 It seems that, as though in unisom, they all had decided not even to think about, not to say of considering and investigating this second possibility. For them the date they determined had been an unassailable truth, a fait accompli, a gospel truth and hence a closed book. However, on prima facie grounds, the whole issue needs a probe deeper than hitherto attempted.
5. No early inscription refers to Kundakundācārya by his monastic appelation Padmanandi : He is though mentioned under his non-Sanskritized alias 'Kondakundacārya', in one Kadamba inscription from Kuppatür (A. D. 1075 ) and in two Santara inscriptions of A. D. 1077 from Humca, all from Karnātaka21, these in fact are the earliest to mention him. The earliest mention of the anvaya Kondakunda is encountered in three Rāstrakūta inscriptions, all from Gangavādi in lower Karnatadesa, dated in order in the years A. D. 79722, A. D. 80223, and A. D. 80824. Had this anvaya been very ancient, it possibly would have figured in one or the other of
the several early Kadamba and Ganga charters granted to the Jaina foundations,

Page #4

190
M. A. Dhaky
sometimes at the instance of, sometimes to, the monks generally in pontifical and abbatial offices during the fourth, fifth and sixth centuries.
However, the Mercara copper-plate charter of the year 38825 of an unspecified Era,--taken, though wrongly, Saka, and hence regarded as of A. D. 46726, ---mentions Kondakundānvaya. And this inscription had been one of the corner-stones of the edifice for an early date built for Kundakundācārya by Upadhye27 and some other Jaina writers. Unluckily, the Marcarā charter is regarded by epigraphers a forgery of the Rāstrakūta period, even though Pt. Kailashchandra Shastri, founding his arguments perhaps on those of one other prominent Digambara Jaina scholar, Gulab Chandra Chaudhari28, is at pains to prove that the plates could represent only the re-issual (and partly a re-engravement) of the earlier charter of A.D. 467, in Rāstrakūta times. But the Jaina temple to the pontiff of which the grant was addressed in this charter is Vijaya-Jinalaya of Manyanagara or Manyapura, Manne in Gangavādi, the temple known to have been founded by Vijaya, general of Ganga Mārasimha II in c. late eighth century A. D. as shown by Premi !29 The mention, in this charter, of Kondakundānvaya cannot therefore push back that anvaya's antiquity to any century prior to the eighth. Even if it were a genuine charter, the charter's temporal position is the same, namely Rāstraküta, as is the case with the aforenoted three other charters. The anvaya of Kondakunda may have been founded at most a century or so before, though not necessarily by, or after, the name of Padmanandi Kundakundācārya as some Jaina authors believe as proven.30
6. Jayasena (e. earlier half of the 12th cent. A. D.), the commentator next in time to Amstacandrācārya on the famous Prābhrta-traya of Kondakundācārya, has recorded two succinct but valuable historical facts concerning the author Padmanandi, the one as regards the name of his preceptor,-Kumāranandi Siddhāntadeva,-and the second about the contemporary king, Sivakumāra.
As for Kumāranandi, Upadhye made a good search through inscriptional as well as literary sources and noticed three pontiffs bearing the selfsame appelation, but all belonging to different ages and differing ganas ( monastic clans ). Kumāranandi of Mathurā inscription of the year K.S. 87 (c. A.D. 165, or A.D, 192. or A.D. 215, or A. D. 230)31 belongs to the Uccairnāgara-sakhā of Northern (afterwards emerging as Svetāmbara) tradition; hence he is out of question. The next available Kumāranandi, whom Upadhye, notices, figures as a grand-preceptor of the recipient of a copper-plate charter dated S. 698/A.D. 776 issued by the chieftain Jasahitadeva of Nirgund dynasty in Karnata. But this Kumāranandi belonged to the Pulikalgaccha of Eregittūr-gana inside Srimūla-Müla-gana of the Nandi Samgha (Yāpaniya), and not to the Digambara Church ! (Also, from Upadhye's standpoint he is a much younger pontiff than what his own perception of Kundakundācārya's and hence his preceptor's date would warrant.) The third Kumāranandi spotted by Upadhye figures in the Patraparikșa of Vidyānanda (c. first half of the 9th cent. A. D.)32. Vidyānanda, reports Upadhye, quotes some three verses of Kumāranandi Bhattāraka;

Page #5

The Date of Kundakundācārya
191
but Vidyananda says nothing about Kumāranandi's anvaya or gana, though he might have been the one we are looking for, but cannot immediately be sure about since no other evidentiary details are there to go by. What we need is a Kumāranandi who must belong to the anvaya Kondakunda. Luckily, there was one such Kumāranandi. However, Upadhye, even in his Pravacanasāra's revised edition of 1964, misses him, just as did Pt. Kailashchandra Shastri in his publication of 1974. This Kumāranandi of Kondakundāvnaya figures in a charter granted by the Rästrakūta governor of Gangavādi, Prince Ranāvaloka Kambharāja, in S. 730/A.D. 808 from Badanaguppe, the charter noticed as far back as 1927.33 In that charter, for Vardhamānaguru, who received the bequest of the village Badanaguppe, the following preceptorial lineage is given :
Kumāranandi Siddhāntadeva
Elavācārya
Vardhamāna-guru (A. D. 808) The gana to which these pontiffs belonged is mentioned as "Sirmulage-guru", a denomination perhaps taken after an earlier pontiff of this line within the Kondakundänvaya.34 (It is likely, as hinted in earlier context, that the Kumāranandi with the title "Bhattāraka" mentioned in the inscription is indentical with his namesake (bearing the same hierarchical status) whose verses were cited by Vidyānanda.) : Kumāranandi thus located within the Kondakundänvaya, the next question relates to finding his disciple Padmanandi. What we find in the charter of A. D. 808, however, is the appelation "Elavācārya", seemingly a Kannada (local ? dialectical ?) variant of Elācārya. "Elācārya" is a status-cognomen in the hierarchy of the Digambara Jaina Church for a pontiff of the highest learning and for a qualified teacher of Jaina doctrines, a position more or less equivalent of vācaka, vacanācārya, or kşamaśramana or mahattara in the ancient Northern Nirgrantha of which Svetāmbara Jaina Church is the off-shoot. Once a pontiff received the ecclesiastical title elācārya his original monastic appelation apparently went into the background. For example, Svāmi Virasena in the encomium of his monumental commentary, the Dhavala (completed A. D. 816), on the Satkhand agama of Puspadanta and Bhūtabali (c. late 5th - early 6th cent. A. D.)35, refers to his teacher Elācārya of Citrakūta but does not mention his personal monastic name. Likewise, the Kudalūr grant of Ganga Mārasiinha II, dated S. 884/A. D. 962, mentions the grantee as Elācārya of Surasta-gana without mentioning his original monastic appelation.36 But is there any evidence that Padmanandi had an elācārya status? Considering his attainment of an unequalled spiritual plane within the fold of Nirgrantha way of life, his prestige as a mystic and a saint, and his competence in the highly original exposition and interpretation of some of the Nirgrantha doctrines, not to say of his profound conversance with the traditional Jaina dogmas inspite

Page #6

192
M. A. Dhaky
of his orientations to mysticism, small wonder if his contemporaries in his spiritual lineage elevated him to the most honorable position, of "Eläcārya", in the ecclesiastical hierarchy of the Digambara Church. In point of fact, the Vijayanagar lamppillar inscription of S. 1307/A. D. 1386, which enumerates five distinct appelations for our Padmanandi, includes both Kundakunda and Eläcärya. The Nandi Samgha gurvavalt (c. A. D. 14th cent.) likewise mentions the elacarya status-cognomen of Kundakundacārya. True, these latter two sources are rather late; but they possibly were so recording on the basis of the then current written or oral tradition.
Because Cakravarti nayanar (earlier in his introduction to the Pañcästikäya of Kundakundacārya) had taken Kundakundacārya as a pontiff of the 1st cent. B. C./A. D., (and also had equated him with the particular ancient "Elācārya" who is traditionally held as the author of the ancient Tamil classic Tirukkural), he was looked upon as an early pontiff of the Southern Church. Indeed, considerable discussion ensued on this point which led to no conclusion since the foundational premise was per se wrong; it only served to confuse the issue! While conceding with Upadhye and other Jaina writers that the two other epithets mentioned in the aforementioned Vijayanagar inscription, namely Vakragrīvācārya and Grddhapicchacārya, did not in fact apply to Kundakundäcārya. there is nothing against taking Elācārya as his genuine epithet and thus equating him with the Elavacārya the disciple of Kumaranandi Siddhantadeva of the anvaya Kondakunda.
This point cleared, the next point having a bearing on the issue is the search for the king "Sivakumara" for whom Acarya Padmanandi, according to Jayasena, is said to have written the Pravacana-sāra". Earlier, K. B. Pathak had suggested that this king could be the Kadamba monarch Śivamṛgešavarma; and, for Cakravati nayanar, he was the early Pallava king Sivaskandasvami ( Skandavarma I) since both authors had assumed Kundakundācārya as a very early writer and hence both, in pursuance of their own line of thinking, were looking for him in the early centuries in South India, indeed a wrong temporal area! In any case, Upadhye had not rejected the possibility of Kundakundacārya being contemporary to Sivaskandavarmā, without however, proceeding to investigate the date of that monarch. This, as shown. by T. V. Mahalingam, is c. A. D. 345-355 and not c. first century B. C.-A. C. which is envisaged by Upadhye for Kundakundācārya who is supposed to be contemporary of Sivaskandavarmā! The foregoing discussion rather compels us to expect the king in question somewhere in the later part of the eighth century A. D. within the geographical, politcal and cultural ambit of Karnataka proper.
Verily, there is no king with the name Sivakumāra known to have flourished at that time. However, I seem to perceive that there could be a slight error, scribal or a deliberate emendation done at some later point, in the orthography of the name. as it has come down to us through Jayasena's notice. For exactly at that time we meet the Ganga ruler Śivamāra II (c. last quarter of the 8th cent. A. D.) in Gangavadi, a part of south-eastern Karnataka. It is for him, the luckless monarch who had to spend several years in Rästraküța prison, that Kundakundäcārya may have written

Page #7

193
The Date of Kundakundācārya his Pravacana-prābhrta ! Kundakundācārya's writings, on this showing, seem to belong to the last quarter of the eighth century A. D. though the third quarter of the selfsame century he may have spent in studies and preparation. Upadhye, as did other serious writers, had accepted the testimony of Jayasena --which arguably is more trustworthy than the medieval inscriptions or the hagiological lists of the Digambara Church, 43 all of which are of much later date and, like the Svetāmbara medieval lists of succession, undependable when they talk about pontiffs that flourished earlier than the founders of the sub-orders to which they primarily pertained. 44
Once we accept these equations, we concede to the clarification they provide on the principal puzzling point, the date for Kundakundācārya-it can only be latter half of the 8th cent. A. D.- the other enigmas are, by the logic of this new dating, resolved. This is why we find for long no influence or impact of Kundakunda's new doctrines and his fresh interpretations of ancient doctrines and their terminology and, as a result, of the earlier Jaina positions; which is also why no earlier commentaries on, or genuine and undoubted quotations from this celebrated saint's great works are available. For these just could not have existed since he is not a very ancient sage and hence his works could not have been known at least till some time after Akalankadeva.45
7. P. B. Desai identifies the place "Kondakunda" with Konakondala (Kondakunde in a medieval inscription) situated in Sindavādi a territorial division of ancient upper Karnātadeśa but presently within the Anantapur District of Andhra Pradesh. The site, according to Desai, is located four miles south of Guntakal.47
Desai cites some Jaina sculptures and epigraphs at that site in support of his identification. For example, on the hillock Rasasiddhula-gutta, which stands about two furlongs to the village, there exists an image, carved on the rock-face, of a Jina standing on a lotus. (He does not mention the plausible date of the sculpture.) Also, in a nearby structural shrine, are two images of standing Jina with triple umbrellas (dateable to c. 13th cent. A.D.), today worshipped by local populace as"Rasasiddhas". There is also a fragmentary inscription (possibly commemorative) in the 7th century characters referring to some Jaina saint ".. adored by Singhanandi”. 47 A tenth century inscription here refers to a nisidhi (memorial column) of Nāgasenācārya. An inscription on the nearby Kailāsappagutta hillock refers to CattaJinālaya founded by lady Nākabbe "in Kondakundeyatirtha" to which a grant was made by Mahamandalesvara Joyimayyarasa, governor of Sindavādi, in A. D. 1081. in the reign of the Calukya sovereign Vikramāditya VI. In a damaged inscription in the village, c. early 12th century and of the time of Vikramāditya VI, the name of Padmanandi Bhattāraka is said to figure twice. There is also a reference in that inscription to the cāraṇas (sages Indowed with power of levitation) and also, according to Desai, to the Kondakundānvaya. The inscription pertains to Nayak Irtideva Saiddhāntika-cakravarti. However, a recent re-examination of the selfsame inscrip

Page #8

194
M. A. Dhaky
49
tion by A. V. Narasimhamurti has revealed that "it does not contain even the word Kundakunda."45 Desai erroneously had thought that Padmanandi here referred is the illustrious Kundakundācārya of Kondakundanvaya. This Padmanandi may have been a medieval preceptor, either a direct guru or the one who flourished at most a couple of generations before Nayakirti. The appelation Padmanandi is not uncommon in the medieval Digambara Church and Kondakundanvaya by then was claimed by the Müla Samgha as well as the Deślya-gana also. Moreover, the term caraṇa in the inscription figures in plural and hence cannot "singly" pertain to Padmanandi (in whom too the legend invests the power of levitation). The inscription simply purports to say that this Kondakundeya-tirtha was visited by the (mythical) caraṇa-sages. For instance the hill at Ellora, where the Jaina caves were excavated in the Rastrakūta period (9th cent. A. D.), was known as 'Caraṇādri', meaning thereby that the caranas frequented that sacred hill. The only fact which is certain from this inscription is that the hills nearby the village formed the "Kondakundeya-tirtha" in the medieval period. (And it might just be a 'sthāpanā-tirtha' or 'avatara-tirtha' established after the original sacred hill.)
Recently, P. N. Narasimha Murthy has suggested on an inscriptional basis and on account of the presence of Jaina sculptures and rock-cut caves in the surroundings, that Kundadri (-Kondakunda, Dravidian konda being Sanskrit adri, hill) in Tulunadu (Kanara District, Karnataka) could be the original Kondakunda.51 A third possibility, which I presently would suggest, is the Gopinatha hill near Nandi in southern Karnataka, whence a fragmentary commemorative inscription engraved on the rock of which only the opening part in Sanskrit remaining and dateable to c. mid eighth century, refers to the existence, on the site, of the temple of Jina Parsvanatha and calls the hill "Kunda...... 9752 (probably Kunda-giri, Kundaparvata or Kundadri ). In view of the fact that this "Kunda" hill (Konda-Kunda) is situated in Gangavaḍi, and all the earliest inscriptions pertaining Kondakundanvaya also hail from Gangavaḍi, relating as they do to Manyapura (Manne), Talavanapura (Talakad), Vadanoguppe (Badanaguppe ),-towns all within the territory of Gangavaḍi-it is more likely that this Gopinatha hill-ancient Kunda (parvata, Konda-Kunda )-probably was the place after which the anvaya KondaKunda took its denomination.
However, what is at issue is not the identity of the site, but its antiquity. If Padmanandi-Koṇḍakundacārya flourished in the early centuries of Christian Era, Kondakunda-be it in Sindavāḍi or be it in Tulunadu or in Gangavāḍi-must reveal early archaeological associations with the site. In point of fact, and so far, no Jaina antiquities (nor even early literary or epigraphical notices) of consequence which can unequivocally be dated (or related to an age) prior to the latter half of the fourth century A. D., have been noticed within the territorial boundries of the entire ancient Karnataka! I doubt whether any one of the three Kondakunda-s could historically be earlier than the seventh or at most sixth century A. D. At

Page #9

The Date of Kundakundācārya
195
least nothing so far has been reported for these sites which can confidently be placed before the second half of the first millenium 53. Projected against this perspective of historical reality, Kondakundānvaya cannot be anterior to the pre-medieval times.
The verdict of the external evidence is clear enough. It does not favour a date anterior to the latter half of the eighth century for Padmanandi-Kunda kundācārya. The position as regards the internal evidence may now be examined and assessed. To begin with, Kundakundācārya gives no information either about himself, his spiritual lineage, or the date of composition of any of his works : And among the works attributed to him, only in two cases is there some evidence as to the authorship. Even if this evidence is not very direct, it is sufficiently indicative and dependable. His general style (barring the more ancient verse-quotations which he assuredly incorporates in his writings, and the plausible as well as probable interpolated verses) and his thought patterns are sufficiently distinguished, even singular, to stipulate his authorship of all those works. The evidence, then, from the content of his undoubted works ( there is some doubt about his authorship for the Așta.prābhrtas ) can also be significant on the main problem of date.
1. In the Linga-pāhuda ( Linga-prābrta ),- one from among the Asta-prābhrtas traditionally ascribed to Kundakundācārya--the author thunders against the laxities that had crept in the ( Southern ) Jaina Church. Among the deeds or doings which violently go against the Jaina monastic code is the one relating to practicing agriculture by monks or friars. There apparently is no evidence of the Nirgrantha monks resorting to agriculture, indeed anywhere in India, until after some point within the sixth century A. D. And this was in Karnātaka to be precise. All earliest royal charters granted to the Jaina Fraternity relate to "Samgha" and "Jinālaya”, the pontiffs and monks are not in the picture excepting that their consent in the matter was sometimes sought or obtained. The situation next had changed and it is the abbots (both of the Yāpaniya as well as of the Digambara Church ) who now had started receiving land-grants directly from the ruling royalty and provincial military governors - which henceforth will become a regular feature. The situation of the Svetāmbara Church in the North was no better, though there is as yet no evidence that the grants were issued in abbot's name even until the medieval times. The decadence of Jaina monastic order was universal, the contemporaneous caityavāsi svetāmbara was not exception ! The combined archaeological and literary testimony for this practice in Karnātaka unambiguously would point to a date anytime after the sixth century for Kundakundācārya if the Linga-prābhṛta is his work.
2. Indranandi credits Padmanandi-Kondakundācārya to have written a commentary- Parikarma---on the Satkhandagama of Puspadanta and Bhūtabali. As I elsewhere have demonstrated54, the Satkhandāgama cannot be dated between A. D. 87 and 126 as late Pt. Hiralal Jain, its distinguished editor, had claimed 55. The plausible date for that work is c. early sixth or at most late fifth century A. D. even when its small part--some gathās and phrases etc., seemingly are of a somewhat

Page #10

196
M. A. Dhaky
remoter antiquity, say second or third century A. D. in terms of language, style, mannerism and content.56 This period-position for the Satkhandagama would entail Kundakundācārya to be posterior to early sixth century A. D., providing he really wrote such a commentary.57
3. The compilation Mülācāra of Vattakera, a Yāpaniya work wrongly ascribed to Kundakundācārya by some recent Jaina writers on account of some late and misleading colophons58, seemingly was known to Kundakundācārya. Because the Mülācāra embodies about four gāthās from the Sanmati-prakarana of Siddhasena Divākara (t. 5th cent. A. D) as also several which are paralleled in the Avašyakaniryukti and some noticeable in the Ācārārga-niryukti, the Ogha-niryukti, and in the Pinda-niryukti as well, -- these four being the Svetāmbara ägamic glosses of the early sixth century A. D.59,--the Mülācāra at the earliest can be dated only to the sixth century.60 The Mulācāra has one of its verses regarding the sāmāyika, pratikramana, and cognate self-purification rites, which eulogise these as "amrta-kumbha" (nectorjar). Kundakundācārya, from his sophistic standpoint, creates a counter verse calling the above-noted rites as visa-kumbha ( poison pitcher) !61 So Kundakundācārya is posterior to Vattakera's Mūlācāra and hence flourished any time posterior to the middle of the sixth century A. D. Indeed, Kundakundācārya is not, as some Digambara Jaina writers earlier and on a different basis had argued, the author of the Mulācāra, although a few verses do commonly figure inside his works and particularly the Samayasār adhikara of the Mulācāra, the latter reasonably could have been interpolated after the work was admitted in the Digambara scriptural fold.
4. Upadhye, after the linguistic analysis of Kundakundācārya's available works ( with a strong focus on the Pravacanasāra ), has concluded that the language employed by the author is Ardhamāgadhi ( of the Svetāmbara āgamas ) and Jaina Saurasent. Now, Sauraseni is the language of the Yapaniya āgamas as well as of the “secondary", "substitute", “surrogate" or "isoāgamic” texts of the Digambara Church -- which in point of fact is the mainstay62 of Kundakundācārya's Prābhrtatraya. Also the influence of Jaina Mahārāstri ( the language to some extent employed in the Svetāmbara niryuktis, bhāş yas, and prakaranas ) and even Apabhramsa ( racest found only in the Aşta-prabhrtas ). is in evidence in his, waitings. What .conclusion can be drawn from this miscellany? How do we explain this phenomenon ? First of all, before beginning his linguistic analysis, Upadhye did not isolate the "quotes” of earlier agamic works of the Ardhamāgadhi canon ( acknowledged by Svetāmbara and Yāpaniya ) from the author's own verses, although he is aware that such are certainly there63. Most of such "quoted” verses are paralleled in the Svetāmbara prakirnakas, a few in the niryuktis (and in the bhāsyas as well ), and some decidedly from works now lost 64, the earliest of which are dateable to a period between the 4th and the 6th century A. D. Pt, Malvania, for instance, has shown that a verse in Jaina Mahārāștri from the Mahāpratyākhyāna which occurs also in the Devendrastāva, both being the prakırnaka works ( c. 3rd 4th cent. A. D. ) of

Page #11

The Date of Kundakundācārya
197 the Svetāmbara canon,-and a parallel verse in the Paūmacariya of Vimala Sūri of Nagendra kula ( c. A. D. 478 ) 65 also figures in Kundakundācārya's Pravacanasāras. The Svetāmbara āgamas and âgamic works are of course completely ignorant of Kundakundācārya's works; it is then clear that Kundakundācārya borrowed the selfsame verse and several others either through some Yāpan Iya intermediary or perhaps in a few cases directly67 (Unfortunately, nobody has attempted to pursue the line of research Pt. Malvania had opened). Therefore, the results of the linguistic analysis without the proper sifting of data in Kundakundācārya's works, can be misleading and now so proven, possesses little determinative value for the pontiff's date. At any rate, a few relatively early-seeming (quoted) verses in Kundakundācārya's works at best compare with the third period (approximately late Kuşāņa and post-Kuşāņa). Svetāmbara āgamas and agamie works. From the standpoint of language, even when some earlier word-forms and phraseology occasionally are discernible in Kundakundācārya's works, this factor has to be thoroughly tested against other evidence. My own experience is that the later talented Jaina writers sometimes emulated (or unconsciously picked up ) relatively earlier Prākşta of the cononical brand, since they were well-versed and much too familiar with that kind of traditional writing. For instance, some of Haribhadra Sūri's works, or parts thereof, from language standpoint, do possess an early look, as to some extent also does the imposter Mahānisithasūtra (C, 8th cent. A. D. ). Where Kundakundācārya's real period revealed is the later Prakrta Aryās which he consistently uses, often the more modern style in composition he adopts, and the typical formal cadence he builds. Also the inaugural mangala verses of his famous works are in a form, style, phraseology, predilections metwith and mood noticeable only from the seventh eentury onward. These factors, viewed alongside his highly advanced thought-constructs, fresh concepts, new epistemological positions, novel approaches to and new interpretations, as well as fresh application of old knowledge, and the concomitant or relevant terminological jargon (which oftener is far ahead of the canonical literature ), clearly indicate that he cannot be an early author, as has been persistently, even obstinately, claimed to be.88
5. Keeping those latter facts and criteria ( mentioned in Haribhadra Sūri's case ) in view in the analysis of Kundakundācārya's works, the period-perspective that takes shape considerably differs from what Upadhye and other proponents taking his line and following his intent had conjunctured, even conjured up.
Kundakundācārya's style of writing, excepting where he adopts the traditional mould or has Ardhamāgadhr (and Saurasen! ) quotes, is in effect far advanced compared to any exhibited in the available early nirgrantha writings in Ardhamāgadhi and other Prākstas. His own verses in his works show powerful articulations and strong directness and acuity combined with subtleties, precision and mystical power but reflect no archaisms nor is there any resort to cleverness, puns, deliberate

Page #12

198
M. A. Dhaky
obscurities, varbal conceits or virtuousity. The style, though dry, is dynamic, direct and lucid. Some of these qualities are already in evidence in the Sanmati-prakarana of Siddhasena (c. 5th cent. A.D.) as well as in the Mülācāra of Vattakera (c. late 6th cent, A. D.). In fact, strong conceptual (sometimes even verbal) parallelisms between Kundakundācārya's Samaya-prābhịta on the one hand and Siddhasena's Sanmati-prakarana on the other, do exist as has been demonstrated by Pt. Sukhlal Sanghvi 69
6. This is further supported by several elements present in his thinking. However, this being a sizeable subject in itself, I am discussing it in a separate follow up paper. A few salient points to which I would here succinctly hint, but without citing references and without entering into detailed discussion, are as follows: a) Kundakundācarya had massively leaned toward the niscaya-naya or absolutistic standpoint in his Samaya-prābhṛta. This naya, but not its profound implications, was known before, but on its application was not done to the scale and extent by Siddhasena Divākara or even Mallavādi. (b)On the basis of the niscayanaya, Kundakundācārya, in theory, views ātman or Self as separate from and independent of the association of pudgala or matter as was done in the Sāmkhya and the Vedānta systems with the difference that ātman is not looked upon as totally inactive; Self does possess the faculty of knowing, intellecting and creating as well as feeling emotive impluses within. Self is thus not a doer of deeds (kartā) and enjoyer of fruits (bhoktā), although, from the standpoint of external and practical relatings (vyavāra-naya), he may be regarded as a doer and enjoyer because of his emotional involvement which leads to, or colours, his conscious thinking that way, this in fact being his habit to so orient since countless ages and for endless births. Now, the ancient Jaina doctrine of ātman as the kartā and bhoktā has never been interpreted or understood that way by any Jaina scholiast till the pre-medieval times, and that too not before the Kundakundācārya's doctrine was widely known.
The unliberated Self, in Kundakundācārya's concept, thus is always pure and not contaminated by karma-raja as was otherwise believed till late, even in the Digambara sect. The apparent contamination with karma, and its consequent and subsequent fruition are due to the bhāva or inner consciously felt or willed emotional directives of the Self. It is thus illusory. The Self goes on wandering from birth to birth because he has not known what it really is and this is what keeps it in apparent bondage.
The new Vedānta doctrine about atman was already known at least 50 years before Sankarācārya (c. A.D. 780-812), through the kärikās of his grand preceptor Gaudapāda. May be, Kundakundācārya has seen these and adopted the Vedāntic way of looking at Self, but in a modified way. c).As its corolary as though, Kundakunda

Page #13

The Date of Kundakundācārya
199
cārya completely redefines the terms svasamaya and parasamaya, the terms which for long had been understood as the 'doctrine of one's own sect' and 'the doctrine of the other's sect'. According to Kundakundācārya, svasamaya is the one whichrelates to atman, the parasamaya meant anything outside ātman including one's body. This is an absolutely different way of looking at the connotation of the terms, indeed not referred to by even Southern Jaina writers. (d) Between the two categories of śubha (auspicious and desirable) and ašubha (inauspicious and undesirable ), he creates a third category, śuddha (pure) which really is the true and intrinsic disposition of the ātman or Self. This conceptual improvement is earlier unknown. (e) Kundakundācārya is fully aware of the terms syadvāda and saptabhangi both of which are unknown in the works of Umāsvāti as well as of Siddhasena, but known to Samantabhadra (c. A.D. 550-625). It was Samantabhadra who for the first time uses these terms and formulates a doctrine based on them. (f) Likewise, the original Upanisadic classification of antarātmā (inner Self), bāhya or bahirātmā (outer self; outer body) and paramātmā ( Absolute Self) is mentioned by Kundakundācārya with some difference in detail and hence of implications. Already, Pūjayapāda Devanandi (C. A.D. 635680 ) had adopted these terms, though before him it is totally unkown in Jaina writings. Kundakundācārya possibly took these terms and their conceptuality from Devanandi.
There are, in point of fact, several other major and minor points of significance which would not have been in the writings of Kundakundācārya if he were to flourish in the 1st century B. C.-A. D. His style of writing and phraseology then would have been archaic, the jargon as well as as the concepts and their presentation would have been far less advanced thap is apparent in his writings.
NOTES AND REFERENCES
1. "Introduction”, Pravacanasāra, Srimad Rājacandra Jaina Šāstramāla, 3rd edition, Bombay 1964, p.21. His "Introduction” in this third edition seemingly is the same as in the second edition of 1935. In the third edition of 1964, in the "Post Script” (pp. 121-126 ), he includes ( by way of notes, and rather selectively ) the results of Kundakunda researches got by a few other scholars published since his second edition. Also cf. his "Intro.," p. 22.
2. Jaina-Sahitya-ka Itihāsa ( Hindi ), Pt. 2, śri Gañesaprasāda Varņi Jaina Granthamala-27, Varanasi 1976, p. 125.
3. F.W. Thomas "Introduction", Pravacanasāra, Cambridge 1935, pp. 16 ff. He places Kundakundācārya prior to Umāsvāti. So does Walther Schubring in The Doctrines of the Jainas, First Edition 1962, reprint, Delhi 1978, p. 58, on the basis

Page #14

200
M. A. Dhaky
largely of the cursory observations made by pioneering German writers on Jaina canonical literature. In the Chronology" section placed at the end of his booklet, The Religion of the Jainas (English version of the original by A. Sena, Calcutta Sanskrit College Research Series No. LII, Studies No. 31, Calcutta 1966, p. 36), he placed Kundakunda in the 2nd-3rd cent. A.D. Had Schubring investigated the problem in depth, his conclusion would have been very, very different.
4. Śramana Bhagavān Mahavira (Hindi) Jalor 1941, pp. 303-306. Also cf. his “Ācārya Kundakunda kā Sattā-Samaya", (Hindi), Sri Pattāvali Parāgasaṁgraha, Jalor 1966, pp. 100-107; and "Adhunika Digambara Samāja ke Saighataka Ācārya Kundakunda aur Bhattāraka Virasena," ibid., pp. 110-114.
5. "Introduction" (Hindi), Sanmati-prakarana, Ahmedabad 1963, middle portions.
6. My personal discussions with him. Also his long and penetrating discussion in his introduction (Hindi) to the Nyāyāvatāravārtika-vítti, Singhi Jain Series, Vol. 20, Bombay 1949, pp. 117-141. Therein he has demonstrated that the context of Kundakunda's works, when compared to Umāsvāti's is more advanced in terms of concepts as well as exposition. Upadhye, significantly, ignores these findings and in his own write up avoids all such engaging discussions, dismissing them all as cross-currents of thoughts of little chronological value (cf. his p. 122). Upadhye gives neither real reasons nor cites valid examples which would allow such a dismissal. Content is an important category of evidence.
7. Jaina Ontology, Lalbhai Dalpatbhai Series No. 31, Ahmedabad 1971, pp. 89, 95-97, & 132-135. Diksit was not only a very perceptive, but also an articulate among the Indian authors who discussed Jaina philosophy, ontology and metaphysics.
8. The lower limit for the date of Siddhasena Divakara depends on the date of Umāsvāti who apparently had flourished in the latter half of the fourth century A.D.
9. I have discussed and fixed the date of Samantabhadra in detail. The paper in Gujarāti will shortly appear in a separate congratulatory volume for Pt. Malvania containing all articles in Gujarati and to appear from Ahmedabad.
10. Pt. Sukhlal Sanghvi, Pt. Nathuram Premi, Pt. Yudhisthir Mimamsaka, and Pt. Kailashchandra Shastri date him to the fifth century. I have, at some length, discussed the "fifth century date" and shown it to be improbable in my paper "The Jaina Jinendra-buddhi," Indian History and Epigraphy, Delhi 1990, pp. 152-158.
11. For the discussion on the date of Akalankadeva, cf. Pt. Mahendra Kumar Shastri, "Introduction", Siddhiviniscaya-tika, Part 1, Kashi 1959, p 62. Before him

Page #15

The Date of Kundakundacărya
261
K.B. Pathak had expressed the same view on historical grounds : cf. “On the Date of Samantabhadra," Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, Vol. XI, pt. VI p. 153,
12. This is supported not only by literary traditions but also by an inscription from Bandalike date S. 996/A.D. 1074. (cf. Epigraphia Carnatica, Vol. VIII, Sorab tl., no. 262. The initial invocatory verse mentions Samantabhadra, Devanandi and Akalarkadeva, but not Kundakundācārya).
13. Pt. Sukhlal Sanghvi, Muni Jambūvijaya and some other Svetambara Jaina scholars place him to the fourth century A.D. However, the citations in the vādi's original text, of Aryas from the two niryuktis ..the Avaš yaka and the Brhatkalpa (c. A.D. 525).... and the author refuting Dinnāga (c. A.D, 480-560), among other evidence, go against an early date.
14. Currently unavailable, if at all it ever was written,
15. It was definitely written fairly later than the Bhasya or the auto-Com mentary (c. A. D. 375-400 ) on the Original version of the mūlasūtra of Umāsvāti; Pujyapāda's commentary reveals considerable advance in style, form, grammatical improvements in the original text, as well as developed content. He likewise had attempted to modify it at places to suit the Digambara dogmas, though some sūtras still remained which go against the Digambara beliefs.
16. Upadhye, "Intro.", pp. 93-96; and Pt. Kailashchandra Shastri, pp. 172-173.
17, Pt. Nathuram Premi, “Amộtacandra”, Jaina Sahitya aur Itihāsa (Hindi), Bombay 1956, pp. 311; on the basis of the evidence produced by Paramanand Shastri, Pt. Premi concedes to a date prior to V. S. 1055/A. D. 999.
Pt. Kailashchandra Shastri has given much thought to Amstacandrācārya's date and he places him after Akalankadeva and before Devasena (first half of the 10th cent. A. D.: Vide his detailed discussion, pp. 178-186. The neat plausible date of Amstacandrācārya's commentary, as judged by its style and content, could beC. A. D. 900-925, though this date partly depends on Devasena's. If the date of Devasena's Darśanasāra was in reality expressed in Saka Era (although labelled as Vikrama, particularly because he says he wrote it in Dhārā), the upper limit of Amptacandrācārya will have to be shifted upward.
18. The Kasāya-pāhuda-sutta represents the scholiastic formulations on the karma-siddhanta, the divisions ( uttara-bhedas ), sub-divisions ( upabhedas ) and still further divisions (prabhedas) of karmas ( particularly of the Mohaniya ), their mode of operation and their consequencing power, their relationship with the psychic planes (gunasthānas ) at which different souls stand (jivasthānas ), and related

Page #16

202
M. A. Dhaky
ers. The original teachings embodied in this work are ascribed to Gunadhara from whom ( or from whose tradition ) Arya Nāgahasti and Arya Manksu (Ārya Mangu or Māghahasti)... teachers in the 2nd cent, A. D. ... of the Northern Nirgrantha tradition got them and the unknown Yāpaniya scholiast with the epithet Yati Vrsabha (between c. 4th-6th cent. A. D. ?) wrote the first available cūrnicommentary on it. Gunadhara might be the Gunandhara alias Guņasundara or Gunākara, preceptor of Arya Syāma II (c. 2nd-3rd cent. A. D. ) as recorded later in the medieval Svetāmbara Kālaka-katha lore. For linguistically and by content the text proper (versified) cannot go to the period before the Christian Era; it rather seems comfortable in the Kusāņa period-perspective The Svetāmbara sect has for long lost it. The first available Digambara Jaina commentary (Jayadhavala) on this work is by Svāmi Virasena, the commentary completed after his death by his worthy disciple Jinasena in A. D. 837.
19..Pt. Sukhalalji's Commentary on Tattvärtha Sūtra of Vücaka Umāsvāti, translated into English from the Hindi translation of the original in Gujarāti by K. K. Dixit, L. D. Series 44, Ahmedabad 1974, Appendix, p. 112. (Pt. Premi's original reply is in Hindi, verbatim published in the original and subsequent editions in Gujarātí as well as in the Hindi version of Pt. Sanghvi's Tattvārtha-sūtra )
20. Srikundakundācārya aur unake Grantha," (Hindi ), Jaina Sahitya aur Itihasa par Visada Prakākā, Calcutta 1956, p. 89.
21. For Kuppatür inscription, see Jaina Silalekha Sangraha, pt. 2. Ed. Pt. Vijayamurti, Bombay V. S. 2009/A. D. 1953. Ins. No. p. 269. For Humca inscriptions, ibid., No. 212, p. 294, and No. 214, p. 303. These two latter inscriptions place Kundakundācārya after Ganadhara Gautama and before Bhadrabāhu. In other words, Kundakundācārya, in the perception of the authors of these two inscriptions, flourished before B. C. 325. Upadhye misses these important inscriptions. They are indeed so helpful in placing Kundakundācārya even 300 years prior to the date he proposes.
22. Ibid., Ins. No. 122 from Manne. 23. Ibid., Ins. No. 123, also from Manne.
24. Jaina Silālekha Sangraha, pt. 4. Mānikyacandra Digambara Jaina Granthamālā, N). 48, Ed. Vidyadhar Joharapurkar, Ins. No. 55, pp. 28-30.
25. JÁS pt. 2, Ins. No. 95, p. 63. 26. Ibid. 27. Cf. his "Intro.." Pravacanasāra, pp. 18-19. 28. Cf. his "Intro.,” JÁS, pt. 2, pp. 47-53, infra. 29. I lately realized it was not Premi but some other author whose work is
curreñtly not handy.

Page #17

The Date of Kundakundacārya
-
203
30. It is a belief partly grown out of the profound reverence and a very false notion as regards the antiquity of Kundakundācārya.
31. During my discussions with Prof. A. K. Narain and subsequently with Dr. T. P. Verma, I was told that an year c. A.D. 105 for the beginning of the Kusāņa Era seems closer to the truth. Incidentally, Jayasenācārya mentions “Kumāranandi Siddhāntadeva" as the preceptor of Padmanandi-Kundakundācārya in his commentary on the Pañcāstikāya-sära.
32. Upadhye, "Intro.," p. 9. The date of Vidyānanda, suggested here follows the generally accepted date by the Jaina and non-Jaina writers. However, in my recent researches I found that he apparently belonged to the first half of the 10th century. My paper “The Date of Vidyānanda and Epigraphical Evidence” is currently in press.
33. For details, cf. here f.n.no. 20.
34. The two Rāstakūta inscriptions from Manne (for the sources of publication here cf. f.n. 18-19 ), lay bear the existence of a parallel branch of the pontiffs of the Kondakundānvaya, though the gaña is not mentioned :
Toranācārya of Salamali-grāma
Puspanandi
Prabhācandra (A.D. 797; A.D. 802)
35. For detailed discussion, see my paper “A Propos of Mahāvācaka Ārya Nandi Ksamāśramana", Sri Dinesacanrikā, Studies in Indology, Eds. B. N. Mukherjee & others, Delhi 1983.
36. JÁS, pt. 5. Māņikacandra Digambara Jaina Granthamālā No. 52, Ed. Vidyadhar Joharapurkar, Delhi 1971, pp. 18-22.
37. Upadhye "Intro. ” pp. 1-24 where he mentions the sources. (The two sources in question are of course late medieval.
. Cf. Upadhye, "Intro.," p. 12 and infra. The author seems to be Chakravartinayanar and it was his work which Upadhye may have in mind.
39. This is reported by Jayasenācārya in his commentary on the Pravacanasāra. For details, cf. Upadhye, "Intro.,” Pravacanasāra, pp. 18-19.
40. For details, cf. Upadhye, "Intro.," pp. 11-12.
41. Ibid., pp. 12-13 for Cakravartinayanar reference. For Mahalingam, cf. his Reading in South Indian History, Delhi 1977, p. 7.

Page #18

204
M. A. Dhaky
42. At least the available inscriptions do not seem to suggest one.
43. The data presented by Jayasenācārya are fairly pin-pointed unlike the later
sources.
44. Pt. Nathuram Premi as well as Muni Kalyanvijaya is of this view.
45. About the so-called, though very small, parllelism between Akalankadeva's writing and of Kundakundacārya, in one case, I shall review it in a future paper. (Also a quotation commonly figuring in Pujayapada Devanandi's Kundakundacārya I shall discuss in a subsequent paper.)
46. Jainism in South India, Sholapur 1957, p. 152.
47. Ibid., p. 184.
48. Cf. "A Jaina Epigraph from Konakondal," Dr. N. Venkataramanayya Commemoration Volume, Journal of the Andhra Pradesh Historical Research Society, Vol. XXXVII, pt. 1, Hyderabad 1983, p. 87.
49. Cf. Chaudhari, "Intro.", pp. 46, 50-52.
50. Desai, p. 90.
51. I noticed this reference in his Ph.D. dissertation entitled "Jainism on the Kanara Coast", which was submitted to Mysore University, 1983. My grateful thanks are due to Shri Narasimha Murthy.
52. EC, X, Chika-ballapur 1,.. no. 29.
53. The sites in question must be thoroughly surveyed by the State Department of Archaeology and the different university departments dealing with ancient Indian history and related subjects in Karnataka State, for estimating their antiquity.
54. The paper is entitled "The Date of Satkhaṇḍāgama" and is shortly going to the press. I, therefore, will discuss no evidence in this paper on the late date for that work.
55. Satakhanḍagama, Pt. 1, Sholapur 1973, "Introduction", p. ii.
56. These may have come from the floating sangrahant collections. Some of these, with small variations in readings and sequence also figure inside the Prajñapana-sutra of Arya Syama (II) (c. 3rd cent. A.D.)
57. Upadhye earlier had doubted it. Pt. Kailashchandra Shastri, however, concedes to this as possible. Pt. Hiralal Jain found a few parallelisms between the Niyamasara attributed to Kundakundācārya and the quotations of the Parikarma

Page #19

The Date of Kundakundācārya - 205 found in the Dhavala commentary of Virasena. (Cf. Upadhye, “Post Script”, p. 121, ) 58. Premi, “Vatta kerakā Mülācāra," Jaina Sahitya., pp. 648-543 for complete
diseussion.
59. This is the considered opinion of late Muni Punyavijajaji. Pt. Dalsukh Malvania, the present author, and several other scholars agree to that date for the niryuktis. (I have of course evidence other than already stated and known.)
60. The Mulācāra, being a compilation, later had received additions. Once it passed in the hands of the Diga mbara sect, at some stage, verses typical of the new doctrines or those that signified new interpretations from Kundakundācārya's works seemirgly were also added to it. They look quite incongruent with and offer sharp contrast in terms of style and content.)
61. These verses figure in the Samaya-prābhrta.
6). The main Prāksta adopted in Kundakundācārya's work is for certain the Jaina Saurasent. The meters prefered are the late Ārya of the classical and postclassical period and, to a small extent Anustubh.
63. Upadhye, however, ascribes this to the period when the āgamas were the common property of the Svetāmbaras as well as the Digambaras. I must confess I cannot agree with this suggestion. The separation, without declaration between, and without even the knowledge of the Northern and the Southern Nirgrantha (Digambara). had occurred long before Kundakundācārya and on account more of geographical distance and factors of history than due to any conscious and overt disagreements in the earlier stages. There is no evidence at all inside the genuine Digambara works on the rejection of the ägamas shaped by the Northern Nirgranthas in Pataliputra (c. B. C. 300). ( That is a deliberately concocted and propagated modern Digambara Jaina myth to which many trusting minds, including some German Jainologists, succumbed.) The Digambara had lost the āgamas (and these must be their very early version and in terms of number they must be very restricted at that early date, showing undeveloped doctrines, dogmas and philosophy; and this happened due entirely to their remote surroundings, their location in extreme south. It seems more correct to think that Kundakundācārya got some of the agamic verses possibly from the Yāpaniya and plausibly a few directly from the Svetāmbara sources. And this could be only after the YäpanTyas were well settled in Karnāta, that is to say, in or after the 5th-6th century A. D. In point of fact, some of the Kundakundācārya's verses which are traced in the nir fuktis, prakirnakas and similar sources are indeed not very ancient and could by style and content only be dated to the late Kusāna, Gupta and post-Gupta periods. (There are small variations in readings between these and Kundakundācārya's versions. )
64. The Svetāmbara cūrņi commentaries (7th cent. A. D.) often cite from aga mic works now not traceable.

Page #20
206 M. A. Dhaky 65. "Study of Titthogaliya", Bharatiya Puratattva, Jaipur 1971, p. 138. 66. Ibid. Pt. Malvania, however, draws no definite conclusion on the relative positions of the four works. 67. Yapaniyas had lived alongside the Digambaras at many centers in ancient and medieval Karnataka. See here also the f. n. 63. 68. I have carefully compared these mangalas with what figure in the 7th and 8th century Svetambara works. Both the groups are fairly close in style, sometimes even in phraseology. 69: I am discussing his views with full quotations in the follow up paper.