Jain Journal 1996 01

Author(s): Jain Bhawan Publication
Publisher: Jain Bhawan Publication
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/520121/1

Page #1

ISSN 0021-4043 A QUARTERLY
ON JAINOLOGY
VOL. XXX
No. 3. JANUARY
1996
Jain JOUrnal
॥जैन भवन॥ JAIN BHAWAN PUBLICATION

Page #2

Contents
Punyakusala's Indebtedness to Māgha Dr Satya Vrat
Dānacintāmani Attimabbe
Dr Kamala Hampana
Vijayadeva Sūri of Tapāgaccha
Rāmvallabh Somāni
Book Review :
King Sūdraka and His Drama by Biswanath Banerjee
Satya Ranjan Banerjee Syntactic Studies of Indo-Aryan Languages by Sukumar Sen
Satya Ranjan Banerjee

Page #3

BOOK REVIEW
Biswanath Banerjee-King Śūdraka and His Drama, Orientalia, Collana di Studi Orientali del CESMEO diretta da Irma Piovano, V, Torino, Italy, 1994, pp. 215, price. £. 35.000 or $ 25.
The world of Prakrit and Sanskrit is enriched by the publication of Biswanath Banerjee's King Śūdraka and His Drama, because the drama Mṛcchakaṭika of Śūdraka belongs to both the languages. Very few scholars (can be counted on fingers) have seriously attempted to study exhaustively the different aspects of the Mṛcchakatika, and its author Śūdraka. From the time of its first appearance in 1829 (Mṛcchakatika, with a commentary explanatory of the Prakrit passages, Calcutta, 1829, pp. 2+343) till today, though edited texts and translations in English, French, German, Dutch, Swedish, Danish, Italian, Russian and in many other languages of Europe have been done, the studies of the drama are very few. Historically, though we may trace the studies of the Mṛcchakatika as early as 1826 by H.H. Wilson and followed by H.C. Kellner (1872), by Mahesh Nyāyaratna (1877), E. Windisch (1885), Sylvain Levy (1890), A. Boltz (1894) and others, their studies are only on some aspects of the drama, and not on a systematic pattern. It was Nishi Kanta Chaṭṭopadhyāya who made a study of the drama as early as 1902 (mentioned by Banerjee) by pointing out the many-sidedness of Śūdraka. The book was long out of print and now it is edited, revised, and augmented with an Introduction, Bibliography and extracts by Satya Ranjan Banerjee. Even then a thorough study of the Mṛcchakatika was a desideratum,and Professor Banerjee has fulfilled that long-felt want. In the Corpus of India Studies, Calcutta, 1980, pp. 281-296, Biswanath Banerjee also wrote an article on King Śūdraka and the role of Śakāra in the Mṛcchakaṭika.
It is, therefore, quite in the fitness of things that Professor Banerjee with his long standing research experience has undertaken such a project for the benefit of the scholarly world. It goes without saying that Professor Banerjee has shown his critical faculty in describing the different aspects of Śūdraka and his drama.
The book has seven chapters and three appendices along with Prefatory Note, Introduction and select Bibliography. In the Prefatory Note the writer has stated that it is "a brilliant composition in the

Page #4

BOOK REVIEW
93
history of World Classicial Literature remarkable for its exceptional dramatic qualities and unique in its content, character and treatment" (p. 9). The author has also said that he will make an effort to appreciate Südraka's dramatic skill and will try to assess his merits through a critical and analytical study of the immortal classic, and the book is a reflection of his promises.
In the Introduction the author has delineated the general aspects of the drama, the pattern of plot and sub-plot, the unique nature of the composition of the drama, and above all, a sort of appreciation that makes the drama quite readable. On the whole, though this Introduction is brief, it makes the beginning of the treatise remarkable.
His chapter I on Authorship and Date is quite straightforward. Two points are discussed side by side. His conclusion is that "the dramatist flourished between the first and the second centuries of the Christian era and we do not find any reason why the drama should not be ascribed to a person named Sūdraka and who was a king as well” (p. 36). Though the discussion of Professor Banerjee seems to be quite lively and not controversial, and there is no reason why we should not adhere to his conclusion, there are still some other considerations which need clarification before any new theory is propagated. The date of Sūdraka varies from 2nd century B.C. to 7th cent. A.D., of which two dates are considered acceptable--2nd cent. B.C. or 2nd cent. A.D.-of which again most of the scholars cling to the second one. Unless any new material is discovered, these two dates will remain tentative. This much can be said that the word nanaka (I. 23) meaning 'coin' is not the surest indication to fix his date after the first century A.D. as this coin "is supposed to have come into vogue in India by the time of Kanişka". It appears to me that the word ņāņaka in verse I. 23 may not mean "coin", but it could be jñānaka (knowledge') as the literary appreciation demands it from the context. Professor Banerjee has also suggested this meaning at p.81. (For a fuller discussion see my forthcoming publication, Samsksta Sahitya Samālocanā Samgraha, pp 225ff.). There was a time when the word ņānaka had led the scholars to believe that the word ņānaka in the Mşcchakatika referred to a Buddhist coin. But the time has come now to change that earlier view. However does not detract in any way from the merit of the discussion on the date of Śūdraka, particularly when his life is terribly shrouded in darkness. But yet I shall say that Professor Banerjee's treatment of the subject is remarkable and praiseworthy. This dull and insipid problem has become lively by his lucid and florid style of presentation.

Page #5

94
JAIN JOURNAL: Vol-XXX, No. 3. January 1996
His chapter II deals with the sources of the drama. The author has merely said that the story element of the drama has resemblances with some stories in the Kathasaritsagara, Dasakumāracarita, in the Nayadhamma-kahão, and in the Buddhist Jātakas. The writer has also shown which stories have the semblances with what texts. Professor Banerjee admits that it is difficult to solve the problem for want of adequate data. But this much can be said that most of the authors might have taken the story-elements from floating stories like Udayanakatha, Carudattakathā,, Naravahanadattakathā etc. as we have the Arthurian legends in the middle Europe (550-1500 A.D.), from which most of the European writers have drawn their storyelements. The similarity of Carudatta story in Bhasa and Śūdraka is a problem which is difficult to solve at this stage, and that is why the writer has not touched upon this problem. But yet I admire Professor Banerjee for his impartial, balanced opinion about the problem. Personally, I enjoyed very much reading this chapter.
In all probability his chapter III on Critical Appreciation is the highest and the best in delineating the merit of Sudraka's composition. In a nutshell, the writer has rightly pointed out that "our dramatist has an excellent command over sense and sound. In his intelligent selection of words and phrases he has exhibited his skill in making the dialogues lively, refreshing and attractive" (p. 43). This chapter of the author manifests his appreciation about Śūdraka, and the author has also shown his alacrity in depicting them. Professor Banerjee's penmanship is excellent in this respect. Though lots of controversies may gather round this chapter, it is pretty certain that the writer's views are clear and in true perspective.
In chapter IV, Professor Banerjee has analysed the plot of the drama. It offers act-wise summary along with some comments here and there. The presentation of the story elements is quite readable.
Professor Banerjee has shown his mastery over depicting the characters of the drama (chapter V). The major characters are Carudatta, Vasantasenā, Maitreya and Śakāra. Except Śakāra, in all other characters the writer is straightforward, but very cautious in presenting them. The writer is a bit lavish on Carudatta and Vasantasena. But in the case of Śakāra, his outlook is quite different. I believe this chapter is unique and proves the power of observation of the writer.
Humour (ch. VI) is one of the features of Sanskrit dramas and the Mṛcchakatika is full of it. Long ago, D.K. Kanjilal wrote a treatise on

Page #6

BOOK REVIEW
Humour in Sanskrit Literature (Samskṛta Sahitye Häsyarasa) where he had shown how the Sanskrit Kavya-writers were conscious about it. But the present author has surpassed all his predecessors, particularly in the case of the Mṛcchakatika. The writer has given several examples with English translation. We only wish he had given more than what were presented in the chapter. I hope the readers will enjoy this chapter.
95
The contemporary society (ch. VII) as depicted by Professor Banerjee in the seventh chapter of his book is mainly based on the Mṛcchakaṭika, even though the author has said that "the Mṛcchakatika and the Dasakumaracarita are the two major works in Sanskrit literature which provide us with the most detailed information about their respective times" (p. 114). The subject is so vast and the materials are so abundant that it is impossible to give a complete picture of the society of the Mṛcchakatika in thirteen pages, but yet the author has described them in a compact way. By reading this chapter we are quite at home with the society of Śūdraka. All his references point to the time of Sūdraka alone. Though R.G. Basak, as early as 1929 wrote an article (Indian Society as pictured in the Mṛcchakatika, IHQ, Vol-V, 1929, pp. 299-325) on the society of the Mṛcchakatika, Banerjee's scope has gone beyond the periphery of that article. Incidentally, he has compared with other literary documents to show how those features of the society have perpetuated down to the later stages. Professor Banerjee is right when he concludes: "The society of Śūdraka seems to have been a rich, opulent and lively one with all virtues and vices, qualities and defects, strength and weaknesses that can be conceived of any society of any time in any country" (p. 125).
One of the good things of the book is the selection of some verses and good sayings in the appendices A and B. Although the text is not edited, some 105 beautiful verses and 52 proverbial sayings have been selected in original with English translation and notes. These verses will enable the readers to appreciate the best part of the drama, and to know the power of observation of Śūdraka as a dramatist, and these will serve the purpose of almost reading the text. The English translation is very apt and will help the reader to understand the text. These selections will also prove what Professor Banerjee has said in his earlier chapters about Śūdraka.
In appendix C (Selected important words in the Mṛcchakatika), some interesting words from the Mṛcchakatika are picked up and have been explained. This theme is a new one, and I personally feel

Page #7

96
that this is one of the unique features of the book. Most of the words are interesting and will help the lexicographers to take note of them for their Dictionaries. One such interesting word is Pkt. ṇāņaka (I. 23). At page 204, he gives the meaning "a kind of coin" which is the common meaning of the word; but at p. 81, he incidentally mentions that Pkt. ṇāna could be Skt. jñāna which meaning he could also give in the appendix.
JAIN JOURNAL: Vol-XXX, No. 3. January 1996
Himanahe could be hi + māṇaha where hi stands for dhik and māṇaha (-Skt. mānadha, mānam dhatte iti) 'one who cherishes honour in him', therefore, 'man'. himāṇahe, therefore, means 'Oh, man', i.e. 'Oh what a man, I am'. Secondarily, it means 'Oh, alas', So grammarians say himanahe vismaya-nirvede (Hemacandra IV. 282) "which means 'in Sauraseni the word himānahe is used in the sense of surprise (vismaya) and grief (nirveda)".
Another interesting word given by him is godda as in aham de munde goddam daissam (V. 11.43) 'I shall set my foot on your head', and kim niaḍeņa vaddhā se goḍḍā (VII. 4.13). 'Are her feet bound up by chains?' The etymology of the word is uncertain. It is regarded as a Desi-word; but neither goda nor is godda recorded by Hemacandra (1088-1172 A.D.) in his Deśīnāmamālā, even though it was used in the Mṛcchakatika. The word may be reconstructed from a Desi-word goda with the suffix-rak making it *goḍra, a hyper-Sanskritization, meaning being, 'the root of a tree', and therefore, 'a foot', i.e.. *goḍra > Pkt. goḍda > Hindi goda, Bengali goḍāli with-āli suffix. The parallel can be drawn from anghrior amhri. Just as from angh/amh 'to set out', 'to go', 'to commence', we have anghri and amhri (with -ri suffix) meaning 'a foot', or 'the root of a tree', lit. 'by which we move or go', i.e. 'a foot', so also we form the word godda from *goḍra (with -rak suffix).
Another tricky word is gāmelua 'rustics'. It could be grāma with elu + (k)ā gāma + elu + ā = gāmelua (cf. Pischel § 595). The suffix - elu is used instead of -illa in Prakrit in the sense of 'having that', e.g., gāmilla (alvi-llo-lla-la-vanta-mante-tttera-manā matoḥ, HC. II. 159), and the Sanskrit equivalent of gamilla is given as grāmiņa or grāmya. Some may like to give the etymology from Sanskrit grāmelukāḥ, meaning thereby 'one who finds (luk) his livelihood from roaming village to village', and therefore 'an aimless man', 'a rustic fellow'. They consider luka from the root luk 'to see', 'to find' (cf. avalokana). Hemacandra has not recorded this as a Desi-word, but has recorded another word gamaroḍo (Desināma II.90) [which Trivikrama says as gāmareḍo], as a Desi-word. The meaning of this word is applied to gāmelua also. The meaning of gamarodo as given by Hemacandra is
=

Page #8

BOOK REVIEW
97
as follows : chalena grāmabhoktā antarbhedam krtvā yo māyayā grāmam bhunakti—one who creates disunion among the inhabitants of village and earns his livelihood thereby'. However, it is true that the etymology of the word is not clear.
The meaning of vuddhakola or vuddhakhoda is given as 'an old jackal'. This does not seem to be the correct meaning. khoda is a Deśī-word (HC. II. 80) meaning 'lame' (khañja) cf. Bengali khoạā, 'a lame man'. So vệddhakhoda may mean ‘an old lame man', instead of vsddha-śrgāla as given by the commentator. In a similar way, kola may stand for khola which is a Deś7-word meaning 'a small donkey (laghu-gardhabha-HC). So vuddhakola may be 'an old donkey (usddha-gardhabha) instead of a jackal (śrgāla).
The Prakrit kuluttha-jūša may be Skt kulattha-yūṣa instead of kulittha-yūşa, because in Pāṇini's sūtra (kulattha-kopadhād an, IV. 4.4) the word kulattha ‘a kind of pulse' is recorded. The word is used in the Ayurveda also as a kind of herb from which medicine is prepared.
Whatever etymology is offered, hulubhulim is a sort of onomatopoetic word which is connected with Skt. hulihuli meaning, ‘nuptial music', then 'roaring'. 'howling", or hulahuli 'inarticulate sounds made by women on joyful occasions', then huluhula, 'an exclamation of joy'. So the sentence - ovālida-salile gadia śiāle bhavia hulubhulim kaledi (VIII. 30.13) means 'going perhaps with his body concealed and acting like a jackal might make a roaring or howling sound'. hulubhulim does not mean kapata 'false' or 'cheat', because the sentence begins with kavada-kāvaţike ese bamhane .... 'this sly deceitful Brahmin'.
There is no need of saying that this list of words is not complete, far from it; but it would have been better, if the author had included some more words on the list. For example, goha in laddhe gohe (II. 6.8). Here goha is translated in Sanskrit as manusya, 'a man'. But etymologically goha could be a gunated form of the root gūh, 'to conceal meaning thereby 'an absconder' 'palātaka'. So laddhe gohe means 'an absconder is got' (i.e. found). Some might also say that goha might come from *goghna which becomes *goggha in Pkt. and then *gogha which becomes goha meaning ‘killer of cows', an abusive term used to a low type of people. The first meaning is more appropriate than the second as far as the context is concerned.
The world of Prakrit would have been much benefited, had

Page #9

98
JAIN JOURNAL : Vol-XXX, No. 3. January 1996
Professor Banerjee devoted a chapter to the language of the drama. The Mrcchakatika is a farrago of Prakrit dialects and as such it is interesting. However, this has not diminished the merit of the work
In fine, we can say that both the author and the publisher are to be congratulated for undertaking such a publication for the benefit of the academic world. The book is well-bound and printed, and the quality of paper is exceedingly nice. I believe every lover of Sanskrit and Prakirt will welcome this book, and their library will be adorned by the inclusion of this publication.
Satya Ranjan Banerjee
Sukumar Sen-Syntactic Studies of Indo-Aryan Languages, Institute for the study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, Tokyo, 1995, pp. 402.
The Prakrit language has been crowned by the reprint of the Historical Syntax of Middle Indo-Aryan by Sukumar Sen together with his other two books on Syntax, namely, The Use of the Cases in Vedic Prose and Syntactic Studies of Buddhist Sanskrit. These three books of Sukumar Sen have been reprinted by the Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, Tokyo, 1995, under the title, Syntactic Studies of IndoAryan Languages. All these three books became out of print for a long time. In the language of T. Nara who in his Foreword says that in order to fulfil his guru's (i.e. Sukumer Sen's) last wish he wants to see "a buried treasure book taken out and opened once again under the sun-light to gratify all those scholars and specialists who had been long devoid of opportunity to get access to the precious academic information contained therein". It is indeed true to say that the Tokyo Institution has rendered yeoman service to the scholarly world by reprinting these books.
There is no denying the fact that the Syntactic Studies will promote the historical and comparative studies of Indo-Aryan languages on syntax matters. His studies on syntax, particularly on the Middle Indo-Aryan, is a pioneering work and will act as a torch-bearer for the future generations. That is why, even after the lapse of so many years, we still feel the necessity of consulting his syntaxes. It would have been better, if his another article entitled, Notes on the use of the Cases in the Kathaka-Samhitā, published in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, New series, Vol-XXI, 1925, pp. 1-28, were published in the same volume. Though short, the inclusion of this article would have certainly enhanced the quality of this book.

Page #10

BOOK REVIEW
The study of Indo-Aryan syntax started, in a sense, from the first quarter of the nineteenth century. E. Burnouf's Sur un usage remarquable de l' infinitif sanscrit (Journal Asiatique 1824, pp. 120ff) is more or less the first attempt to understand the use of Infinitive in Sanskrit. But the major contributions to syntax are made by Berthold Delbrück in several of his books and papers beginning from 1864 down to 1900, the remarkable among them being Der Gebrauch des Conjunctivs und Optativs in Sanskrit und Griechischen, Halle, 1871; Altindische Tempuslehre, Halle, 1877; Die Altindische Wortfolge aus dem Çatapatha-brāhmaṇa, Halle, 1878; Altindische Syntax, Halle, 1888, and Grundriss der Vergleichenden Grammatik der Indogermanischen Sprachen in three volumes, Strassburg, 1893-1900. The last one is a comparative IE syntax with other IE languages. Almost forgotten is the work of A. Hoefer's Vom Infinitiv besonders im Sanskrit, Berlin, 1840. Later on, Alfred Ludwig's Der Infinitiv im Veda mit Systematik des Litauischen und Slavischen Verbs, Prague, 1871, is a comparison of Vedic Infinitive with Lithuanian and Slavic. So also the works of Eugenius Wilhelm's De infinitivi linguarum Sanskritae(1873) and E. Herzog's Die Syntax des Infinitivs (Jahrbücher für Klassische Philologie, 1873, pp. 1-33), and Julius Jolly's Geschichte des Infinitivs im Indogermanischen, München, 1873, are the contributions to the Infinitives. J.S. Speijer's two books on Syntax (Sanskrit Syntax, Leiden, 1886, and Vedische und Sanskrit Syntax, Strassburg, 1889,) though small in size, yet famous for Sanskrit syntax. Delbrück's books on syntax have already been mentioned. Apart from W.D. Whitney's Sanskrit Grammar (1879, 3rd edn. 1896) where he has discussed the Sanskrit Syntax inter alia in treating morphology, his article "On the Narrative use of Imperfect and Perfect in the Brāhmaṇas” (Transactions of the American Philological Association, 1892, pp. 5-34) is worth mentioning in this context.
99
But the first half of the twentieth century was flooded with cartloads of Literature on Sanskrit syntax. A volume will be required to register them. In the year of Dr Sen's first instalment of the use of the cases in Vedic Prose appeared Hanns Oertel's The Syntax of Cases in the Narrative and Descriptive Prose of the Brāhmaṇas, Heidelberg, 1926, and Jacob Wackernagel's Vorlesungen über Syntax, Basel, 1926. After that we have hosts of scholars who worked on Sanskrit syntax. But none have practically surpassed Dr Sen's contribution to the subject. All his three treatises are inundated with copious examples not only from Sanskrit, but also occasionally from Avestan and Greek. Incidentally it can be mentioned in this connection that L.H. Gray's two articles on Avestan syntax (Contribution to Avestan

Page #11

100
JAIN JOURNAL: Vol-XXX, No. 3. January 1996
Syntax: the Conditional Sentences, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol-12, No. 13, 1900, pp. 549-588 and the Preterite Tenses of the Indicative, JAOS, Vol-21, 1900, pp. 112-145, are the earlist studies of the subject.
But the study of syntax on Middle Indo-Aryan is almost a barren subject. Dr Sen contributed to it for the first time. Historically, though some scholars have done some works on MIA syntax, but they are not worth mentioning in comparison with Dr Sen. Siegfried Goldschmidt has written one article on Prakrit Infinitive (Der Infinitiv des Passivs in Prākṛt, ZDMG, 28, 1874, Leipzig, pp. 491-493). Otto Franke as early as 1890 wrote his Die Casuslehre des Pāņini Vergleichen mit dem Gebrauch des Casus im Pali und in den Aśoka-inscriften, Beiträge zur Kunde der Indogermanischen Sprachen, Göttingen, 1890, where the application of Panini's rules in Pali and Aśokan Inscriptions is found. But in the twentieth century, apart from Dr Sen, A.N. Upadhye and A.M. Ghatage have done some stray works on the subject. Upadhye's Syntactic Position of Preposition, IHQ, IX, 1933, pp. 98788, is an illustration of the subject. In a sense, Ghatage has contributed much more than Upadhye. Ghatage's major contributions areInstrumental and Locative in Ardhamāgadhi (IHQ, XIII, 1937, pp. 5258), Repetition in Prakrit Syntax (NIA. 11, 1939, pp. 47-55) and Concord in Prakrit Syntax (ABORI, XXI, 1940, pp. 73-96). In his Introduction to Ardhamāgadhi, Kolhapur, 1951, he has a chapter on Ardhamāgadhi syntax. But Dr Sen started working on MIA syntax from 1928 onwards. From 1939 (IL, Vol-VII, 1939, pp. 65-86, 180-86; IX, 1944, pp. 10-29) till the appearance of the Historical Syntax of Middle Indo-Aryan in 1953 (IL. XIII, 1953, pp. 1-68 and then as a separate book, 1953), Dr Sen had continuously worked on the subject. But after Dr Sen the subject has not advanced much.
So the Syntactic Studies of Indo-Aryan Languages is a timely reprint for which the Tokyo University of Foreign Studies is to be congratulated. The book is exceptionally well-bound, the paper and printing are both excellent, and overall get-up is attractive. I am sure that the scholars will be much benefited by the reprint of these three syntaxes.

Satya Ranjan Banerjee

Page #12

JAIN JOURNAL
Vol. XXX
No.3 January
1996
PUŅYAKUŚALA'S INDEBTEDNESS TO MĀGHA
DR SATYA VRAT
As discussed elsewhere?, the Trişaşțisalākāpuruşacarita (TȘŚPc.) of Hemacandra forms the basis of Punyakusala's Bharatabāhubalimahākāvya (BBM.)2 which seeks to detail in eighteen cantos, a brief episode from the life of Bharata, the first Cakravartin celebrated in the Jaina tradition, with such poetic trappings as the mahākāvya admits with profusion, though it has occasionally drawn upon the Adipurāna as well. To be sure, the two burly texts represent respectively the Svetāmbara and Digambasra versions of the fascinating story of Bharata's fight with his refractory younger brother, Bāhubali and its resultant sublimation, with the heady combatants ultimately discarding worldly glory that driven them to the suicidal course of deadly confrontation. While in the conception of his story Punyakusala's indebtedness to the aforesaid Purānas is beyond question, in its execution he seems to follow with a measure of tenacity, the sequence of Māgha's poem which is known to have exercised powerful influence on the successive generation of Sanskrit poets. The quantum of debt that Punyakusala owes to the author of the
alavadha can be gauged from the fact that it extends to both the substantial and the peripheral.
In imitation of Māgha, Punyakusala has plunged headlong in the story without so much as observing the formality of the benediction. The two poems thus concur in having what is known in the jargon of the poeticians as the vastunirdeśātmaka type of mangalācarana. The Sisupälavadha has earned the sobriquet of śryankakāvya, because of its deliberate use of the auspicious word Sri in the last verse of each canto. By skilfully interweaving the phrase punyodaya in tl concluding verse of each canto, Punyakusala has not only respected the tradition, but has also thereby made a veiled reference to his name, which is otherwise conspicuous by its absence in the poem. The Śišupālavadha is marked in its beginning by Nārada's descent
heavens which has prompted the author into a bout of rich 1. SATYA VRAT: Studies in Jaina Sanskrit Literature, Delhi, 1994, pp. 168-175. 2. Jaina Vishwa Bharati, Ladnun, 1974. 3. For example - kşitipati-bhavanamyātyanta punyodayādhyam BBM I. 79.

Page #13

74
JAIN JOURNAL: Vol-XXX, No. 3. January 1996
imagery. With respect to the true identity of the emerging figure. Punyakuśala's poem, on the other hand, opens with the despatch of an envoy to Bahubali to secure his submission to his elder brother Bharata. While Narada succeeds in his mission, the envoy draws a resounding rebuff from the lord of Taxila, making the clash thus inevitable for the haughty brothers.
Three of Punyakusala's cantos (VI-VIII) are infested with sizable descriptions of the march of Bharata's army, its encampment and subsequent departure besides the time-worn digression like the sports of the soldier-couples and their sexual orgy, as also the sketches of scenic beauties. The descriptions of love-sports and sexual orgy are supposed to have no locus standi in the Jaina Purāņas. They are indeed conspicuous by their absence in the TSSPC. But surprisingly, Jinasena has detailed with abandon all these frivolities including the sexual orgy (35. 152-236), the only difference is that in the Adipurāṇa these concern themselves with Bahubali's soldiery. Punyakuśala, however, is not indebted to Jinasena for these trappings. He evidently owes them to Magha (VII-XI) who has been instrumental in providing sound footing to these mannerisms. It would not be unreasonable to presume that even Jinasena was indebted to the illustrious author of the Sisupālavadha for these poetic aberration, otherwise the very idea of this reckless orgy in the midst of the sainyaprayana is simply abhorrent in a writing like the Adipuraanṇa.
While Magha's descriptions are distinguished by prolixity and ornate style, those in the BBM are on a subdued note. Contrary to Māgha, Punyakuśala has shunned to detail the various types of heroines in the course of the love-sports of the soldiery, though his descriptions are not wholly void of the mannerism. While the aśārada (prauḍhā) nāyikā is expressly mentioned in the BBM, a veiled reference is made to the kalahāntaritā, mugdhā and khaṇḍitā. Māgha's descriptions are loaded with sastric contents, while in Punyakusala they are marked by ease and simplicity. But he is so charmed by Magha's description some of the ideas and motifs from him. However, whatever their worth, the love-sports of the Yadus do not square even with Magha's theme dominated by the heroric sentiment; their descriptions by the Jaina monks with gay abandon in a poem which culminates in renunciation is not only absurd, it tends to make a mockery of his much-acclaimed puritanism.
4. ...nayita citta kāmamunatya saradā. BBM. VII.21. Also VII.37, 41-42 5. Kalahāntarită, BBM. VII.59; Khanḍitā, BBM. VIII. 37-38. 6. Sisupälavadha, VII 21, BBM., VII. 21; Śisu. VII. 52: BBM; VII. 31 etc.

Page #14

VRAT PUNYAKUSALA'S INDEBTEDNESS TO MAGHA
Not unlike the Sisupālavadba (XVIII - XX), two of the cantos in the BBM are devoted to the description of the yuddha. The encounter of the rival forces, as detailed in the BBM, is not traceable to either of its main sources. It is unmistakably suggested and inspired by the terrific clash between the armies of Kṛṣṇa and Sisupāla, described with verve in the eighteenth canto of the Maghakāvya. Contos fourteen and fifteen of the BMM are imbued with an aura of the traditional Caritakavyas. Herein are encountered the hackneyed motifs like the gearing up of the soldiery, their self-vaunts, terrific cries of the heady warriors, trumpetings of the elephants and dances of the headless bodies (kabandhas). These mannerisms, howsoever, banal and worthless, owe themselves to Magha (XVII-XVIII) and serve as prelude to the final encounter. It is interesting to find that originating in Magha, these motifs had filtered down to the Viragāthā and Ritiperiods of Hindi poetry and the later Sanskrit Mahākāvyas,and had evoked a measure of esteem. While Magha is lost in the lybrinth of frustrating Citrakāvaya, Punyakuśala has spun out a brilliant sketch of the battle. It is no exaggeration to say that the fifteenth canto of the BBM reflects the poetic talents of the poet more than the ferocity of the clash. Perhaps Punyakusala means to present this conto as an opposite pole to Magha's Citrakāvya, which otherwise had set the norm in describing the 'War : Bharata's duel with Bahubali is doubtless base on the TSSPC., but it seems to have drawn sustenance from the combats detailed in the Kirātārjuniyam and the Siṣupālavadham.
75
The description of the impatience of the women-folk in canto six owes itself to the corresponding description in Magha XIII, where the citydamsels are likewise said to have thronged to have a glimpse of Kṛṣna as he enters Yudhiṣṭhira's metropolis though the two differ in their objectives. He might have drawn upon Kālidāsa's parallel descriptions as well? which seem to have established the motif on a firm footing.
In imitation of Magha, Punyakuśala has described the six traditional seasons that come to wait upon the hero, The entire description in Magha is infested with fearsome yamaka. Punyakusala has resorted to the gimmick in describing the sarat only, and that too in the fifteenth canto, away from the integrated depiction of the six seasons (XVIII. 1-57). Otherwise also Punyakuśala's yamaka does not present in superable difficulty in resolving it.
With 'war' as its focal point, the BBM.,like Magha's poem, has
7. Kumārasambhava, VII. 56-62, Raghuvamsa, VII. 6-11

Page #15

76
virarasa as its chief sentiment. Punyakuśala's expertise in depicting the Heroic sentiment in tune with the genius of the poem is as unquestioned as that of Magha. While the supremacy of the virarasa in the BBM is beyond dispute, Śṛngāra in both its aspects has been depicted evidently in imitation of Magha, with such a tenacity that not unoften it threatens to overwhelm, if not eclipse, the predominant sentiment. While going through the middle part of the poem, one cannot escape the impression that it is basically an erotic work. And the Śṛngāra as depicted by Punyakuśala is, not unlike in Māgha sensuous and volptuous for the most. It may create momentary excitement, but it fails to leave lasting impression on the reader. Punyakusala is a master of the art of love rather than an expert in dealing with the Rasarāja in its sweep and depth. And there too he concurs with his mentor, Magha.
JAIN JOURNAL: Vol-XXX, No. 3. January 1996
While 'war' forms the central issue in both the poems, they differ widely in their culmination. The Śisupālavadha closes at its natural end-the assassination of Sisupäla: in the BBM. the war undergoes sublimation. Though treading different paths, both Bharata and Bahubali taste the bliss of kaivalya, which represents the fulfilment of human life in the Jainistic tradition.
Despite heavy indebtedness, Punyakusala has no fascination for Magha's artificial style, flamboyant phraseology, excessive ornateness and the despicable citrakāvya. His objective might have deterred him from these frustrating gimmicks.
Arbelts India
Export House Recognised by Govt of India Proprietor - Sanjit Bothra
8/1 Middleton Road
Telex : 0212333 ARBI IN

5th Floor Room No. 4 Calcutta- 700 001
Phone: 201029/6256/4730
Fax No.: 0091-33290 174
In Memory of
Late NARENDRA SINGH BAID
Mira Baid
83/B Vivekananda Road Calcutta 700 006 Phone: 241 0719

Page #16

DĀNACINTĀMANI ATTIMABBE
DR KAMALA HAMPANA
Wherever and whenever an important woman moves, there is history and there is poetry. It is very much so in the case of Attimabbe, who is described as the cream of Indian Culture and an embodiment of the essence of non-violence. As a towering personality of the 10th century, she deserves a unique position among the great women of the world.
Attimabbe was born and brought up in a family of ministers and army commanders who patronised art and literature alike. A number of documents have given a vivid account of Attimabbe and her family of four generations.
Nāgadeva, the elder son of Dallappa, was a man of mettle and had no match on the battle ground. He had imbibed from his father all the proficiency in the art of war. Nāgadeva succeeded his father as the Field-Marshal of the Chālukyan army. He married Attimabbe and Gundamabbe, who were the daughters of Mallapa, a devout Jain and connoisseur of literature.
Like all his kith and kin , Nāgadeva spent most of his life in wars. As was the ordeal, on one such occasion Nägadeva, when he was at the height of his fame, met a heroic death on the battle field. When Nāgadeva succumbed to the injuries inflicted by his enemies, his wife Gundamabbe observed the custom of Sati (self-immolation) on her husband's pyre.
But Attimabbe did not resort to the act of burning herself with husband's corpse. Instead, she decided to lead a life of devotion to her faith and serve the poor and the sick. The sudden death of her husband made her more and more introspective and brought a great change in her attitude, slowly cut surely taking a turn for the better, both quantitatively and qualitatively. She started giving liberal donations to the destitute, supplied free medicine to the poor and the distressed. Attimabbe was duly honoured by Chālukya king Tailapa, with the celebrated and immortal title 'dānacintāmani' which means 'a gem yielding everything wanted by its possessor'.
Attimabbe seriously started the movement of constructing temple. It is practically astonishing that she erected 1501 Jain shrines. She

Page #17

78
JAIN JOURNAL: Vol-XXX, No. 3. January 1996
got 1500 wooden chests for placing idols, 1500 gong and bells to ring while worshipping and freely distributed all these worshipping items.
Ranna, a Poet Laureate in the Chalukya court, has concentrated his poetic skill, highly balanced in its presentation, crystallizing the illustrious life of this extraordinary woman Attimabbe. Poet Ranna has so effectively portrayed her that it leaves an everlasting imprint on the minds of readers. This graphic description does not just place us in time or other accomplishments of Attimabbe, but by a series of incidents in chronological sequence, including her struggle and triumphs. Some of her accomplishments breathe life into unsung heroines and tireless women workers, whose contributions have often been overlooked in the chronicles of Indian history. Ranna, through the lustrious portrait of Attimabbe, tries to answer the much asked question of how and why women were held high in Society. In its sweep and depth of coverage, Ranna's depiction does more than justice to this indomitable woman, who stood over and above all men of great name and fame, who were her senior contemporaries. During her life time and later after her death, nearly 32 inscriptions have eulogised Attimabbe, and her virtues.
Ranna is one of the earliest of Kannada poets to recognise the feminist point of view and gives a woman her due place in history. He is not blind to the achievements of a widowed woman. Again, he is the first poet in the context of Kannada literature and in the history of Karnataka, to write an authentic biography of a woman celebrity, who played such a prominent role in the socio-religious and sociopolitical milieu of her time. Ranna deviates from the traditional, worn out path of just describing a woman from the aesthetic point of view. He is not concerned with physical beauty; on the other hand, Ranna is more interested in her attitude towards fellow beings. Epitomizing her lifetime achievements, Ranna vividly captures different articulations of sociological import, both sacred and secular. Obviously it turns out to be the first ever study to explore the sociological orientations Attimabbe's astonishing personality.
Attimabbe, and her brave life, has a unique voice in the increasingly important contemporary feminist global discussions. Her exemplary life will not only introduce feminists to an enriching set of theoretical perspectives, but set a high critical standard for feminist dialogues of the social status of widowed women as well, particularly at their early age. Attimabbe is not an escapist. Generally, most of the widowed women abscond, bolting away from facing the challenges of society. Attimabbe was not to be vanquished into the oblivion. She had the strength to sustain any onslaught under hostile circum
stances.

Page #18

HAMPANA : DĀNACINTĀMAŅI ATTIMABBE
79
Attimabbe had to compete in a race with unequal terms in a world which was male-dominated. But the way Attimabbe faced the maledoninated society a thousand years ago, shoulder to shoulder, with the increasing confidence, makes the feminist theory move in a practical direction with the hope that some of these ideas might be implemented under the newly constituted indian Law. Attimabbe enjoyed a great deal of freedom. She was not dependent either on her parents or brothers or husband or children. She was completely independent, both in her father's house, before marriage, and in her fatherin-law's house, after marriage. In brief, Attimabbe demonstrates a model of a more practical feminist theory. She provides an outlet for new research in women's history and promotes scholarship among women that is broadly representative of a typical Indian and an archetype of a Jain waman.
Success and attainments of Attimabbe incorporates a broad spectrum of human concerns; in the sphere of polity, in social sphere and in the sphere of religion she had her say.
Attimabbe patronishd writers, sculptors, singers (both Instrumental and the Vocal), dancers, storytellers, warriors, orphans and the beggars and so on. Usually these are the privileges of the male, as is the custom and tradition in the Indian family; but Attimabbe, a daring woman, alone did all these and a lot more.
Without sacrificing her identity, Attimabbe stands like Olympus against the vast canvas of Chālukyan society. No other power or person , male or female, could wield so much command and awe, over the length and breadth of the early Chālukyan period or at any period of history, as Attimabbe could. Apart from the acts of courage, with her goodwill she had determination, motivation and a goal for women's overall development. She did not want to be a passive beneficiary, and therefore she distributed all her wealth. Equality, peace and development are the main issues that highlighted her long struggle for recognition. Her equal participation in everyday life was exceptional. With the particiption of such dynamic women like Attimabbe, the struggle for women's emancipation gathers momentum.
In the fitness of things to commemorate and perpetuate her memory, it is laudable that the Government of Karnātaka has decided to honour any woman, with brilliant record of achievements, by awarding a cash prize of one lakh rupees in the name of Attimabbe. One cannot contemplate a better way of remembering and celebrating the Sahasra-manotsava' of Attimabbe than initiating 'Attimabbe Prasasti'.

Page #19

VIJAYADEVA SŪRI OF TAPĀGACCHA
RĀMVALLABH SOMĀNI
Hiravijaya Sūri was much venerated by Akbar who bestowed upon him the title Jagad-guru. The Sūriji returned to Gujarāt from the Mughal-Court in 1586 AD via Nāgaur, Pipād, Bairāt, Rāṇakpur and other places1.He had a large number of learned and eminent scholars. Among them Śanticandra, Upadhyaya, Kalyāņa Vijaya, Vijayasena and many others remained much popular. Śanticandra composed Kṛpā-rasa-kosa. It is stated that he recited some verses in the presence of Akbar who became much pleased and always held high opinion about him. When Hiravijaya Sūri started for Gujarat in 1587 AD the Emperor again ordered to issue a Firman, prohibiting the slaughter of animals and proclaiming to abolish Jaziyā tax, which he had already abolished much earlier in his empire. Thus for a period of six months, the slaughter of animals was prohibited.2 The order was followed strictly as Badãoinī and Abul Fazl have mentioned it. Kalyāṇavijaya was the pupil of Hiravijaya. He was much tenacious and had studied Veda Puranas and many other subjets. He was having a profound knowledge of non-Jain and Jain philosophies. He had widely travelled in Mārawar Godawār, Bairāt and other places. His descendant Yasovijaya remained a profound scholar of the present time.
Vijayasena was invited by Akbar to Lahore. Its attempts were made by Durjanśal Jadiyā. The emperor agreed to the proposal and Firman was given to Bhānucandra, a monk of Tapāgaccha, then present in the court. On receiving the Firman, Vijayasena reached Lahore on 31-5-1593 AD. Akbar gave him much veneration. At that time Nandivijaya of Tapāgaccha did Avadhāraṇā. The Emperor was much pleased and endowed upon him the title Khus-Fahum. Rāmadāsa Kachāwā, a famous Hindu noble, made a specific complaint that the Jains did not believe in the Vedas and in God. On the attempts of Abul Fazl, a religious debate was organised between the Jains and the Brahmins. On the replies given by Vijayasena, Akbar became much
1. Jinavijaya-Prācina-Jaina-Lekha-Sangraha Vol II No. 12 and 379/Mohanlal Dalicand Desai - Bhānu candra ganicarita, Intro pp. 18. 2. A. L. Śrivastava, Akbar.

Page #20

SOMĀNI : VIJAYADEVA SŪRI OF TAPĀGACCHA
81
pleased and granted an epithet "Vardhamāna Vidyā" upon him. However, on hearing the illness of Hīravijaya Sūri he decided to move to Gujarāt.3
EARLY LIFE OF VIJAYADEVA SURI
Vijayadeva was born at Idar on Posa Sudi 13(Sunday) VE 1634 (1578 AD). His early name was Vasudeva of Bāsu Kumār. It is due to his innate interest to become a Jain monk, he insisted to leave the family life. After much pressure, he was converted into a Jain monk at Hāzi-Patel-Pole-Ahmedābād in VE 1643. He was named as VidyāVijaya. It is due to his hard labour he got a good knowledge of Jñanakriyā (knowledge and its practical application). Soon he obtained a profound knowledge of Präkrit, Sanskrit and others. An epithet Pandit was given to him.4
At Khambāt, where Sresthi Māllu and his brother Soma conducted a celebration. Vijayasena gave the title "Ācāryato Vidyā-Vijaya renaming him as Vijayadeva on Besakh Sudi 4, VE 1657. Its celebration was also arranged on Posa Budi 6, VE 1658 at Pātan. It is known as Vandana-mahotsavaof Vijayasena in 1671 VE Vijayadeva was succeeded as the Bhattāraka.”
BHĀNUCANDRA AND SIDDHICANDRA
After the death of Hiravifaya Sūri, the party politics continuously prevailed in the Tapāgaccha. Even during his time also similar incidents took place. But he carefully avoided them. Dharmasāgara, a monk of the Tapāgaccha, composed Kumati - Kudāl containing several glaring facts against Jainism. Objections were raised by several writers and monks against the above work. According to the Kharataragaccha sources, Jinacanda Sūri did religious discussions with him about the contents of the above book and defeated Dharmasāgara, Vijayadeva Sūri had thrown the book in the water. But the struggle continued and Dharmasāgara drafted another book.
Bhānucandra and Siddhicandra remained much venerated writers. Akbar respected them very much. They had composed many
3. Mohan Lāl Dalicand Desāi - op. cit. Introduction p. 18. 4. Meghavijaya-Devānanda-Mahākāvya (edited by Becardās, SJGM, Intro
p12). According to Srivallabha the father of Vijayadeva took his wife and son to become a Jain monk (Vijayadeva Sūri Māhātmya canto V verses
1-2). 5. Ibid p. 12/Vijayadeva Sūri Mahātmya canto 5, verse 52.

Page #21

82
JAIN JOURNAL : Vol-XXX, No. 3. January 1996
books, when Bhānucandra was going to Gujarāt, Akbar gave him a Firman to abolish the taxes levied from the Jain pilgrims going to Śatruñjaya. Siddhicandra was a very handsome youth. He had a marvellous feat of memory and did 108 Avadhāranās. Akbar also granted him the title "Khus-Faham" (A man of sharp intelligence). During the reign of Jehāngir, some misfortune fell upon him. The Emperor asked him to get himself removed from the austerity and conduct a marriage with some beautiful girl. But Siddhicandra totally refused. The Emperor became highly infuriatd and orderd to remove all the Jain monks from Agrā. This event seemed to h taken place in VE 1670. Both Bhānucandra and Siddhicandra left Āgrā and came to Mālpurā and stayed there. Jinacandra Sūri of Kharataragaccha went to Āgrā and pacified the Emperor who had withdrawn the order of removing the Jain-monks from the said place. Jinacandra Sūri, thereafter, went to Bilarā, where he expired in VE 1670.6
At Mālpurā Bhānucandra and Siddhicandra completed a Jain temple of Candraprabha Svāmi in VE 1672. The icon was later removed. The temple now is having the Mūlanāyaka icon Muni Suvrata Svāmī. From Mālpurā both of them went to Jālore and stayed there for sometimes. Mubarak Khan, a newly appointed Governor of Gujarat (1616 - 1618 AD), while going to Ahmedābād stayed at Jalore. He met Siddhicandra and asked him to accompany him. Siddhicandra agreed. He went to Ahmedābād.
A rift between Tapāgaccha monks, as already stated, sprang up. The other group headed by Bhānucandra, Siddhicandra and a few others slanted against Vijaydeva Sūri and a separate Bhattāraka named Vijayatilaka Sūri was appointed as the successor of Vijayasena. They did not honourVijayadeva Sūri. After the death of Vijayatilaka Sūri in 1676 VE Vijayānanda was appointed. They had much support in Gujarat and Sirohi areas. A Sangha led by Mehājal Jain Sreșthi of Sirohi to Satruñjaya was led by Vijayānanda and Siddhicandra. It was started in VE 1690. It seems that Bhānucandra had expire that time, as no details about him are known. After Vijayānanda, Vijayarāja Sūri succeeded. He consecrated more than 70 icons at Sirohi in the Gomukhā Jain temple in 1721 VE.
6. Mohan Lal Dalicand Desāi op. cit. pp. 19-20/Chapter IV verse 334,
Vijayatilaka Sūri - Rasa (Darsana Vijaya 1679 VE/ Tuzuq-i-Jehangiri vol I p. 438. The inscriptions of Malpurā were edited by the Author in the Sodha-patrikā Vol. 43 No. 2 pp. 61-63.

Page #22

SOMĀNI : VIJAYADEVA SŪRI OF TAPĀGACCHA
83
VIJAYADEVA HONOURED BY JEHĀNGIR
A wide spread struggle between two groups of Jains sprang up causing much dispute between the followers. Vijayadeva Sūri was from the first group, while the other group stated above belonged to Vijayatilaka Sūri. The Mughal Emperor hearing the disputes between these Jains invited them to Mānļū, where he was staying. Vijayadeva was then staying at Cambay. He reached at Mandū on Āśvina Šuklā 13 VE 1672 (Oct. 1617 AD). On hearing both the parties, the Emperor soon came to the decision that Vijayadeva was originally appointed by his Guruji, while the other dissendent group had rivalling claim only. He bestowed the title"Mahātapā" upon Vijayadeva Sūri. The Vijayadeva-Māhātmya also mentions that the Mughal Emperor conferred upon the Sūriji much veneration. He was sent to his camp in a royal procession, having several Mansabdars accompanying it. On this occasion Śreșthi Candraprabha of Mānļū spent lavishly. He did good celebration and had spread the gold coins on Sūriji. The Mughal Emperor granted the titles Khus-Faham, Nadirā-a-Jamāna and Jahāngir-Pasandato Siddhicandra. However, the respects given to Vijayadeva was much higher. This has enlightened his followers who gave much respects to him. However, in Gujarāt. Vijayadeva could not get sufficient support in comparision with Siddhicandra. Vijayadeva also wanted to settle the matter with Siddhicandra. He invited the latter to join him. But he had totally refused. It seems that Vijayadeva was not disappointed. He decided to travel in the adjoining areas of Rajasthan, Mahārastra and Gujarat'. The Emp ever, remained much pleased from him. The Sūrijī sent his disciple Dayākusala Pranyāsa in 1618 AD to the Emperor. The Emperor become much pleased and asked the Sūriji to give details about him. He issued a Firman as below. 7A
"Be it known to Vijayadeva Sūri, who discerns the right and practices of Yoga and who had obtained our special favour, as I had seen you at Pāttan (Māņdū) I constantly inquire for the news about you, and am sure that you would also be free from breaking connection with us as a true friend. At the present time your disciple Dayākušala Pranyāsa presented himself before us, and news about you has been learnt from him, we are (thereby) very much pleased. Your disciple is also much experienced and possessed of logical faculty. We treat him
. Śrīvallabha Vijayadeva Süri-Māhātmya canto XVIII, Nähar - Jaina
Lekha Sangraha Vol. II No. 341 and 367; Mohan Lal Dalicand Desāi
op. cit. pp. 15-20. 7-A Mohan Lal Dalicand Desāi op. cit. p.91.

Page #23

84
JAIN JOURNAL : Vol-XXX, No. 3. January 1996
with perfect kindness and whatever he says is being done. If there be any work here you will write it to your disciple (so that) the same be known by us (directly through him) and the same will receive our attention in every way. You will remain free from anxiety from us and will be engaged in praying for the permanence of our kingdom by worshipping those who are worthy to be worshipped. Nothing more remains to be written on the 19th of the month Shāban in the year 1027 (Saturday 1st August 1618 AD).
The seal contains the words "Sāha Nawāj Khān Murid (follower) of Jehāngir.
ACTIVITIES OF VIJAYADEVA SURI
(A) RĀJASTHAN STATE
Vijayadeva Sūri had widely travelled in Rajasthān, Gujarāt and south India. It is due to slight support in Gujarāt he had liked to move in Rājasthān and south India.
We have already described that the temple of Mālpurā, Rājasthān, was built in VE 1672. The inscription refers to Vijayadeva Sūri also, One more inscription of that year of Vijayagaccha, available there, contains his name as the Bhattāraka who did consecration ceremony. He also consecrated the icon of Muni Suvrata there in VE 1691 and the statue of Hiravijaya Sūri in VE 16908.
The Mewär state remained a notable centre of Bais - Sampradaya, The areas of Bhilwārā, Cittor and Rājsamand have all the Jains belonging to that sect and the large number of Jain temples in the area are not regularly worshipped. However Mahārāṇā Karņa Simha and Jagat Simha did notable honour to Vijayadeva Sūri. The Tapagaccha sources speak that the respects given by Mahārāņā Jagat Simha to Vijayadeva Sūri was equal to the veneration given by Kumārapāla to Hemcandra. Vijayadeva Sūri visited Udaipur several times. During the reign of Mahārāṇā Karna Simha a religious discussion was held in the royal court between the Bāis-Sampradāyaand Vijayadeva Sūri, where the Bais-Panthies were badly defeated. In VE 1684 Vijayadeva Sūri also consecrated the icons at Khamnor, Nāhi, Āghāt and other places of southern Mewār. During the reign of Mahārānā Jagat Simha, he visited Udaipur and obtained the orders of prohibitions as mentioned below:
Meghavijaya-Digvijaya-Mahākāvya edited by Ambālāl Premcand Säha. SJGMY, p. 137.

Page #24

SOMĀNI : VIJAYADEVA SŪRI OF TAPĀGACCHA
85
(1) The slaughter of animals on Wednesday was strictly banned, as
it being the day of the coronation of the Mahārāņā. (2) Similarly in the month of Bhādavā, no slaughter of any animal
was permitted, as it being the month in which the Mahārāņā
took his birth. (3) Fishing in the Picholā-lake was completly banned. (4) The Jain temple of Macind was to be renovated. It was conse
crated by Somasundara Sūri in VE 1494
The Sūrijī also visited Delawārā, Mewār, in VE 1687, where a copy of a MS Pākṣika-vrtti was made.
Vijayadeva also visited Udaipur in VE 1709 and did consecration of several icons in the Jain temples of Udaipur city.
Barakānā (Godawār) was then under the Mewār state. There is a large Jain temple and the place is among the Pañca-tirthasof Godawār. An annual fair is regularly held there on Posa-Suklā 10. The taxes levied in the fair were exempted by the Mahārānā on the recommendations of Vijayadeva. The author has published the text of the inscription in the Sambodhio (Ahmedābād).
Jālore had remained an important site of the Sonagarā Cauhāns. There were several Jain temples on the fort and near by areas. These were brutely devastated by Alāuddin Khilji. At the instance of Vijayadeva Sūri, Jaimal Muhņot, the minister of Jodhpur state, renovated them. He was the father of Nenasi, a famous writer of the 17th century AD. One temple was renovated by Pāmecā Svāmi Dās of Medatā. These temples were renovated in VE 1681,1683, 1684 and in 1686. All the temples were consecrated by Vijayadeva Sūri, who also performed a Cāturmāsa there. Jaya Sāgara, a Jain monk, sponsored
ct and properly looked after the construction work. It is interesting that the Sūtradhāra, Todā-Issar, Tohā, Duha and others, who did construction work were highly influenced by the Sūriji and built an icon from their own side. It was also consecrated by Vijayadeva Sūri. 10
Nādol remained the capital of the local Cauhāns between the 10th and 12th centuries AD.
9. Edited by the Author in the Sambodhi Vol. VIII. 10. Jinavijaya No. 345 to 356, 358 to 359.

Page #25

86
JAIN JOURNAL : Vol-XXX, No. 3. January 1996
During Vijayadeva Sūri's time the territory was under the Mewār.
The place had several massive Jain temples which were molested during the battles between Mewār and Mughal Emperors. These temples were renovated by Mughal Emperors. These temples were removated by Jaimal Muhnot in VE 1686. These all were consecrated by Vijayadeva Sūri. Nādläi, situated near Nadol, is a famous Jain Tirtha having a large number of Jain temples inside the town and outside on the hills. Several icons were installed there in VE. 1674, 1686 and on other dates by several Jain Sreșthis. All these icons were consecrated by Vijayadeva Sūri.
Pāli has a beautiful Navalakhā Jain temple built in the 10th century A. D. It was renovated by Sāha Dungar and Bhākar in VE 1688, Several icons were installed in the temple. The Mūlanāyaka icon was also changed. These were consecrated by Vijayadeva Sūri. Similarly Ghanaghāņi, a famous old site of Pratihāra period, has a Jain temple built in VE 937. It was also renovated at the instance of Vijayadeva Sūri. 11
Medatā remained an important town. A big Pratisthāwas arranged there by Hirānanda's wife who belonged to Āgrā. This family remained much prosperous and did a Sangha-yātrā in VE 1661. Vijayadeva Sūri did cāturmāsa at Medatā and did consecration of several icons in VE 1677 and 1686.12
Kisangarh was then ruled by Rūpa Simha Rathor. His minister Räicand was the follower of Tapāgaccha and arrange a cāturmāsa of Vijayadeva Sūri there. The Sūriji consecrated several Jain icons. 13
At Sādari (Godawār) and Sirohi, Vijayadeva also did cāturmāsa. Sirohi had a large number of supporters of other group of Tapāgaccha. In VE 1682, when he reached there, the entrance-ceremany (Pravesotsava) was arranged by Tejpāl Porawāl. A Sangha - yātrā to Ābū and Satruñjaya was also led under Vijayadeva Sūriji. 14
The Sūriji also visited Ālanpur, Bundi amd other adjoing sites of southern Rājasthān and did Pratisthās there. In VE 1683 he visited Jaisalmer, where he consecrated 4 icons, three on Āsādha Budi 4
11. Ibid No. 388. 12. Ibid No. 433 to 442. 13. Meghavijaya, Digvijaya-Mahākāvya, pp. 137-138. 14. Ibid. Amộtalāla-Maganlāl Sāha-Prasasti-Sangraha p.190.

Page #26

SOMĀNI VIJAYADEVA SŪRI OF TAPAGACCHA
and one on Jeth Sudi 6. All the inscriptions have the words 'Jaisalmer Nagare' which proves that the Sūriji went there and did consecration ceremony.
(B) SOUTH INDIA
The Sūriji, after spending some time in Gujarāt, decided to visit south India. For this purpose he came to Surat. He held a religious discussion with the Sagara-pakṣiya monks in the presence of Mirmozā. It is said that initially the Sūriji was in favour of the Sāgarapakṣa. But later on finding the large scale opposition of his followers to this sect, he also relinquished it. In the discussions, the Sūriji defeated the Sāgara-pakṣiya monks. This event took place in VE 1681, as is mentioned in several works. Later on several followers of Sāgara-pakṣiya also joined Sūriji inclucing Dhañji, a notable Śrāvaka. The colophon of Hitopadesa (Ahmedabad) dated 1681 mentions the details of the discussion.15
87
From Surat, Sūriji went to Deccan sometime in VE 169415A and visited Bijapur, Gola Kundā Burahānpur, Navarangpur and many other towns. Several Jain Śrāvakas, migrated from Rajasthan, also dwelt there. At Bagalānā, Caturā Bāi, an adherent follower of Sūrijī, also accompanied him. Sāhajādā Aurangjib, who was the incharge of the place, venerated him and issued an order to prohibit the slaughtering of animals. The Sūriji thereafter spent a rainy seasion at Sahapura. Devacandra Śrāvaka took active part in arranging the peaceful journey of the Sūriji. Ādilśāha was the ruler of Bijapur. He had shown very much respect to the Sūriji. He also ordered not to kill any cow. The Karahedā Pārśvanātha, Kalikuṇḍa-Pārśvanātha and other Jain sites were visited by the Sūriji with a large sangha. A good consecration ceremony of several Jain icons was arranged by Devacandra. These were consecrated by the Sūriji.16
The Sūriji then went to Aurangabad and also visited the AntarikṣaPārsvanatha Jain temple. From there he went to Burhanpur and Mallakāpur. Later on Sūriji went to Telang country via Kulapāka Tirth, also known as Manakadeva Tirtha. Amarcand Muni was bestowed the title of Vacaka upon him. The Caturā Bāi spent lavishly on the occasion. On the attempts of the Sūriji, the ruler of Telang country
15. Śrīvallabha Vijayadeva-Sūri-Māhātmya Canto. XI. Amṛtalāl Maganlāl Saha- Prasasti-Sangraha, p. 190.
15A Nahar-Jaina Lekha Sangraha Vol III Nos. 2207-8, 2214, 2329. 16. Meghavijaya, Digvijaya-Mahākāvya pp. 137-138.

Page #27

88
JAIN JOURNAL: Vol-XXX, No. 3. January 1996
banned the slaughter of the cows. A religious discussion was held there with some Telang Bhaṭṭa Pandits who were defeated. The Sūriji returned back to Bijapur. The large scale religious activites of the Sūriji had greatly affected the political circles also. The ruler of the place agreed to release all the prisoners from the Jail.17
In the south Devicand and Caturā Bāi had actively assisted the Sūriji. These activities had widely increased the prestige of Sūriji also in Gujarat. He remained in the Deccan upto VE 1701 as is proved from the colophon of a MS of Vagbhaṭṭālankāra (Cāṇasmā Bhandar) mentioning that the Sūriji was then at Aurangābād 18 and in VE 1701 he was present at Sahapur (Deccan).
(C) GUJARĀT
As already stated, Vijayadeva Sūri was born at Idar and therefore, the people of that place had much affection for him. When he went there, Rão Kalyan Mal also came to receive him. The Jain Sangha performed celebrations. Sahajū Sāha, a minister of the state, requested the Sūriji to nominate some monks as his successor, as he wanted to organise a function there. The Sūriji avoided it. When he was in Idar, Ratnasimha Pārakh of Sāblī appeared before him and requested to visit his town, as slaughtering of animals at a large scale was common there. The Süriji went there and got the Thakur agreed to stop the slaughtering of animals. The Sūriji came to Idar after some years in VE 1682, when the Śreṣṭhi Sahajú celebrated the festivities of nominating Yuvaraja to Vijayasimha Sūri on Besakh Sudi 6 VE 1682. In VE 1705 again the Sūriji visited Idar to consecrate the Jain temple built at Ranamal and Cowki of the place. 18A
The Sūriji visited Ahmedābād, Pātan and other towns of Gujarāt occasionally and did cāturmāsa also there. While comimg from Mewar in VE 1684, he spent some years in Gujarat and also visited Śatrunjaya and other places. 19 From the mount of Śatruñjaya, a good number of epigraphs from VE 1670 to 1710 have been noted. In VE 1670, he consercrated the Parikar of Adinatha installed by Santidāsa and others of Ahmedabad. The inscriptions of VE 1675, 1676 and 1677 are
17. Ibid.
18. Amṛtalāl Maganlal Saha-Prasasti-Sangraha pp. 212.
18A, Meghavijaya op. cit. pp. 137-138.
19. Acārya Kaṇakasagara Sūri and Pramoda Sagara Sūri, Śatruñjaya Giriraja - Darsana Ins. No 45, 57, 59, 71, 87, 89, 312, 410 and other last pages.

Page #28

SOMĀNI : VIJAYADEVA SŪRI OF TAPĀGACCHA
89
noticed from there mentioning of some families of Ahmedābād. On Jeth Sudi 6 VE 1678, the Sūrīji accompanied the Jain families of Udaipur to Satruñjaya and consecrated to icon of Sambhavanātha. In VE 1683, he accompaying a Sangha arranged the Pratisthās of some icons installed by Jaimal of Jodhpur and some Śrimāri families and others from Surāt. It seems that he was having his much influence in Pātan, Māngrol, Diva and Surāt. Except a few inscriptions of Ahmedābād of VE 1670, 1675 to 1676 and 1686, no other record of the place is known mentioning Vijayadeva Sūri. The following inscriptions are also known pertaining to Pātan, Diva, Surāt, Māngrol and other towns :
1. 1683 and 1687 from Surāt. 2. 1681, 1682, 1683 and 1685 from Pātan. 3. 1686 from Diva. 4. 1682 from Māngrol. 5. 1686 from Medatā. 7. 1694 from some town having the last letters Pātan.
It shows that Vijayadeva visited Satruñjaya several times with the pilgrims from Rājasthān and Gujarāt and consecrated the icons there. The colophon of a ms, Hitopadeśa (VE 1681) mentions a Sanghayātrā to Satruñjaya with the Sangha of Sirohi started in the leadership of Tejapāl. 19A
Vijayadeva visited Sorath to pay homage to Sankheśvara Pārsvanātha, Siddhācala Rewantaka and other ancient sites. He went to Azāhāhar-Pārsvanātha, Unã and spent a rainy season there. The Sūriji thereafter went to Girinār. At Nawānagar, he met the Jāmaruler Devarāja and gave him religious instructions (Pratibodha). After spending the cãturmāsa, he went to Surāt, and then visited south India.
When Sūrijī came back from south India, he became much popular. He came to Gāndhār Port when several notable citizens from Ahmedābād, Surāt, Pātan and other places came to receive him. At the request of Ratanji Sāha and Dhanji Sāha, the Sūriji stayed at Gāndhāra, Sāhibdeva's son and Akhe Sāha spent lavishly on this occasion.
From Gāndhāra, the Sūriji came to Ahmedābād and stayed at
19A. Amộtalāl Maganlāl Sāha op. cit. p. 190.

Page #29

90
JAIN JOURNAL : Vol-XXX, No. 3. January 1996
Sāhāpur. He spent a rainy seasion there. Dhanji Sāha did good celebrations spending a large number of Mahāmudi coins. The Sūriji's presence in Sāhapur (Deccan) in VE 1701 is proved from the colophon of a MS Nyāya. Ratna-Prakarana of the Jain Bhānļār Cānasmā.198 Thereafter he came to Gujarat.
DISPUTE WITH SĀGARA-PAKSİYA ĀCĀRYAS
The Vijayadeva-Sūri-Māhātmya composed by Śrivallabha of Kharataragaccha contains details of the dispute between Vijayadeva Süri and Sagaragacchiya Ācaryas in chapter 11. In the colophon of the MS Hitopadeśa (Jñāna-Bhāņdāra, Ahmedābād) it is mentioned that in VE 1681 Muktisāgara and śāntidāsa were excommunicated as they had given their support to Sāgara-gaccha. It is also mentioned that the Ahmedābād Sangha and Sirohi Sangha became the lay follower of Vijayadeva Sūrijī. But he was not correct. It seems that originally the Sūriji was on the side of Sāgara-gaccha but later finding slanting support of his follwers he deserted then.20
DEATH OF THE SŪRIJI
Vijayadeva initially appointed Vijayasimha Süri as his successor in VE 1682. He was nominated as a successor in VE 1684. But he died before Vijayadeva Sūri in VE 1708 Āsādh Sudi 2 at Ahmedābād (Nūtanpurā). Later on the Sūrijī appointed Vijayaprabha Sūri in VE 1710 as his successor.
Vijayadeva Süri then went to Vimalagiri with a Sangha. Rāicand and others had also accompanied him. From there he came to Unā to pay a visit to the Samādhi of Hīravijaya Sūri. But he fell ill and died there in VE 1713. Asadh Sudi 11, Śreșthi Rāicand built a beautiful Vihār there. SOURCES OF THE HISTORY
Vijayadeva enjoyed a longlife about 80 years. He was bold, energetic and carefree monk. Looking to the great opposition against him in Gujarāt and Sirohi areas, he did not care and tried to have his journeys in Rājasthān and south India. The detailed history of the above monk was composed by Śrīvallabha of Kharataragaccha. The work contains the DETAILS OF THE LIFE OF THE SŪRIJI upto VE. 1687. It is the only work having the details of his life. The book has 19 chapters. The chapters I and II record the early life of Vijayadeva 19B.ibid p 212. 20. Ibid. op. cit. pp. 190.

Page #30

SOMĀNI : VIJAYADEVA SŪRI OF TAPĀGACCHA
91
Sūri. The chapters III and IV refer to the life of Hiravijaya Sūri and Vijayasena. The life history of Vijayadeva is given in the chapters V and VI and VII . The chapters VIII to X have the details of various Pratisthās, cāturmāsa, Dikṣā and other celebrations. He nominated Vijayasimha Sūri, as his successor. The details of the dispute with the Sāgara-Paksa are recorded in chapter IX, the celebrations done at Medatā, Jālore, Ghangāni and others are given in chapter XII to XIV. The details of Cāturmāsa of Khambat are given in the chapter XVII. The meeting with Jehāngir is described in the chapter XVIII. Next chapter contains the general description of Sūriji.
A few more MSS have some contents of his life (i) Vijayadeva Sūri Sañjāya by Jayasoma (ii) Vijayadeva Nirvāņa Sañjāya (VE 1713) by Premavijaya (iii) Vijayadeva Sūri Nirvāņa Svādhyāya by Darśana Vijaya and (iv) Vijayadeva Sūri Nirvāņa by Saubhāgya Vijaya. All these MSS are in the collection of L.D Institute, Ahmedābād. These contain mostly the last days account of Vijayadeva Sūri. The Dig-Vijaya-Mahākāvya of Meghavijaya contains some account of the life of Vijayadeva. FIRMAN AND VIJNAPTI-PATRAS
Some Firmans of Jehāngir were sent to the Sūriji and others, the details of which are given below : 1. The Firmān pertaining to stoppage of the slaughtering of ani
mals. Its date is not clear. Either it is 1605 AD or 1610 AD. It
mentions the names of Vijayasena and Vijayadeva.21 2. The Firmān prohibiting the slaughter of animals at Satruñjaya
and not to levy any entrance tax there. It was issued on 1608 AD.
It also has the name of Vijayadeva Sūri. 3. The Firmān prohibiting the slaughter of animals on Paryusaņa
days was issued in 1610 AD. It also has the name of Vijaya-deva
Sūri. 4. The Firmān dated July 1616 AD was issued from Ajmer, allowing
all the Jain monks to have complete freedom for doing religious duties. It also has the name of Vijayadeva Sūri. The Firmān dated Ist August 1618 AD, asking Vijayadeva Sūri to inform if he had any work from the Emperor. It is interesting to note that the Emperor had much respect for him.
A few Vijñapti-Patras22 were also noted wherein the Sūrji was requested to visit Gujarāt and other places. But these have no specific dates and as such nothing can be said about them. These have panegyrical account of the Sūrijī.
21. Mohanlal Dalicand Desāi op. cit. pp. 80-91. 22. Muni Jinavijaya - Vijñapti-lekha-Sangraha SJGM No. 8 9, 15, 21 and 22.

Page #31
Registered with the Registrar of Newspapers for India Under No. R. N. 12121/66. Winter 1996 BHILAI ENGINEERING CORPORATION LTD. Indastrial Area, Post Box No. 31 Bhilai 490 001, Madhya Pradesh Telephones : 355417/356447/355358 Fax Numbers : 0788 355527/355427 Telex Numbers : 0771-214/245/204 Manufacturers Erectors of Equipments for Coal Mining, Steel Plant, Power Plant, Cement Plant and Manufacturers of Sulpheric and Super Phosphate Fertilizers Regional Offices 13 Masjid Moth, Local Shopping Centre New Delhi 110 048 Telephones : 6445815 6445819 6434987 6414390 Fax Number: 011 6445819 4B Little Russel Street, 2nd Floor Calcutta-700 071 Telephones : 242 7606 / 3372 Fax Number: 033-2427061 31 Makers Chambers III 3rd Floor, Nariman Point, Bombay 400 023 Telephones : 231724 2043647 244208 2873789 Telex Number: 0118 4054 Fax Number : 022 287 3611