Dhananjaya and his Dwi Sadhana

Author(s): A N Upadhye
Publisher: Z_Acharya_Shantisagar_Janma_Shatabdi_Mahotsav_Smruti_Granth_012022.pdf
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/250073/1

Page #1

DHANANJAYA AND HIS DVISANDHĀNA
Dr. A. N. UPADHYE, Kolhapur
Two distinguished authors, of the name Dhanañjaya, are well known in Sanskrit literature. One is the author of the Daśarūpakal and the other, the author of the Dvisandhana-kavya (DS), also called Rāghavapāndavīya (RP). Traditionally, the Jatter is also the author of two more works, one a Sanskrit lexicon, Nāmamåla or Dhananjaya-nighantu,; and the second, a hymn in Sanskrit, Vişāpahāra-stotra,+ in praise of the Jina, possibly Rşabha. Lately a good deal of fresh evidence has come to light; and it is necessary to take stock of the evidence regarding the DS and the age of Dhananjaya. This, the present article attempts to do.
Dhananjaya and his DS have attracted the attention of eminent Sanskrit scholars since almost the ninteties of the last century. K. B, Pathak, while editing the Terdal Inscription,5 added a casual note that Śrutakirti Traividya, mentioned in that record, is identical with Śrutakirti Traividyadeva referred to by Pampa according to whom he was the author of RP in the gata-pratyāgata style. He identified Dhananjaya with Śrutakirti and assigned him to c. 1123 A. D. He repeated this view rather elaborately in a subsequent paper also.6 R. G. Bhandarkar noticed two Mss. of DS.7 Accepting Dhananjaya as the anthor of the Namamālā as well, he pointed out that DS is quoted in Vardhamāna's Ganaratnamahodadhi (A. D. 1141), Presuming that the RP of Kavirāja was possibly imitated by Dhananjaya, he put both of them between A. D. 996–1141, Dhananjaya being considerably younger than Kavirāja. E. V. Vira
1. Nirņaya Sāgara Press Edition, Bombay, Saka 1819.
2. Nirnaya Sāgara Press, (Kavyamālā. No. 49), Bombay, 1895. A new edition will be soon published by the Bhāratiya Jñānapitha, Varanasi.
3. Bhāratiya Jñānapitha, Benares, 1950. 4. Edn. Kävyamálā No. 7, N. S. Press, Bombay, 1926. 5. Indian Antiquary, 14 (1885), 14–26. 6. The Journal of the BBRAS, 21 (1904) 1-3.
7. Report on the Search of Skt. Mss. in the Bombay Presidency during the years 1884-85, 1885-86, and 1886-87, Bombay, 1894.
३०३

Page #2

३०४
आ. शांतिसागरजी जन्मशताब्दि स्मृतिग्रंथ
Raghavacharya8 reached the conclusion that Dhananjaya, the author of the Namamalā and DS, flourished about 750 to 800 A. D., later than Kaviraja whom he assigns to 650–725 A. D. A. Venkatasubbiah studiously refuted K. B. Pathak and reached the following conclusions. This Dhananjaya is identical with Hemasena (c. 985) mentioned in the Sravaņa Belgo! Inscription No. 54 (67) where he is called VidyāDhananjaya. In his opinion, it is not unlikely that this Hemasena is the author of the RP or the DS-Kavya, and that it was written some time during A. D. 916–1000. He puts Kaviraja and his RP somewhere between A. D. 1236-1307, as against Pathak who assigned him to A. D. 1182-97. Most of the histories of Sanskrit literature have quietly adopted this date for Dhananjaya.
Among the three works attributed to Dhananjaya, the Visapahāra-stotra is a devotional hymn in praise of Jina, presumably Vrsabha, in 40 Sanskrit verses (39 Upajati and the last Puspitāgrā). It is composed in lucid language with catching concepts. The last verse mentions the name of the author by ślesa :
वितरति विहिता यथाकथंचिज्जिन विनताय मनीषितानि भक्तिः । त्वयि नुतिविषया पुनर्विशेषाद्
दिशति सुखानि यशो धनं जयं च ॥४०॥ A Sanskrit commentary on it is available in the Jaina Matha at Moodabidri (S. Kanara).
The hymn gets its title possibly from the first word in verse No. 14; and a legend has come to be associated with this hymn that a recitation of it is an antidote against poison. Some of the ideas from it, which are quite traditional in their spirit, as noted by Pt. Premi,10 seem to have been adopted by Jinasena in his Ādipurāna and by Somadeva in his Yaśastilaka.
The Namamālā, also called, in some of its manuscripts, Dhananjaya-nighantu, is a Sanskrit lexicon of synonyms. There is also an Anekārthanamamālā attributed to him. The follwing verses occur at the end of his Nāmamālā:
प्रमाणमकलङ्कस्य पूज्यपादस्य लक्षणम् । द्विःसंधानकवेः काव्यं रत्नत्रयमपश्चिमम् ॥२०१॥ कवेर्धनञ्जयस्येयं सत्कवीनां शिरोमणेः । प्रमाणं नाममालेति श्लोकानां हि शतद्वयम् ॥२०२॥
8. Journal of the Andhra Historical Research Society, (Rajahamundry), 2. ii (1927) 181-84.
9. JBBRAS (New Series 3, i-ii (1927) 134 f. 10. Jaina Sahitya aur Itihasa, pp. 109 s., Bombay, 1956.

Page #3

३०५
Dhanañjaya And His Dvisandhāna ब्रह्माणं समुपेत्य वेदनिनदव्याजात् तुषाराचलस्थानस्थावरमीश्वरं सुरनदीव्याजात्तथा केशवम् । अप्यम्भोनिधिशायिनं जलनिधिध्वानोपदेशादहो फूत्कुर्वन्ति धनञ्जयस्य च भिया शब्दाः समुत्पीडिताः ॥२०३॥
In some manuscriptsll the following two verses are found added after, perhaps, No. 201, Pramānam etc. :
जाते जगति वाल्मीको शब्द कविरिति स्मृतः । कवी इति ततो व्यासे कवयश्चेति दण्डिनि ॥ कवयः कपयश्चेति बहुत्वं दूरमागतम् ।
विनिवृत्तं चिरादेतत् कलौ जाते धनञ्जये ॥ It is interesting to note that the first verse, with the third pāda slightly different (Vyāse jāte kavi ceti), is attributed to Kālidāsa by Jalhana in his Sūktimuktāvali.19 it could not have been composed by Kalidasa, because it contains a reference to Dandin,
Dhananjaya, as noted above, ranks his poetic abilities with those of Akalanka in Pramāņaśāstra and of Pujyapāda in grammar: a veritable triad of gems, two of them his outstanding predecessors. These verses leave, no doubt, that the author of the DS and of the Nāmamālā is one and the same. It seems quite natural that a poet with a thorough mastery over the ocean of Sanskrit vocabulary could easily compose a dvisandhāna poem.
Dhanañjaya does not give any auto-biographical details. Nemicandra, in his commentary on the DS,13 118-146 states that Dhananjaya was the son of Vasudeva and Sridevi and pupil of Dasaratha.
It is necessary to put together references to Dhananjaya and his works so that some broad limits can be put to his date. Dhananjaya and his works have received sufficient praise; and his poem was so distinguished that he came to be called Dvisandhāna-kavi. The term dvisandhāna seems to be as old as Dandin (c. 7th century A. D.); and Bhoja's observations quoted below clearly indicate that Dandin also, like Dhananjaya, had a Dvisandhāna-prabandha to his credit, though it has not come down to us. Possibly, it was Dandin's third work besides the Kavyādarśa and the Daśakumāracarita.
11. See the paper of Vira Raghavacharya mentioned above. 12. Edn., GOS, No. 82, Baroda, 1938, p. 45.
13. Nemicandra's commentary is included in the Iñānapitha edition which would be published soon.

Page #4

आ. शांतिसागरजी जन्मशताब्दि स्मृतिग्रंथ
Vardhamana (A. D. 1141) quotes DS (of Dhananjaya) 4.6.,9.51., 18.22, in his Ganaratna-mahodadhi 435, 409 and 97 of Eggeling's edition.
३०६
Bhoja (middle of the 11th century A. D. ), while discussing the Ubhayālankāra, gives the valuable information that Dandin wrote a Dvisandhana-prabandha on the storties of the Rāmāyana and Bhārata. 1 Cf.
तृतीयस्य यथा दण्डिनो धनञ्जयस्य वा द्विसन्धानप्रबन्धौ रामायणमहाभारतार्थावनुबध्नाति (?) For our purpose what is significant is that Bhoja mentions Dhananjaya and his DS along with Dandin and his DS-Prabhandha.
Prabhācandra (11th century A. D.) refers in his Prameyakamalamārtaṇḍa to the DS thus : 15
ननु व्याकरणाद्यभ्यासाल्लौकिकपदवाक्यार्थप्रतिपत्तौ तदविशिष्टवैदिकपदवाक्यार्थप्रतिपत्तिरपि प्रसिद्धेरश्रुतकाव्यादिवत् । तन्न वेदार्थप्रतिपत्तावतीन्द्रियार्थदर्शिना किञ्चित्प्रयोजनमित्यप्यसारम् । लौकिकवैदिकपदानामकत्वेऽप्यनेकार्थत्वव्यवस्थितेरन्यपरिहारेण व्याचिख्यासितार्थस्य नियमयितुमशक्तेः । न च प्रकरणादिभ्यस्तन्नियमस्तेषामप्यनेकप्रवृत्तेर्द्विसन्धानादिवत् ।
Vadiraja, in his Parśvanāthacarita, 16 composed in A. D. 1025, refers to Dhananjaya and his skill in more than one sandhana:
अनेकभेदसन्धानाः खनन्तो हृदये मुहुः ।
बाणा धनञ्जयोन्मुक्ताः कर्णस्येव प्रिया कथम् ॥ १.२६ ॥
Durgasimha ( c. 1025A D.), the author of the Kannada Pañcatantra, 11 refers to the RP of Dhananjaya in these words:
अनुपमकवित्रजं जीयेने राघवपांडवीयमं पेळूदु यशोवनिताधीश्वरनादं धनञ्जयं वाग्वधूपियं केवळने ॥ ७॥
Dr. B. S. Kulkarni, Dharwar, informs me that the palm-leaf manuscript of the Pañcatantra from Arrah does not contain all those verses referring to the earlier poets.
Scholars are divided in their opinions whether there was only one Nagavarmā or there were two at different times (A. D. c. 1090 and c. 1145), with some or the other works assigned to them. We get the following verse in his Chandombudhi,18 a work in Kannada on metrics:
14. V. Raghavan, Bhoja's Srgāraprakāśa, ( Madras, 1963), p. 406.
15 Ed., N. S. Press, (Bombay, 1912), p. 116, lines 1 ff.; Bombay 1941, p. 402.
16. Ed. Mānikachandra D. J, Granthamātā, No. 4, Bombay, 1926.
17. Mysore, 1898.
18. R. Narasimhacharya, Karnātaka Kavicarite, ( Bangalore, 1961), pp. 53 ff., 154ff.

Page #5

Dhananjaya And His Dvisandhāna
३०७ जितबाणं हरियंतधःकृतमयूरं तारकारातियंततिमाघ शिशिरांत्यदंते सुरपप्रोच्चंडकोदंडदं-। ते तिरोभूतगुणाढयनब्जवनदंताविर्भवइंडि भा
रतदंतात्तधनञ्जयैकविभवं वाग्गुंफदोळू नाकिगं ॥ Dhananjaya is mentioned here among earlier poets. Narsimhacharya thinks that this is a reference to the author of DS, but A. Venkatasubbiah opines that the author of the Dasarūpaka is intended.
Jalhana (c. 1257 A. D.) in his Sūktimuktāvali19 puts in the mouth of Rajasekhara (c. 900 A. D.), the following verse about Dhananjaya :
द्विःसंधाने निपुणतां स तां चक्रे धनञ्जयः ।
यया जातं फलं तस्य सतां चक्रे धनं जयः ॥ ७॥ This splitting of the name of the author into dhanam and jaya is quite in tune with what the author himself has done in his works.
As already pointed out by Dr. H. L. Jain, 20 Virasena quotes a verse useful for explaining the term iti, and it is the same as No. 39 of the Nämamåla of Dhananjaya.
The above references enable us to fix the limits for the age of Dhanañjaya. He must have flourished between Akalanka (7th-8th century A. D.) and Virasena who completed his Dhavala in A. D. 816. Dhananjaya may, therefore, be assigned to c. 800. In any case, he could not be later than Bhoja (11th century A. D.) who specifically mentions him and his DS.
The DS of Dhananjaya has 18 cantos, comprising of 1105 verses composed in various metrical forms, his favourite forms being Upajāti, Vasantatilakā, sālini, Svägata etc. The benedictory verses in the beginning remembers (Muni-) Suvrata or Nemi, and then Sarasvati. The story of both Rāma and the Pandavas is covered in this work, usually taking recourse to ślesa (double entendre ). It is a characteristic so usual with Digambara Jaina authors that the tale is said to be narrated by Gautama to King Śreņika. The author !ays more stress on dignified descriptions than on the narration of events. Most of the verses are embellished with figures of speech, and they are duly noted by the commentator. In the last canto (especially, verse No. 43 onwards) the author has illustrated many of the Sabdalaňkāras, a trait common with Bhāravi, Māgha and other poets. The verse No. 143 is an illustration of sarva-gata-pratyāgata.
Presuming that the colophons found at the end of the cantos (but not at the end of cantos 1, 2, 16 and 18 ) belong to the author himself, it is clear that he gives himself the name Dhananjaya, or Kavi, or Dvisandhāna-kavi and calls his poem Dvisañdhāna
19. Ed., GOS, No. 82. Baroda, 1938, p. 46. 20. Şatkhandägama with Dhavalā. vol. I. (Amraoti, 1939), Introduction, p. 62;
Ibid., vol. VI, p. 14.

Page #6

ROC
आ. शांतिसागरजी जन्मशताब्दि स्मृतिग्रंथ
-kavya, or the Rāghava-Pandavīya - (a second name, apara-nāma ) Mahākāvya. At the close of every canto, in the last verse, he mentions his name Dhanañjaya by ślesa, as in the Visapahāra-stotra; this is already imitated by Rajasekhara in the verse put in his mouth by Jalhaņa.
The title Dvisandhāna indicates the pattern of composition in which each verse is susceptible to two interpretations, and the appellation Raghava-Pāndavīya connotes the contents of the poem viz., that it deals with the tales of Rāma and the Pandavas simultaneously. The cycle of tales connected with these two are so much an inseparable part of Indian cultural heritage that any poet who wants to pick up two topics at one and the same time, would easily turn to them, especially because independent epics dealing with them and giving plenty of details and contexts for alternative selection and presentation are available in large numbers. The title Rāghava-Pandavīya is sufficiently popular. Beside Dhanañjaya, it has been chosen by poets like Kavirāja, Śrutakirti etc.; and there are also similar titles, e. g, Raghava-Yadavīya, Raghava-Pandava, Yadavīya, etc. With Dhanañjaya, however, the primary title for his kāvya is Dvisandhāna; and and he, after 'Dandin, seems to be the pioneer of this type; the Rāgdava-Pandaviya is only a secondary title.
It is interesting to compare the poems of Dhananjaya and Kavirāja.91 Dhananjaya's kāvya has an alternative name RP which is the sole title of Kavirāja's poem. Dhananjaya has eighteen cantos with 1105 verses, while Kaviraja has thirteen with 664 verses. Dhananjaya mentions his own name byśleşa (thus marking his kāvya
Dhananjayānka'), while Kavirāja mentions the name of his patron Kāmadeva in the last verse of each canto: in fact the latter's poem is Kamadevānka'. A detailed comparison of the contents of these two poems is a desideratum. On a cursory reading one feels that there is not much striking similarity between them. Dhanamjaya has more of descriptions, while Kaviraja narrates the details of his tale successfully inspite of the handicap of śleşa (see 1. 54, 69, etc.). So far as śleşa is concerned, Kavirāja shows more skill and mastery over vocabulary. Dhanañjaya's poem is complimented as a monument of poetic excellence': undoubtedly, he shows a good deal of learning, especially of the nitiśästra; and some of his arthāntaranyāsas are really profound and striking. As contrasted with Kavirāja's style, which is lucid and delightful, (cf. 2.11-13), Dhananjaya writes rather heavy Sanskrit which often needs some effort to understand. In his descriptions, there are very few verses of double entendre which are the normal feature of Kavirāja's composition. As far as we have seen, there is very little between these two poems as to suggest that one is an imitation of the other.
There is one more poet, śrutakirti Traividya, who wrote a Rāghava-Pāndavīyakävya of the gatapratyāgata pattern, a matter of curiosity and wonder among the
21.
Edn. N. S. Press, Bombay, 1897, with the commentary of Saśadhara, Kavyamala, No. 62.

Page #7

Dhanañjaya And His Dvisandhāna
३०९ learned, as mentioned by Nāgacandra or Abhinava Pampa in his Rāmacandra-caritaPurāņa, 39 in Kannada, also known as Pampa-Rāmāyaṇa ( 1.24-23):
आवां वादिकथात्रयप्रवणदाळ् विद्वज्जनं मॅच्च विद्यावष्टंभमनप्पु परवादिक्षोणिभृत्पक्षमं । देवेन्द्रं कडितंददिंदै कडिदं स्याद्वादविद्यास्त्रदि विद्यश्रुतकीर्ति दिव्यमुनिवोल् विख्यातियं तादिदं ॥२४॥ श्रुतकीर्तित्रैविद्यव्रति राघवपांडवीयमं विबुधचमत्कृतियेनिसि गतप्रत्या
गतदिं पेल्दमळकीर्तियं प्रकटिसिदं ॥२५॥ These two verses are quoted in an inscription at Sravana Belgol No. 40 (64), of A. D. 1163.28 This Srutakirti Traividya is mentioned in the Terdāļ inscription of 1123 A. D.
ततु परवादीभपंचाननर सधर्मरु । श्रुतकीर्तित्रैविद्यब्रतिपर् षटुतर्ककर्कशरु परवादिप्रतिभाप्रदीपपवनर् जितदोषर् नेगळ्दरखिलभुवनांतरदोळ ॥
King Gonka sent for Māghanandi Saiddhāntika (the preceptor of Nimba Sāmanta) of Kollagiri or Kolhapur, and the latter's colleagues were Kanakanandi Panditadeva and Srutakirti Traividya. In another inscription of A. D. 1135, from Kolhapur, Śrutakirti Traividya is referred to as the Ācārya of the Rūpanārāyana Basadi of Kolhapur :34
शकवर्षद सासिरदय्वत्तेंटनेय राक्षससंवत्सरद कार्तिकबहुलपंचमि सोमवारदंदु श्रीमूलसंघदेसीयगणपुस्तक गच्छद कोल्लापुरद श्रीरूपनारायणबसदियाचार्यरप्प श्रीश्रुतकीर्तित्रैविद्यदेवर् कालं कर्चि etc. Nāgacandra calls him a vrati and so also the Terdāļ inscription; i. e., he was a vratin in 1123, but by 1135 A, D, he had reached the status of an Ācārya. Expert opinion puts Nagacandra near about A. D. 1100.25 This means that Srutakirti's age ranges from c. 1100 to 1150 A. D., approximately. So far no manuscript of his RP has come to light.
K. B. Pathak was the first to postulate the identity of Dhanañjaya and śrutakīrti from the latter's having composed the Rāghavapandaviya. Rightly enough, R. G. Bhandarkar hesitated to accept this identity. But somehow the date proposed for Dhananjaya based on this identity attained currency.
22. A Ms. is being used, but the text is available in printed form. 23. Epigraphia Carnatica, Vol. II, Sravana Belgol Inscriptions. 24. Epigraphia Indica, Vol. 19, p. 30. 25. R. Narasimhacharya, Karnataka Kavicarite, vol. I, (Bangalore 1961), pp. 110f.

Page #8
310 आ. शांतिसागरजी जन्मशताब्दि स्मृतिग्रंथ Dhananjaya and his DS or RP have to be distinguished from Srutakirti and his RP. First, Dhananjaya was a householder, while Srutakriti, a vratin and later an Acarya. Secondly, neither Dhananjaya nor the sources which mention Srutakirti give any evidence to suppose that the two names stand for the same poet. Thirdly, a verse from Dhananjaya's Namamala is quoted by Virasena (A. D. 816); and his DS, specifically mentioning the name Dhananjaya, is referred to by Bhoja (c. 1010-62 A. D.), while the period of Srutakirti ranges from 1100 to 1150 A. D. Lastly, if the DS of Dhananjaya is already famous to be ranked with the work of Dandin and to be referred to by Bhoja (middle of the 11th century), it cannot be the same work as that of Srutakirti who was an Acarya in 1135 A. D. So this identification has no basis; and therefore, the date, based on this identity proposed for Dhananjaya, namely 1123-40 A. D., has to be given up. E. V. Vira Raghavacharya's suggestion of the date for Dhananjaya (c. 750-800) is nearer the point, but it is not known why he puts Kaviraja earlier than Dhananjaya when Kaviraja specifically refers to Munja of Dhara (973-95 A. D.). Prof. Venkatasubbiah's thesis, viz., that Dhananjaya, the author of DS, is identical with Hemasena because the later is mentioned as Vidya--Dhananjaya in the Sravana Belgo! Inscription, cannot be accepted. Vadiraja is mentioning in his poem earlier authors and teachers and not necessarily his pontifical predecessors. That Dhananjaya therefore, was a pontifical predecessor of Vadiraja and identical with Hemasana is not justified. First, Dhananjaya was a householder. He has not at all mentioned his ascetic line, nor does he speak about his ascetic predecessors; he cannot, therefore, be a pontifical predecessor of Vadiraja. Secondly, nowhere in his works, has Dhananjaya given his name as Hemasena. Lastly, it is very doubtful whether Vidya-Dhananjaya is a proper name, for it could be read as well vidya dhanam jayapadam visadam dadhano. It is also possible that Dhananjaya here means Arjuna; so Hemasena is Vidya-Dhananjaya. If at all Vidya-Dhananjaya is a proper name, then, it means that it only distinguishes Hemasena from some other Dhananjaya who flourished earlier.