Introduction Tiloya Pannatti

Author(s): A N Upadhye
Publisher: A N Upadhye
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/269355/1

Page #1
INTRODUCTION 1. Tiloyapannatti: Form etc. The Tiloyapannatti, Sk. Triloka-prajnaptih (TP) is an ancient Indian text, in Prakrit, dealing primarily with Jaina Cosmography and incidentally including many other topics of religious and cultural interest. According to the enumeration of the Author himself the entire text is divided into nine Mahadhikaras (I. 88-9): 1) General Nature of the Universe; 2) Hellish Regions; 3) Bhavanavasi Regions; 4) Human World; 5) Sub-human World; 6) Vyantara Regions; 7) Jyotiska Regions; 8) Heavenly Regions; and 9) The Realm of Liberation. The form of the work is well planned. Every Mahadhikara is subdivided into Adhikaras, dealing with different topics and sometime further split into subdivisions. Now and then there are numerical representations of the contents of some of the gathas. The major bulk of the text is in verse; there are a few prose passages, and some detached words and sentences introduce a few verses. . The First Mahadhikara falls into two broad divisions: Introductory, and General Description of the Universe: it contains in all 283 gathas and a few prose passages. The Second M has 15 Sections (II. 2-6); and of the total of 367 verses, all are gathas excepting five, namely, 4 Indravajra (362, 364-6) and 1 Svagata (363). The Third M has 24 Sections (III. 2-6) with 243 verses of which 2 are in Indravajra (228 and 241 ), 4 in Upajati (214-15, 229 and 242) and the rest in gatha metre. The Fourth M contains 16 Sections (IV. 2-5), some of which have further subsections, with 2961 verses (and some prose passages) of which 7 are in Indravajra (162-3, 550-51, 578, 941-42), 2 in Dodhaka (552 and 1275), 1 in Sardulavikridita (704), 2 in Vasantatilaka (940 and 1211 ) and the rest in gatha metre. The Fifth M has 16 Sections (V. 2-4) with 321 gathas and plenty of prose passages. The Sixth M (VI. 2-4) contains 17 Sections (the last three of which being similar to those in M 3) with 103 gathas. The Seventh M (VII, 2-4) has 17 Sections (the last nine being similar to those in M 3) with 619 gathas and some prose passages. The Eighth M (VIII. 2-5) contains 21 Sections (some of which are not clearly specified, or are perhaps missing, for instance 11-12 etc.) with 703 verses of which 1 (702) is Sardulavikridita and the rest are gathas, and a few prose passages, The Ninth or the last M has 5 Sections in 77 verses of which 1 is Malini (74) and the rest are gathas. The ms. material from which this text is edited was limited, and the editors have been able to detect apparent drawbacks in the text presented here: many readings are awfully corrupt, though generally it is not difficult to surmise their approximate sense; now and then lines are missing (pp. 33, 228-9, 442, 448, 489, 571, 576,627-8, 630 etc.); numerical representations contain errors and are often misplaced (pp. 60, 64 etc.); the titles of subsections are not always and consistently found, and at certain places they are obviously missing (see Mahadhikara 8). Many of these drawbacks can be removed hereafter, if this printed text, which is quite authentic within the limits of the material used, is compared with still earlier mss. that might come to light later on. Apart from the above drawbacks arising out of defective MS-tradition, the TP as a whole is based on sufficiently ancient tradition and shows, on the whole,

Page #2
TILOYAPANNATTI a compact form which has been given to it by a single author. At the close of every Mahadhikara, the author clearly specifies that the contents of TP have been received by him through a succession of teachers; and at times there is a reference to Gurupadesa (see for instance, VII. 113, 162). He refers to and quotes the opinions of ancient texts (see below) like the Agrayani, Parikarma and Lokaviniscaya which are no more available to us. He is frank enough to admit in a number (more than twentyfive) of places (see for instance, III. 13, 118, 161, IV. 48, 750 (note the simile), 847, 1572 etc.) that the information or traditional instruction about a specific point had not traditionally reached him through his teachers or is lost beyond recovery. Throughout the text one gets the impression that such an obscure subject like cosmography with all its calculations etc. was studied by different lines of teachers, some of them holding varying opinions. In more than forty places we get gathas called Pathantaram, and there are even some alternative views indicated by athava (see pp. 51, 71). The author's aim is to record the tradition as faithfully and exhaustively as it is possible for him to do. The form and contents of TP clearly display the hand of a single author, though omissions and additions of minor character by intelligent readers and copyists can never be ruled out till many more ass, are collated. After a clear statement at the beginning, the entire work is divided into nine Mahadhikaras, each one of them further into sections, duly enumerated at its opening. Thus there is a plan for the whole work. At times the reader is referred to an earlier chapter for the details required in a subsequent chapter (VI. 101). Sometime we get phrases like puvvam va vattavvarii (IV. 261, 274 etc.) which indicate that the author is handling the subject matter continuously. The opening Mangala consists of salutations etc. to five Paramesthins, ovumerating however Siddha first and then Arhat. Then starting with the end of the first Mahadhikara, both at the beginning and end of subsequent Mahadhikaras, salutations are offered to Tirthakaras in their settled order: Nabheya, 2 Ajita and Sambhava, 3 Abbinandana and Sumati, 4 Padmaprabha and Suparsva, 5 Candraprabha and Puspadanta, 6 Sitala and Sreyamsa, 7 Vasupujya and Vimala, 8 Ananta and Dharma, and 9 Santi and Kunthu. Then the salutations to remaining Tirthakaras, Ara to Vardhamana, come as a part of the conclusion of the last Mahadhikara (IX. 67-73). The arrangement and location of these salutations have not only a plan but also clearly show the band of one author. 2. Yativrsabha: The Author In the past many scholars have discussed about the Authorship and Date of TP. It is just possible that my Bibliography is not exhaustive. However, as far as I know, the following are the important articles and essays (in Hindi) on this topic; and they have been used by me in preparing this Introduction: 1) Pt. Nathuram Premi: Lokavibhaga and Tiloyapannatti, Jaina Hitaisi 1917; Jaina Sahitya aura Itihasa, Bombay 1942, pp. 1-22. 2) Pt. Jugalkishore: Kundakunda and Yativisabh, Anekanta II, p. 1-12; A MS-copy of his essay on TP and Yativrsabha in which he has reviewed the earlier views, especially those of Pt. Phulachanda noted below. 3) Pt. Phulachanda: Present TP and its Date etc., Jaina Siddhanta Bhaskara, Vol. 11, PP. 65-82. 4) Pt. Mahendrakumara: Jayadhavala, Mathura 1944, Intro. pp. 15-25, 39-69 etc. Whenever I mention the names of these scholars I have in view their contributions listed above. All the sources are in print except the essay of Pt. Jugalkishore. Words are inadequate to

Page #3
INTRODUCTION express my sense of gratitude to Pt. Jugalkishoraji who readily sent his MS.-copy for my use. According to the TP itself, the authorship is twofold: with reference to the artha or contents and grantha or text. Lord Mahavira, who is endowed with supernatural gifts and merits is the kurtii with reference to the artha or contents. After him these contents have been inherited through Gautama and other eminent Acaryas (I. 55 ff.). The credit of shaping the text of TP is to go to some or the other Acarya, and we have to see whether we get any information about him in this text. At the beginning or in the colophons the author mentions neither his Teachers nor his name; and in this context the following two gathas ('TP IX. 76-77) attract our attention: paNamaha jiNavaravasahaM gaNaharavasahaM taheva guNavasahaM / daTTaNa parisavasahaM jadivasahaM dhammasutsapADhae vasaI // cuNNissarUvachakkaraNasarUvapamANa hoi kiM jaM taM (?) / aTThasahassapamANaM tiloyapaNNattiNAmAe // These verses present some difficulties of interpretations. In the first verse, though it is a salutation to Jinavara-Vrsabha, one can easily suspect that the author is mentioning his name Jadivasaha or Yativrsabha; and in the next verse, to indicate the extent of * TP, tw.) other works, Curni-svarupa and (sat-) Karana-svarupa, (possibly composed by himself) are being mentioned. This interpretation is to a great extent corroborated by what we know from other sources, While describing how the study of Kasaya-prabhita was handed down through generations of teachers, Indranandi, the author of Srutavatara, adds these two Aryas: (155-56): pArzve tayordvayorapyadhItya sUtrANi tAni yativRSabhaH / yativRSabhanAmadheyo babhUva zAstrArthanipuNamatiH // tena tato yatipatinA tagAthAvRttisUtrarUpeNa / racitAni SaTUsahasragranthAnyatha cUrNisUtrANi // Thus Yativrsabha (note the slezet on this word which reminds us of the gathas of TP quoted above) studied the Sutras (of the Kasayaprabhrta) from Nagahasti and Aryamajksu and acquired special proficiency; then by way of commentary on the same he wrote Curnisutras, six thousand in extent. This is no more a traditional account given to posterity by Indranandi, but now there is clear evidence available to this effect in the Jayadhavala itself. At its beginning the blessings of Yativrsabha (the author of Vrttisutra), the disciple of Arya Marksu and the close pupil of Nagahasti are sought; and more than once there are references to his Curnisutra which stands today indistinguishably absorbed in the Jayadhavala of Virasena-Jinasena. The facts that TP mentions Yativrsabha and also the Curni to describe the extent of TP and that there is a Curnisutra of Yativrsabha on.the Kasaya-pahuda make it highly probable that the author of TP is the same as the author of Curnisutras on the Kasayapahuda. Pt. Mahendrakumar has already made an intelligent effort to delineate tle salient characteristics of this Curaisutra, incorporated in the Jayadhavala commentary. It is concise in expression but profound in meaning. That is why Uccaranacarya was required to elucidate it further, and Virasena-Jinasena magnified its contents ten times to explain the subject matter fully. Yativssabha shows a traditional method of interpretation and manner of exposition. He refers to the contents of Karmapravada, the 8th Purva, and to Karmaprakrti, the 4th Prabhrta of the 5th Vastu of the 2nd Purva. He also refers to the difference of opinion between Arya Manksu and Nagahasti, the latter's view being more acceptable as consistent with tradition. The Uccaranavstti often explains Curnisutra though on many points they differed among themselves,

Page #4
TILOYAPANNATTI About the other work of Yativrsabha, namely, Karanasvarupa or Satkarana. syarupa, we do not know anything at all. In the TP, however, he adds certain gathas which are called Karana-sutras, or -gathas, Karana (note the phrase "those skilled in Karana' at TP I. 116 ) indicating something like formulae for calculation. I It is unfortunate that we know very little about Yativrsabha, the author of Curnisutras on the Kasayapahuda and of this TP. The verse of TP in which his name is hinted by s'lesa has a similar verse in Jayadhavala; and both possibly contain a reference to Gunadhara who propounded the Kasayaprabhita in gathas. It implies that Yativrsabha held Gunadhara in great respect. How they were related we do not know: there is no suggestion to the effect that they were contemporaries. It is Virasena who tells us that Yativrsabha was a s'isya of Aryamajksu and an 'antevasi of Nagahasti. The word s'isya may mean also a parampara s'isya; but the word untevasi, however, indicates that he was a contemporary and a close pupil of Nagahasti. Some years back (Intro, to my ed. of Pravacanasara, Bombay 1935, p. XV, foot note 3) I suggested that Arya Majksu and Arya Nagahasti appear to be identical with Ajja Mangu and Ajja Nagahatthi mentioned in the Nandisutra. 3. Yativrsabha: His Date ! The date of Yativrsabha, and consequently that of TP, is a problem by itself. The evidence available is neither sufficient nor conclusive; and any attempt to settle their age under these circumstances is bound to be tentative. One should take a dispassionate survey of the evidence without being dogmatic; and the date proposed here is at the best a pointer for further investigation. ***** The method of discussion, constant insistence that the contents are all inherited traditionally, the impersonal presentation of contents and the authorities appealed to-all these indicate that the text of TP shows more kinship with the canonical works than with later treatises bearing the stamp of individual authorship. Yativrsabha belongs to the group of authors such as Sivarya, Vattakera, Kundakunda and others; and his TP belongs to the class of pro-canonical texts which, soon after the canon shaped at Pataliputra was disclaimed by certain schools of Jaina teachers as not authoritative for them, came to be compiled as memory notes based on the traditional knowledge inherited through the succession of teachers. Remembering this background, we can scrutinise the available external and and internal evidence, and shall try to fix broad limits for the age of Yativrsabha and his TP. A. 1) Virasena not only invokes the blessings of Yativrsabha, the s'isya of Ajja Mamkhu and the artevasi of Nagahatthi and refers to his Vittigutra but also specifies the TP calling it by the dignified title sutta (Dhavala III, p. 36) and quotes gathas from it found with minor variations in the present day text of TP (Dhayala I, pp. 40, 63 etc.) and also reproduces contents from it now and then (Dhavala I, pp. 16, 31-33, 56-57, 60-2, 63-4 etc.). That a commentator like Virasena inherits contents and quotes from an earlier text is but quite natural: this is exactly what a commentator is expected to do in elucidating the ancient Sutras. About the date of Virasena we have a clear statement from himself that he finished his Dhavala commentary in Saka 738 (+78)=816 A. D. The TP of Yativrsabha will have to be put earlier than this date. 31-35, an earlier text is but quite datuage About the date of in Saka 738

Page #5
INTRODUCTION .. 2) Pt. Mahendrakumar has shown that Jinabhadra Ksamasramana's reference to udes'a-kasaya in his Visesavasyakabhasya (Saka 531, i. e., A. D. 609) has possibly in view Yativrsabha's discussion in his Curnisutras now incorporated in the Jayadhavala. B. 1) Yativrsabha has not remembered any earlier authors, though an improved reading in TP IX. 69 may suggest that he is mentioning by s'lesa the name of Gunadhara along with his name. But this will not help us much to settle his date. 2) At IV. 1211, there is a mention of Balacandra Saiddhantika. The first question is whether this verse can be attributed to Yativrsabha, the author of TP. My reply is in the negative. The context shows that the verse concerned has no inherent connection with the text. The earlier verse says that all the Tirthakaras, excepting Rsabha, Vasupujya and Neminatha, attained Liberation in the Kayotsarga position. Any intelligent and devoted reader or copyist would feel like invoking the blessings of Tirthakaras at this context; and I do not feel any doubt that Balacandra Saiddhantika must have been a close reader, if not a copyist, who added such a verse at that context. The title Saiddhantika is borne by many teachers like Nemicandra, Viranandi, Magnanandi etc., and it is indicative of their proficiency in Siddhanta. There have flourished many Balacandras, and we have to find out one who is called Saiddhantika either in literary or in epigraphic sources. An additional verse like this is a good pointer to give rise to suspicion whether learned readers and copyists might have added elucidatory passages here and there from other sources. Any way this mention of Balacandra does not and cannot help us to settle the date of Yativrsabha. . :3) It is interesting to note that TP mentions earlier works and their divergent opinions. We may list them here with critical observations and see how far they would help us to settle the age of Yativrsabha. Aggayaniya (Loyavinicchaya-m-Aggayanie IV. 1982): As I understand it, this is a reference to Agrayaniya, the 2nd of the 14 Puryas included in the Drstivada, the 12th Anga. In earlier Prakrit sources it is spelt as Agganiyam or Aggeniyam. If the samdhi-consonant is separated as noted above, the reading Maggayanie really stands for Aggayanie; and I feel that Saygayani (IV. 217, 1821, 2029), Samgayani (VIII. 272), Samgaini (IV. 2448), Samgoyani (IV. 219) Samgahani (VIII. 387) are just corrupt readings arising out of similitude of orthography etc. When this text is being so often referred to with its dissenting views clearly specified, it only means that the Author of TP had inherited a detailed knowledge of the Agrayaniya-purva. . Ditthivada.(Drstivada): There are at least three clear references to Drstivada (I. 99, 148, IV. 55), and the Author of TP shows positive acquaintance with, if not positive inheritance of, the contents of it. Though the lists of its contents and divisions are preserved, the Jaina tradition is uniform in saying that the knowledge of it became gradually extinct. Some lines of Teachers might be knowing bits of it here and there. It is lately shown by Dr. Hiralal Jain (Dhavala, vols. I & II Intros., Amraoti 1939-40) that major portions of Jivatthana etc. have been taken from Agrayaniya-purva, the Znd Purva, a subsection of the Drotivada. Parikamma (Parikarma): The author discusses his apparent difference from what is stated in the Parikamma (p. 765). Possibly this is a reference to the commentary of that name on the first three Khandas of the Satkhandagama attributed to Padmanandi alias Kundakunda (Dhavala, vol I, Intro. pp. 31, 46-48). Pt. Mahendrakumar has expressed a doubt whether the Parikarma (Jayadhavala I, Intro. p. 36) was a work dealing with calculatory sciences.

Page #6
TILOYAPANNATTI Mulayara (Mulacara): The opinion of this text is quoted at VIII. 532, and we are able to trace it in the present-day text of the Mulacara, Paryayadhikura, 80. Loyavinicchaya (Lokaviniscaya): This work is mentioned nearly a dozen times (IV. 1869, 1975, 1982, 2023, V. 69, 129, 167, VII. 230, VIII. 270, 386, IX. 9 as a Grantha). No work of this name has come to light as yet. Possibly it is the title of this work that has served as a model for Akalanka who has composed works like Siddhi-viniscaya and Nyaya-viniscaya etc. Loyavibhaga (Lokavibhaga): This is mentioned some five times (I. 281, IV. 2448, 2491, VII. 115, VIII. 635). It is being referred to rather along with Aggayani (IV. 2448) and Loyavinicchaya (IX. 9) than as a section thereof. At present there is available a Sanskrit text Lokavibhaga in 11 chapters by Simhasuri. The author tells us that his Sanskrit rendering is bassed on a similar work in Prakrit 'composed in Saki 380 (+78)=458 A. D. by Sarvanandi in the 22nd year of the reign of Simhavarman of Kanci. The work of Sarvanandi is not available at present. Comparing the views mentioned in TP with those in the Sanskrit Lokavibhaga (which quotes a number of gathas from TP), Pt. Jugalkishore has rightly suggested that the Author of TP 'had before him the Prakrit Lokavibhaga of Sarvanandi. Logaini (Lokayani): This text is mentioned twice (ignoring the difference in spelling).(IV. 244, VIII. 530) with a specific reference to its contents or views. It is called a grantha-pravara which indicates its authority and importance. The facts that the necessary contents referred to in the TP are found in the present-day text of the Mulacara and that similar contents are traced in the Sanskrit Lokavibhaga heighten the authenticity of these references. We have to see whether the Mss, of works like Lokaviniscaya, Loyavibhaga (in Prakrit) etc. are found in any of the libraries of Gujarat and Karnataka which have disclosed rare finds in recent years. Most of these works, mentioned in the TP, belong to the primary stratum of Jaina literature. We are far from being certain about the date of Mulacara, though it is looked upon as an ancient Jaina text. As long as it is not shown that there was a still earlier text called Lokavibhaga than the one of Saryanandi, it is quite reasonable to accept that the TP is later, in its present form, than A. D. 458. According to Indranandi's Srutavatara (verses 160-61), Padmanandi of Kuudakundapura [i. e., Kundakunda] studied the Siddhanta through his teachers and wrote a commentary Parikarma by name on the three Khandas of the Satkhandagama. At a time when Dhavala and Jayadhavala were not available for thorough study, I doubted the existence of such a commentary. But now with the publication of these works it has been abundantly clear that there was an earlier commentary called Pariyamma which is referred to and quoted in the Dhavala. Thus there was a text called Pariyamma, and as long as there is no conflict from any other source we may accept with Indranandi that its author was Kundakunda. It is highly probable that TP also is referring to the Pariyamma of Kundakunda. So Yativrsabha flourished after Kundakunda whose age lies at the beginning of the Christian era (Pravacanasara, Intro. Bombay 1935). 4) The TP contains a great deal of historical material in the context of post-Mahavira chronology: first, about the continuity of the inheritance of scriptural knowledge; and secondly, about the royal dynasties. After Lord Mahavira attained liberation (TP IV. 1478 ff.) 3 Kevalins flourished in 62 years; 5 Sruta-Kevalins, in 100 years; 11 Dasapurving, in 183 years; 5 Eka

Page #7
INTRODUCTION dasangadharins, in 220 years; and 4 Acarangadharins, in 118 years. Thus for a period of 683 years after the Nirvana of Mahavira there was the continuity of Angajnana, i. e., upto 683--527 = 256 A. D. Incidentally it is noted how Candragupta was the last crowned monarch to accept renunciation. The author of TP (IV. 1496-1504) records different opinions as to when Saka flourished after the Nirvana of Mahavira. The fact that so many opinions are recorded clearly shows that either our author flourished long after the Saka king, or that those opinions have been added by intelligent copyists as time passed on from different sources. There is no sufficient documentary evidence for the second alternative; so, for the present, the first may be presumed, as it does not involve any major contradiction. Turning to the ruling dynasties, TP (IV. 1505 f.) tells us that the coronation of Palaka, well-known in Avanti, was simultaneous with the liberation of Mahavira (i. e., both the events took place on the same day). King Palaka ruled for 60 years; then followed the Vijaya dynasty for 155 years; thereafter Murudaya (Maurya or Murundaya) for 40 years; Pusyamitra for 30 years; Vasumitra and Agnimitra for 60 years; Gandharva (Gaddabbha=Gardabbilla) for 100 years; Naravahana for 40 years; Bhatthatthana (Bhityandhra ?) kings for 242 years; Gupta kings for 231 years; and then lastly Kalki for 42 years; and he was succeeded by his son. This brings us to the total of 1000 years after the Nirvaya of Mahavira, i. e., upto 1000-527 = 473 A. D. According to Gunabhadra's Utttarapurana (76. 394) Kalki was born after 1000 years after the beginning of Dusama period; he lived for seventy years and ruled for forty years. According to TP Dusama began three years and eight months after the Nirvana of Mahavira. Thus the death of Kalki can be placed roughly 1000+70+3=1073 years after the Nirvana of Mahavira, i. e, 1973--527 = 546 A. D. According to Nemicandra's Trilokasara (gatha 850), the Saka king was born 605 years and 5 months after the Nirvana of Mahavira; and Kalki, with a life of seventy years, was born 394 years 7 months after the Saka king and ruled for 40 years. Thus Kalki died 1000+70= 1070 years after the Nirvana of Mahavira, i. e. in 1070-527=543 A. D. According to the opinion of K, B. Pathak (Gupta Era and Mihirakula, Bhand. Com. vol. Poona 1919, p. 216) this Kalki is the same as the Huna ruler Mihirakula who was on the throne in 520 A. D. when the Chinese traveller Song Yun visited India. There is no snfficient reason to believe that such details were added later on with the lapse of time. The way in which (see gatha IV. 1510 ) they are expressed shows that these details were given by the author himself. They indicate, therefore, that the author of TP, Yativrsabha, cannot have flourished earlier than 1000 years after the Nirvana of Mahavira, i. e., earlier than 473 A. D. As the historical details apparently stop with Kalkin, the composition or compilation of TP must have taken place soon after Kalkin. In the light of the above evidence, Yativrsabha flourished later than Gunadhara, Arya Marksu, Nagahasti, Kundakunda and Sarvanandi (458 A. D.); he comes possibly soon after Kalkin (473 A. D.) who is the last of the outstanding kings mentioned by him; and all that is definitely known is that he is earlier than Virasena (816 A. D.) and possibly also Jinabhadra Ksamasramana (609 A, D.). So Yativisabha and his TP are to be assigned to some period between 473 A. D. and 609 A-D. By proposing the above period for Yativrsabha and his TP and chronological sequence of authors, my position comes into conflict with the views of some of my prodscessors in the field, and it is necessary that I should explain myself,

Page #8
TILOYAPANNATTI Some scholars would assign a pretty late date for Kundakunda because it is alleged that he refers to the Lokavibhaga possibly of Sarvanandi and because he refers to Visuu, Siva etc. The Niyamasara clearly uses the phrase loyavibhayesu, in the plural; naturally, the reference is not to any specific text as such but possibly indicates traditional contents inherited through teachers and dealing with the divisions of the Universe. It is interesting to note that the very first verse of the Lokavibhaga (Sanskrit) qualifies Jinesvaras with the phrase lokalokavibhagajnan: thus it has a general sense besides being the name of a text. Visuu is not such a modern deity as Muni Kalyanavijayaji (Sramana Bhagavan Mahavira, p. 303) wants to presume. He is a pretty ancient deity and a clear reference to him, along with his Garuda ( pakkhisu va garule Venu-devo, 1. 6. 21) is found in the Suyagadam which is definitely one of the earliest texts of the canon. The same work mentions also isvara, Svayambhu (according to the com., indentical with Visnu) etc. in another context 1. 1. 3. 7. Other arguments of Muniji are too superficial to be reluted here. Thus hardly any outweighing evidence is there to induce us to put Kundakunda later than Sarvanandi and Yativssabha. Pt. Phulchandraji has discussed in details the date and authorship of TP, and most of his arguments are criticised by Pt. Jugalkishoreji. A good bit of additional light has resulted from this controversy. Their views are reviewed in short here, with comments wherever necessary. Those who want to go into more details may kindly study the original essays, referred to above. i) According to Pt. Phulachandra, Virasena, th: author of Dhavala, first established the opinion that the Loka measures seven Rajjus north-south throughout. Earlier than him there was no such view as seen from Rajavartika and other works. The TP adpots this opinion of Virasena, therefore in its present form it is latar than him.. Pt. Jugalkishore meets this argument by saying that a similar view was current even earlier than Virasena as seen from the Harivamsa of Jinasena, Karttikeyanapreksa and Jambudvipa prajnapti. Harivamsa describes the loka as caturasra but it is not explicit about the measurement of seven Rajjus. Supposing that this measurement is implied, Virasena is respectfully mentioned in the Harivamsa, and even his disciple Jinasena and his Parsvabhyudaya are referred to. Thus this will not rule out the possibility that the author of Harivamsa-purana was acquainted with the opinion of Virasena. The Karttikeyanupreksa gives the same view as that of Virasena. It is looked upon as an ancient text; but st:ll it is necessary to prove on the basis of clear cut evidence that it is earlier than Virasena. The Jambudvipaprajnapti clearly gives the same view, but its date is still a matter of conjecture.' Pt. Premiji has suggested that, if his proposed identity of Saktikumar with a Guhila king of that name is accepted, it will have to be assigned to the 11th century of the Vikrama era (Jaina Sahitya aura Itihasa p. 571 ). Another point to be taken into consideration is this. Virasena had before him the TP sutta. Then why is it that he has not quoted the TP in proving his opinion but had to depend upon only two ancient gathas describing the caturasra Loka. Taking into consideration his references to TP and the way in which he puts forth his view leaves a doubt how he could have avoided referring to TP in this context, if this view was there before him.

Page #9
INTRODUCTION In India much of the ancient knowledge is traditional; naturally the author's claim that it is his view cannot be a safe evidence to be used as a chronological limit. Pt. Phulchandaji's insistence is thus open to a methodological weakness; and on the other side, the works like Harivamsa, Karttikeyanupreksa and Jambudvipaprajnapti are not as yet clearly proved to be definitely earleir than Virasena. ii) The TP, I. 7-87, has much common with the discussion of Mangala in the Dhavala. The author of TP has taken it from other sources, and is following here Dhavala. As observed by Pt. Jugalkishore, this is just a deduction from a presumptive conclusion which is baseless. The meaning of viviha-gantha-juttihim as taken by Pt. Phulchandra is not at all justified. The discussion about Mangala must be looked upon as something substantially traditional, and it is not at all proved that Virasena is the author of it. It may be pointed out passingly that similar discussion about the topic of Mangala is already found in the Visesavasyaka-bhasya of Jinabhadra (A. D. 609). Moreover the fundamental nature of the two works, namely TP and Dhavala, has to be taken into consideration. The TP, as I have shown above, is a well planned unit and discusses its subject matter quite systematically and independently. It contains, however, a good deal of matter of traditional inheritance, no doubt, as stated by the author himself. On the other hand, Dhavala is a commentary which incorporates earlier commentaries on the Satkarma-prabhrta. On the very face of it, if any one is required to quote by the very nature of the work he is composing, it is the author of Dhavala and not that of TP. iii) TP has taken (see I. 83) a sentence of Akalanka which occupies an essential position in his Laghiyastrayam (iii. 2). As shown by Pt. Jugalkishore, the facts do not really stand as Pt. Phulchandra presents them. Akalanka is a great logician, no doubt; but even his works reflect an enormous output of logical and epistemological studies carried out by Buddhistic, Nyaya-Vaisesika and Jaina logicians. Earlier Jaina authors like Jinabhadra in his Visesavasyaka-bhasya and Siddhasena in his Stutis show how they were developing clearly polemical style showing their reactions to contemporary thought. Even Pujyapada's commentary on the Tattvarthasutra I. 10 deserves our attention in this context. Akalanka not only availed himself of all this but also made distinct contribution of his own, thus paving the way for Haribhadra, Vidyananda and others. The fact is that both Akalanka and Virasena are putting into Sanskrit, the language par excellence of polemical disscussion of those days, whatever was already discussed by their predecessors in Prakrit. iv) A sentence duguna etc. (Dhavala vol. III, p. 36) attributed to TP by Dhavala is not found in the present text of TP. Pt. Phulachandra, therefore, concludes that the TP which Virasena had before him was a different text of the same name. It is true that this particular wording of the sentence is not traced in the TP the text of which, as argued by Pt. Jugalkishore, is far from being thorough in its collation and perfect in constitution. It may be further added that Virasena, as was usual in early days, is quoting from memory: in fact, that very line appears to be quoted differently by him elsewhere (Dhavala vol. IV, p. 151). We should not always insist on tracing a particular line; but if we read a major portion of the discussion in Dhavala (especially where it specifies TP) and compare it (see Dhavala III, pp. 35-36) with corresponding discussions in TP, one can hardly have any doubt about the fact that Virasena is following the contents of TP which has inherited many of them through pararipara. The edition of Dhavala has already quoted the parallel passages from

Page #10
10 TILOYAPANNATTI the s of TP. Similarly another passage which Dhavala specifically attributes to TP (Dhavala III, pp. 36, second reference with foot-note No. 1) has corresponding contenta in TP as shown in the foot-notes of the edition of Dhavala. v) Pt. Phulachandra draws the attention of readers to a passage in the TP (p. 766) which mentions TP-sutta; and his conclusion is that the present TP is quoting this passage from Dhavala (IV. pp. 152-157) which rightly mentions an earlier TP. Pt. Jugalkishore has thoroughly scrutinised this argument; and as he shows, the passage concerned is not quite in its place; and in all probability it is prakyipta and added in TP by some intelligent reader from the Dhavala. As I have shown above from an evidence casually left in the Mss, of TP that eminent Saiddhantikas (expert in the Siddhants, namely, Dhavala, Jayadhavala etc.) like Balacandra have handled the text of TP, and there is nothing surprising that some excerpts from the Dhavala were added on the margin for elucidation, and later on they got themselves mixed with the text of TP. The present text is certainly longer than eight thousand Slokas; and this extra bulk may have been due to such interpolations, alternative views and elucidatory passages. Thus all the arguments advanced by Pt. Phulachandra to show that TP is later than Dhavala and that the author of Dhavala had another TP before him contain hardly any strength; and they do not at all prove his position. It is one thing to admit interpolations here and there and it is another to postulate another TP. Further his proposition that Jinasens is the author of the present TP has absolutely no evidence at all. 4. Some Aspects of TP Here may be reviewed in passing some of the important aspects of the contents of TP which is not only a work of great authority but also of antiquity. It is primarily a text of the Karananuyoga group, dealing with the detailed description of all about and all that is to be known in the three worlds. In the very shaping of this huge text, however, many sections of interesting information have got themselves included in it; and a student of Jaina dogmatics and literature has to search for their earlier and later counterparts and institute a comparative study. Being a work of traditionally inherited. contents, the TP might show contact with the contents of earlier works without being directly indebted to them and with those of later works without its being directly used. The contents can be studied comparatively, but the chronological relation and mutual indebtedness require to be ascertained on independent grounds. So far as the Karananuyoga material (with its requisite details and mathematical formulae of calculation etc.) is concerned the contents of TP are closely allied to the Surya(Bombay 1910), Candra-, and Jambudvipa-prajnapti (Bombay 1920) of the Ardhamagadhi canon, and to other ancient and modern works in Prakrit and Sanskrit, such as Lokavibhaga, Dhavala and Jayadhavala commentaries (referred to above), Jambudvipaprajnapti-samgraha (still in Ms., see Indian Historical Quarterly, vol. XIV, pp. 188 PS), Trilokasara (Bombay 1917) and Trailokya-dipika (still in MS.). What Kirfel has presented in his Die Kosmographie der Inder (Bonn u. Leipzig 1920) deserves to be compared in details with the contents of TP. Turning to the incidental topics, the discussion about Mangals, indeed a traditional topic, deserves comparison with what we get in the Visesavadyakabhasya of Jinabhadra (in two parts, with Gujarati translation, Surat Samvat 1980-83), Dhavala commentary and in the commentary of Jayasena on the Pancastikaya (Bombay 1915) Jinabhadragaui's Ksetrasamisa and Samgrahani also deserve to be compared with TP.

Page #11
INTRODUCTION LI The enumeration of eighteen Srenis and the definitions of terms Maharaja eta (I. 43 f.) give us some idea of the royal hierarchy and paraphernalia in ancient India. The definitions of units of matter like Paramanu, units of space like Angula and units of time like Vyavahara palya clearly indicate the attempts at accurate description of contemporary knowledge, and all this is practically used in measuring the universe. These topics are discussed in Dhavala and Jayadhavala commentaries as well. The most interesting section in the Fourth Mahadhikara is the enumeratian of various details about the Salakapurusas on whom elaborate works have been written in Sanskrit, Prakrit and other languages by eminent authors like Jinasena-and-Gunabhadra (Mahapurana in Sk.), Silacarya (Mahapurusa-carita in Pk.), Puspadanta (Tisatthimahapurisa-gunalamkaru in Apabhramsa), Hemacandra (Trisasti-salakapurusa-carita Sk.), Camundaraya (Trisasti-laksana-Mahapurana in Kannada), the anonymous Sripurana (in Tamil) etc. These lives of Salakapurusas have given rise to a pretty large number of works, some of them including all the great men and some dealing with individual biographies. The Jaina literary tradition has inherited most of these details from a pretty ancient age, and capable authors picked up whatever they liked from this lot and dressed their compositions either in a Puranic or poetic format. Details allied to those found in TP we get in other works like the Samavayanga (Sutra 156 onwards, pp. 139 PS, Bombay ed., with Abhayadeva's com.), Vieesavasyakabhasya (Agamodaya Samiti ed. with Guj. translation, Surat Samvat 1980, part I, Parisista pp. 545 ff.). The lives of Tirthakaras include many dogmatical topics and descriptive details like those of Samayasarana, of Rddhis, military expedition of Cakravartin etc. which have proved almost a pattern for later authors who deal with these subjects. For easy reference some of these details about Tirthakaras from the TP are tabulated at the end of this volume. The details from various sources deserve to be compared with a view to note the differences and mark the growth of details. The post-Mahavira Jaina chronology (pp. 338 f.) is highly interesting not only for the history of Jaina church and literature but also for the history of India in view of the dynasties and kings mentioned and periods assigned to them. The alternative views about the relation between the date of the Nirvana of Mahavira and that of the Saka king clearly show how the author of TP had to face different opinions on that problem: quite frankly he presents them as they were. The references to kings like Palaka, Pusyamitra, Vasumitra, Agnimitra, Gandharva, Naravahana, Kalki etc. have a historical value. The description of different regions with their rivers, mountains and people may not have much value for a student of present-day geography; but to understand the back-ground of Jaina literature in its proper perspective, a careful study of these details is essential, because the Jaina authors were fully imbued with these details. It is equally true with regard to the heavenly and astronomical details in other chapters. The description of Siddhas, the ways of self-reflection etc. (in the concluding Mahadhikara ) constitute an ancient property of peculiar Jaina ideology; and corresponding ideas, in quite similar terms, are found in the Siddhabhakti in Prakrit, in the concluding verses of Ovoiyam, and in the various works of Kundakunda. Not only in contents but also in actual wording of the gathis or portions of them the TP is allied to many other works. Many of them are ancient, traditional verses incorporated by different authors in their works. Some of the works are earlier and some later in age than TP; so mutual borrowal is possible in some cases of close agreement

Page #12
12 TILOYAPANNATTI I could make only a partial attempt. I hope, others would spot many such verses in various works. These gathas fall into two broad groups: those that are identical with dialectal variations; and those that nearly or partly agree in contents. Compare Mulacara (Bombay Sam. 1977-80) V. 34 (last pada slightly different), XII. 81-2 with TP I. 95, VII. 614-15; so also Mu. XII. 37-40, 62, 107-8, 115, 136-37, 150 with TP V. 28-31, IV. 2952, VIII. 685-6, II. 290, VIII. 680-81, III. 186. Compare Pancastikaya (Bombay 1915) 75, 146, 152 with TP I. 95, IX. 20, 21. Compare Pravacanasara (Bombay 1935) I. 1, 9, 11, 12, 13, 77, II. 69, 70, 103 with TP IX. 73, 56, 57, 58, 59, 54, 29, 30, 50; so also Prava. I. 52, II, 54*3, 68,99 (also III. 4), 102, 104, III. 39 with TP IX, 64, II. 277, IX. 28, 34, 33, 19, 37. Compare Samayasara (Bombay 1919) 11*1, 38, 69, 154 with TP IX. 23, 24, 63, 53; so also Samaya. 19, 36, 188, 306 with TP IX. 43, 25, 47, 49. Compare Bhagavati Aradhana (Sholapur ed.) 886-87, 916, 922, 1583 with TP IV. 628-9, 634, 635, 618; so also Bhaga. 883-9, 904, 935 with TP IV. 629, 630, 636. The Paramatma-prakasa of Joindu (Bombay 1937) is in Apabhramsa. One of its verses II. 60 is in a different dialect. Its presence in the Paramatma-p. is sufficiently authentic. But for its last pada it is identical with TP IX. 52. Possibly Joindu himself has quoted it just putting the last pada into the first person to agree with the general tone of his composition. Compare TP I. 95 with Gommatasara (Jivakanda, Bombay 1916) 603; so also TP III. 180-81, IV. 2952, VIII. 685 f. with Jiva. 426-27, 82, 429 f. (also Visesavasyakabhasya 695). Compare TP III. 9, IV. 2206, VI. 42-4, 48-9, VII, 530, VIII. 566 with Trilokasara 209, 687, 265-67, 271-72, 411, 531; so also TP III. 38, IV. 2598 (slso 2818) VI. 38-41 with Trilo. 215, 761, 261-63. The Sanskrit Lokavibhaga, which is not published as yet, contains a large number of gathis quoted from TP. The Jambuddiyapannatti of Paumanamdi also contains a few gathas inherited from TP which has influenced its format as well. Maghanandi has written an exhaustive Kannada commentary (Belgaum 1916) on the sutras of the Sastrasarasamuccaya. He has richly interspersed it with quotations in Prakrit, Sanskrit and Kannada, of course without specifying their sources. The Prakrit ones are printed most corruptly. Even by a casual search I find that the following gathas from TP are quoted on the pages of the S. noted in brackets: TP IV. 1614-23 (pp. 7-8), 1500-1 (p. 28), 1534, 1544 (p. 30), 522-5 (p. 32), 550, 642, 643 (p. 35), 675-78 (pp. 37-8), 901-3, 905, 929 (p. 46), 1472-73 (p. 56); VIII, 168 (P. 107). The gathas are so corrupt in the printed copy of the commentary that it is often difficult to detect their identity in the TP. 5. Concluding Remarks The first part of TP was published by the middle of 1943, and we regret that it took seven years to put the second part in the hands of impatient readers. The reasons for delay were manifold and mostly beyond our control. Scarcity of paper and difficulties in the Press not only slowed down our speed but often threatened also to put a full stop to our work for a while. Thanks to the Manager of the Press that the printing went on though slowly. Then the compilation and printing of the Indices involved a good deal of labour. Lastly, the editors (as one of them was seeing the Yasastilaka and Indian culture by Professor Handiqui through the press required a bit more time to finish the Introduc

Page #13
INTRODUCTION 13 tions. Any way it is a matter of great relief and satisfaction for the Editors that this long awaited part is out now. The sharing of work by the collaborators has been practically the same as in the first part. The Indices included in this part have been all prepared by Pt. Balachandaji. The presence of two Introductions, one in English and the other in Hindi, by the two Editors needs a little explanation. Both of us, Dr. Hiralalaji and myself, mutually exchanged our notes but separately drafted our Introductions freely using each others material. Naturally there is much common between the two; still here and there slight difference in evaluating the evidence might be felt. As we are dealing with a very important work, we have expressed ourselves independently on certain points so that the path of future studies shouid be quite open. The TP is a stiff work and has consequently involved a great deal of co-operative labour on the part of the Editors. Dr. Hiralalaji, as mentioned in the first part, has immensely helped me throughout this work: due to his readiness to help and genial temper I never felt the burden of this work. Pt. Balachandraji was on the spot and saved much of our trouble in proof-correction especially of the Hindi matter. The Elitors record their sense of gratitude to Br. Jivarajaji, the founder of the Mala, and sincerly thank the Trustees and the Members of the Prabandha Samiti for their co-operation in completing this volume. The publication of an authentic text is only the first step towards the study of any work; and we hope, many scholars will get themselves interested in TP in view of its rich dogmatical and cultural material. Kolhapur, June 18t, 1950S A. N. Upadhye