Varahamihira and Bhadrabahu

Author(s): Ajay Mitra Shastri
Publisher: Z_Anandrushi_Abhinandan_Granth_012013.pdf
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/250361/1

Page #1
OSIMY Stoerengi IS Dr. Ajay Mitra Shastri [ Reader, Ancient Indian History and Culture and Archaeology, Nagpur University, Nagpur ] en Varahmihira and Bhadrabahu -- Varahamihira is justly reckoned as a doyen of astronomers and astrologers of ancient India. He surpassed all other fellow workers in the field by composing standard works, both copious and abridged, on all the three branches of Jyotisa, viz., (i) tantra (mathematical astronomy), (ii) hora (horoscopy), and (iii) sakha or samhita (natural astrology). Several of his writings have come down to us. Unfortunately we possess very meagre information regarding his life and time. From what he himself tells us we know that he was the son as well as a pupil of one Adityadasa and a resident of Avanti and obtained a boon from the Sun god at a place called Kapitthaka. His Panca-siddhantika (1.8) specifies the Saka year 427 (=505 A. D.) which evidently has a reference to the date of the composition of the work. We also have some evidence to indicate that he was a Sun-worshipping Maga Brahmana. His son Psthuyasas was also an astrologer and his work, Satpancasika, is still extent.3 Some late Jaina writers, however, narrate stories which seek to establish some relationship between Varahamihira and Bhadrabahu. Thus, the Prabandha-cintamani tells us that in the city of Paraliputra there lived a Brahmana boy named Varaha who was, ever since his birth, devoted to the study of astrology. But because of poverty he had to subsist by tending cattle. Once he drew a horoscope (lagna) on the surface of a rock but forgot to efface it before returning home in the evening On remembering it he went back to the spot in the night, where he found a lion sitting over it; but he effaced the drawing fearlessly by putting his hand under the lion's belly. The lion gave up his animal mask and appeared as the Sun god and told him to ask a boon. Varaha requested him to show him the entire circle of stars and planets whereupon the god had him seated in his transport and enabled him to examine closely the movements of all the heavenly bodies. When he returned after a year he be ac

Page #2
Varahamihira and Bhadrabahu came famous as Varahmihira in allusion to the favour of the Sun god (Mihira), was patronised by King Nanda and composed a treatise on astrology named Varahi Samhita. Once when a son was born to him, he closely examined the moment and from his intimate personal knowledge of the planets profesied a hundred year life for the newborn babe. All but his couterine younger brother, the Jaina teacher Bhadrabahu, came to him with presents and participated in the festivities marking the occasion. Varaha complained to the Jaina minister Sakatala about it. On being told about it, Bhadrabahu said that he had not attended the function as according to his culculation the child would meet death from a cat on the 20th day. And notwithstanding all the efforts to prevent the calamity the prediction came out true and the child expired in the night as an iron chain bearing an engraved figure of a cat fell on his head. Varahamihira was utterly despaired and was about to consign all the books to fire when Bhadrabahu came to console him and prevented him from doing so. But being envious of Bhadrabahu, Varahamihira took recourse to black magic and troubled some and caused the death of some others of his (Bhadrabahu's) lay followers whereupon Bhadrabahu composed a new hymn (stotra) called Uvasagga-hara Pasa with the object of averting these disturbances. The same episode, with some minor differences and elaboration of details, is related by Rajasekharasuri in his Prabandha-kosa, also known as Caturvinsati-Prabandha. It may be summarised as follows:" Two, poor but intelligent Brahmana boys named Bhadrabahu and Varaha lived at Pratisthanapura in Daksinapatha. Once the Jaina patriarch Yasobhadra, who knew the fourteen Purvas, came over there. Bhadrabahu and Varaha heard his sermon and became Jaina monks. Bhadrabahu acquired the knowledge of the fourteen Purvas and possessed thirty-six qualities. He attained great fame as the composer of the niryuktis (commentaries) on the ten canonical works, to wit. Dasava ikalika-sutra, Uttaradhyayana-stra, Dasasrutaskandha, Kalpa-sutra, Vyavahara-sutra, Avasyaka-sutra, Suryaprajnapti, Sutrakrtanga, Acaranga-sutra and Rsi-bhast, and also composed a work called Bhadrabdhavi Samhita. After the passing away of Yasobhadrasuri, both Bhadrabahu and Sambhutivijaya, who also possessed knowledge of the fourteen Parvas, lived affectionately and wandered independently. Varaha, who too was a scholar, wanted his brother Bhadrabahu to confer on him the status of suri. Bhadrabahu declined the request as Varaha, though learned, was puffed up with pride. Thereupon Varaha gave up the vow and again lived the life of a Brahmana. On the basis of his study of the sciences when he was a Jaina monk he composed a number of new works including the Varaha-samhita and circulated the rumour of his acquisition of the knowledge of astrology by the favour of the Sun god as nar 53 24923 AcArya prava zrI Ananda jantha AcArya pravaPA $173Adele 557 J 31172750

Page #3
2A 2BOBIILIDZ 378 Vidio 311 915-TGE2 310 SO 92 2882 YYY 54 Dr. Ajay Mitra Shastri rated in the above story from the Prabandha-cintamani and thereby attained great celebrity. Pleased with his learning, Satrujit, king of Pratisthanpura, appointed him his priest. Varaha burled abuses on the Svetambaras who were upset and sent for Bhadrabahu. In the meantime Varahmihira was blessed with a son for whom he predicted a full 100 years' life, and the occasion was fittingly celebrated. Varahamihira complained that Bhadrabahu, albeit his couterine brother, did not participate in the festivities. On hearing it, Bhadrabahu explained away his action by predicting the child's death from a cat on the seventh day. The incident took place and Bhadrabahu consoled his brother exactly as narrated in the Prabandha-cintamani. But a Jaina layman, reminded of the earlier insult of his faith by Varahamihira, condemmed the letter in the harshest possible words. On knowing the whole episode and being introduced to Bhadrabahu, the king, who had come to console Varahamihira, embraced Jainism. Thereupon Varahamihira began to hate Jainism and caused a lot of trouble to the Jaina laity. To avert this calamity Bhadrabahu compiled a prayer entitled Uvasaggahara Pasa comprising five stanzas. The story ends with the statement that Bhadrabahu's successor, Sthulabhadra, who also had the knowledge of the fourteen Purvas, destroyed other faiths. This story with minor changes is narrated in some other works also. Thus, in the Sukha-bodhini commentary on the Kalpa-sutra the same anecdote as found in the Prabandha-cintamani is related with the only difference that here the eipsode centres round the son of Varahamihira's royal patron, and not round Varahamihira's own son. A comparative analysis will reveal that there are some minor differences between the versions of the story as found in the Prabandha-cintamani and the Prabandha-kosa. In the former the venue of the episode is located at Pataliputra, while the letter places it at Pratisthana. While the former makes out the episode as occuring during the reign of king Nanda, the latter gives the name of the king as Satrujit. Merutunga does not mention, like Rajasekharasuri, the anecdote of Varahamihira's first becoming a Jaina ascetic and then reverting to the life of a Brahmana out of jealousy of his brother Bhadrabahu and leaves the impression that while Bhadrababu became a Jaina monk Varahamihira throughout led the life of a Brahmana astrologer. Again, whereas the Prabandha-kosa speaks of Bhadrabahu as a pupil of Yasobhadra, a contemporary of Sambhutivijaya and as the teacher of Sthulabhadra, no such statement is found in the Prabandha-cintamani. Likewise, while the Prabandha-kosa describes Yasobhadra, Bhadrabahu, Sambhutivijaya and Sthulabhadra as possessing the knowledge of the fourteen Purvas (caturdasa-purvin), the Prabandha-cintamani does not make any such explicit statement. And lastly, the death of Varahamihira's son according to Bhadrabahu's prediction took place on the

Page #4
Varahamihira and Bhadrabahu 55 20th day according to the Probandha-cintamani, while this event is placed on the 7th day by the other work which further adds that as a result of this incident Varahamihira's royal patron got himself converted to Jainism. Obviously, the Prabandha-kosa version, although composed only forty-four years. after the Prabandha-cintamani, marks a great elaboration of the original story and overplays the rivalry between Varahamihira and bhadrabahu in particular and between Jainism and Brahmanical Hinduism in general. But fundamentally there is no difference between these versions. By placing the incident during the reign of king Nanda, Merutunga also identifies Bhadrabahu, the central figure of his story, with the homonymous caturdasapurvin Jaina patriarch. If any historical value were to be attached to the above story, Varahamihira will have to be regarded as a contemporary, nay even brother, of the famous Jaina patriarch Bhadrabahu who, according to the Jaina tradition, was the last of the sruta-kevalins and flourished a few centuries before Christ. There is no unanimity among the Jainas about the date of sruta-kevalin Bhadrabahu. The Digambara tradition as incorporated in the Tiloya-papannatti, Dhavala, Jayadhavala and other works unanimously gives 162 years as the total period of the pontifficate of the three kevalins and five sruta-kevalins after Mahavira's nirvana. According to the Svetambara tradition recorded in Hemacandra's Parisista-parvan and other works, on the other hand, Bhadrabahu passed away when 170 years had elapsed since Mahavira's nirvana." Although some Jaina works place the end of the rule of the Nanda dynasty which coincided with the close of the pontifficate of Sthulabhadra 215 years after the nirvana of Mahavira and thereby make Bhadrabahu flourish in the Nanda period which is said to have lasted for 155 years, the tradition recorded by Hemacandra which places Candragupta Maurya's accession 155 years after Mahavira's death and the evidence of some Jaina writers' and inscriptions from Mysore11 which make out a case for the contemporaneity of Bhadrabahu and Candragupta Maurya appears more trustworthy. And what is most pertinent in the present context, while the Digambara and Svetambara traditions considerably differ between themselves as regards the order and names of the spritual succesors of Mahavira and the exact length of the period covered by their pontificate," the date they assign to the druta-kevalin Bhadrabahu falls in the fourth century B. C. Thus, he lived over eight centuries before Varahamihira who, as we have seen above, can be definitely assigned to the sixth century A. D. on the basis of the internal evidence of his own writings. 14 In view of the above discussion of the relative chronological position of the caturdasa-purvin Bhadrabahu and Varahamihira, the tradition recorded by Merutunga and Rajasekharasuri which represents them as contemporaries ApAya vara Amandena zrA Ananda tha 21316 prava 21:2 T pa Wan B

Page #5
A AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA Niiga 23 1999 3 3111 ISATGE STA90311 Geely 515242 56 Dr. Ajay Mitra Shastri must be set aside unceremoniously. It must be pointed out in this connection that while there may be a substratum of truth in some of the near contemporary episodes related by these two Jaina writers of the fourteenth century A.D.,15 they evince an uttar lack of historical sense as regards the earlier period. Not to speak of very ancient times, even the stories narrated by Merutunga about Bhoja, the Paramara king of Malwa, who fiourished in the eleventh century A. D., are an amalgum of incredible legends and brook no anachronism. To cite only a few examples, he would have us belive that the celebrated poets Bana and Mayura, who are known to have lived in the first half of the seventh century A. D. and enjoyed the patronage of the Pusyabhuti king Harsavardhana, actually adorned the court of Bhoja, the Parmara king of Malwa. 16 Likewise, he relates an amusing story about the friendship of poet Magha, who is known on independent grounds to have flourished in the latter half of the same century, and king Bhoja. Then again he speaks of a place called Kalyanakataka as the capital town (rajadhani-nagara) of the country of Kanyakubja which is said to have comprised thirty-six lacs villagers.18 This statement is very curious in as much as Kanyakubja itself enjoyed the status of the imperial capital first of the Maukharis and Harsavardhan and then of the Ayudhas and the Imperial Pratiharas and no town named Kalyanakataka is known from any other source to have existed in the proximity of Kannauj. Similar is the case with the Prabandha-kosa. It refers to king Satavahana as the founder of an era (samvatsara),19 evidently the so-called Salivahana-Saka which actually owes its origin to the Sakas after whom it was known for a long time.20 Then again it attributes the Sarasvata-vyakarana to the same king 1 whereas a more popular tradition assigns it to Sarvavarman. Likewise, it mentions Meghachandra as the son and successor of Jayantacandra (i.e., Jaya. ccandra) who himself is represented as the son and successor of Govindacandra, king of Varanasi, evidently the famous Gahadavala ruler of the name 22 This is an illustration of the most flagrant distortion of near contemporary history, for we learn from numerous Gahadavala inscriptions that after Govindacandra came his son Vijayacandra and after the latter his son Jayaccandra who was followed by his son Hariscandra.23 These examples picked at random would suffice to show that even as regards the near contemporary events no great historical value attaches to the statements of these two authors not to speak of episodes said to have taken place several centuries before their own time. It would, therefore, not be surprising if the story concerning Bhadrabahu and Varahamihira is totally unhistorical and baseless. It is, however, pertinent to note in this connection that the available evidence indicates the existence of more than one Jaina teachers named Bhadrabahu who were separated from one another by a few centuries. The srutakevalin Bhadrabahu who, as shown above, flourished in the socond century

Page #6
Varahamihira and Bhadrabahu 57 after the passing away of the last Jaina Tirthankara may be conveniently referred to as Bhadrabahu I. As he lived prior to the division of the Jaina church between the Svetambara and Digambara sects, he was honoured by the followers of both the sects and is consequently mentioned in the literary traditions of both of them. As the later teachers of this name belonged only to one or the other of the two main sects, they are referred to in the literary works emanating only from the followers of the concerned sect. Thus, the Digambara Pattavalis belonging to the Nandi-sangha and the Sarasvatigaccha mention two Bhadrabahus, first of whom was the last sruta-kevalin and is said to have been the disciple of the fourth sruta-kevalin, Govardhana, and expired 162 years after Mahavira's nirvana,25 The second Bhadrabahu is spoken of as having flourished 492 years after the death of Mahavira, that is, in V. S. 22 or 35 B. C., and is described as the pupil of Yaiobhadra. His pontifficate is said to have covered twenty-three years, i.e., 35-12 B. C. The pattavali of the Nandi Amnaya of the Sarasvati-gaccha begins with him.28 It must be pointed out in this connection that the famous Digambara author Kundakunda describes himself in his Chappahuda (Sat-prabhrta) as a pupil of Bhadrababu,27 who is generally identified with the second teacher of this name known to the Digambara tradition.28 There is, however, a serious difficulty in accepting this identification. This Bhadrabahu is spoken of as well-versed in the twelve Angas and fourteen Purvas, 29 a description applicable only to the first Bhadrabalu. It is also noteworthy that Kundakunda refers to Bhadrabahu as gamayaguru (gamaka-guru) or traditional teacher, and not as ordinary teacher. Kundakunda had, thus, nothing to do with Bhadrabahu II. As shown above, a late Svetambara tradition recorded by authors of fourteenth and subsequent centuries of the Christian era mentions a certain Bhadrababu who is spoken of as a brother and rival of astronomer-astrologer Varahamihira 30 Although he is represented as caturdasa-purvin, his alleged contemporaneity with Varahamihira, whose flourishing period is know from his own works, seems to point to the existence of yet another Bhadrabahu who lived in the sixth century A.D. We may call him Bhadrabahu III. This Bhadrabahu is credited with the authorship of a number of works including niryuktis on ten works of the Jaina canon, an astrological treatise entitled Bhadrabahavi Samhita and a stotra consisting a five verses called Uvasagga-hara Pasa. It is pertinent to note here that a much earlier unanimous Svetambara tradition recorded in the niryuktis31, bhasyasa2 and the curnis33 of the Jaina canon attributes the authorship of the Cheda-sutras 34 to the caturada sa-purva-dhara Bhadrabahu. A critical analysis of the above data would reveal that from fairly early times some confusion prevailed about the personages bearing the name Bhadrabahu and the activities of one Bhadrabahu were often attributed to another bearer of this name. Thus, while both the Digambara and Svetambara tradi VENRAAAAAALAM U A LARAJASAMALAAAAAA SVIT OR 98517716gby Stolnog tely 51299 3711 9226 375 v ir

Page #7
ziy90273 Buigaz, 3100 SISe Streng13 Tegetely 518 58 Dr. Ajay Mitra Shastri tions are unanimous in representing Bhadrabahu of the fourth century B. C. as the possessor of the knowledge of the twelve Angas and fourteen Purvas, the Digambara Pattavalis alone clearly distinguish him from Bhadrabahu II who was separated from the former by an interval of about three centuries. Again, the Digambaras do not give either of these Bhadrabahus the credit of composing either the niryukris or the Bhadrabahavi Samhita. On the other hand, the Svetambaras clearly mention only one Bhadrabahu, the sruta-kevalin one, who is said to have passed away 170 years after Mahavira's nirvana. But while the earlier tradition speaks of him as the author of the Cheda-sutras only, some late writers credit him with the authorship of the niryuktis, the Bhadrabahavi Samita and the Uvasagga-hara Pasa also. The earliest writher to represent him as the author of the niryuktis is Silanka who lived in the eighth century A. D. and speaks of him both as niryukti-kara and caturdasa-purva-dhara in one and the same breath35. The same belief is re-iterated by some later writers like Santisuri, Dronacarya, Maladhari Hemacandra, Malayagiri and Ksemakirti.36 But they do not utter a single word about Bhadrabahu's mastery over astrology. It was left to some late authors of the fourteenth and following centuries to lay stress on this aspect. Nay, we may even ever that an excessive emphasis on this aspect relegates all other religious and literary activities to background. Thus was brought into being the fully developed personality of Bhadrabahu which is an article of faith with the generality of the Svetamharas today. But this belief involves serious anachronism. The overwhelming internal evidence of the niryuktis themselves leaves no room for doubt that they were composed much later than the fourth century B. C. when the sruta-kevalin Bhadrabahu is reputed to have flourished. To cite only a few illustrations. The Avasyaka-niryukri refers to later Jaina acaryas like Bhadragupta, Arya Simhagiri, Vajrasvamin, Tosaliputra, Aryaraksita, Phalguraksita, Arya Suhastin, etc. by name and alludes to events connected with them.37 The Uttaradhyayana-sutra-niryukti not only mentions Sthulabhadra with respect (he is styled bhagavat) but also narrates the story of Kalakacarya who is well known in connection with the legends centring round Vikramaditya and thus assignable to the first century B. C.38 The Pinda-niryukti names Padalipta and Vajrasvamin's maternal uncle Samita and relates the ordination of the Tapasas of Brahmadvipa and the origin of the Brahmadvipika sakha.39 And lastly, the Ogha-niryukti represents its author as paying obeisance not only to saints possessing the knowledge of the fourteen Purvas but also to those versed in ten Purvas and eleven Angas, 40 which can refer only to post-sruta-kevalin period and would be anachronistic if the niryuktis were to be regarded as camposed by caturdasa-purvin Bhadrabahu. Not that the commentators of the niryuktis were not aware of these anachronisms, but the pressure of tradition weighed so heavily that they attempted to explain away these

Page #8
Varahamihira and Bhadrabahu 59 FE anachronistic trends by resorting to some ingenious devices. Thus, santisuri in his gloss on the Uttaradhyayana-sutra observes that the presence in the nir yuktis of illustrations alluding to later events should not lead one to suppose that they were composed by some other person, for that illustrious srutakevalin possessing the knowledge of fourteen Purvas was capable of perceiving anything relating all the three times, viz., past, present and future.42 Likewise, referring to the obeisance of the author of the niryuktis to those knowing ten Purvas, etc. Dronacarya in his commentary on the Ogha-niryukti states that there is no harm in Bhadrabahu saluting them, for though inferior to him in point of knowledge, they possessed more virtues. But such explanations can hardly succeed to bring a modern reader round the traditional view that the niryuktis emanate from sruta-kevalin Bhadrabahu. And than the niryukti on the Dasa-sruta-skandha commences with a salutation to Bhadrabahu himself, described as the author of the Dasa, Kalpa and Vyavahara, 4 which should more than suffice to dismiss the belief as a fiction of imagination. The only solution which can satisfactorily explain all the relevant facts is that the niryuktis were composed by a later Bhadrabahu who was, as pointed out by Muni Punyavijaya, 46 confused with his sruta-kevalin predecessor bearing the same name because of the identity of name. When did this Bhadrabahu flourish? We have stated above that the Digambaras know of a second Bhadrabahu who is assigned to the latter half of the first century B. C. The Svetambara tradition, which appears to have no knowledge of a Bhadrabahu in the first century B. C., mentions another Bhadrabahu who from his alleged contemporaneity with Varahamihira seems to have flourished in the sixth century A. D. It should be noted, however, that there is considerable similarity between the details of personal life narrated in connection with these personages. Thus, both are described as pupils of Yaiobhadra and their knowledge of astrology is also emphasised. These similarities are two gseat to be set aside as incidental. We also know that the late Svetambara tradition, which speaks of Bhadrabahu and Varahamihira as contemporaries, does not distinguish the former from the sruta-kevalin Bhadrabahu and is full of many other anachronisms. Thus, in. spite of the alleged association with Varahamihira we would not be quite unjustified if we conclude that the niryukti-kara and astrologer Bhadrabahu of the Svetambara authors is probably no other than Bhadrabahu II of the Digambara tradition. But if any value is to be attached to the reported association of Bhadrabahu with Varahamihira described by late Svetambaras writers, he will have to be regarded as Bhadrabahu III. Some scholars accord the credit of composing the niryuk tis to Bhadrabahu II" and others to Bhad. rabahu 111.48 Both these suggestions are equally probable. And accordingly WA MAHALAAN NAARYANA zuurgaz HAS Bing22637 915/10 R 511942903110129 556899

Page #9
SUAMVANNA LALUARGAAN N922 1 2 Buyiga 2A 31 READ 3291BIGGER TO 3 W haver Dr. Ajay Mitra Shastri as we accept one or the other of these views, the composition of the niryuktis will have to be placed in the first century B. C. or sixth century A. D. Muni Punyavijayaji goes a step further and suggests that the same Bhadrabahu who composed the niryuktis about the sixth centuary A. D. was also responsible for the composition of the astrological treatise known as Bhadrabahvi Samhita after his own name and the Upasarga-hara-stotra. As regards the latter work we have nothing to say. But it is difficult to accept his suggestion about the authorship of the former work some manuscripts whereof have come down to us and form the basis of the published editions.49 A cursory examination of the relevant evidence would not be out of context. in the colophons of its various chapters the work in variously called Bhadrabahu Nimitta, Bhadrabahu-nimittasastra, Bhadrabahuka Naimitta, Bhadrabahu-viracita-nimitasastra, Bhadrabahu-viracita-Mahani (or nai) mittasastra and Bhadrabahu-Samhita. Taken at their face value, these names will lead one to the conclusion that it emanates from Bhadrabahu which is quite in conformity with the late Jaina tradition. But this claim is belied by an examination of the internal evidence of the work itself. It begins in the Pauranic fashion and we are told that once upon a time when Bhadrabahu, the possessor of the knowledge of the twelve Angas, was seated on the Pandugiri hill near RajagTha in Magadha during the reign of king Senajit, he was requested by his pupils to impart in brief the knowledge of astrological phenomena for the benefit of kings, Jay followers and particularly ascetics. Bhadrabahu thereupon agreed to explain them everything both in brief and detail.60 This statement is vitiated by some grave anachronisms. It is well-known that during the time of Bhadrabahu, well-versed in the twelve Angas, Candragupta Maurya was practically the ruler of the whole of India includiug Magadha whereas no ruler of Magadha named Senajit is known from any other source.61 Then again, Pataliputra, not Rajagsha, was the capital of Magadha during the reign of Bhadrabahu's royal patron Candragupta Maurya. Rajaglha had long ceased 10 occupy this position. Evidentily in his eagerness to give a halo of antiquity to the work its compiler lost sight of all historical facts. This introductory portion, wherein Bhadrabahu is styled mahatman and bhagavat, clearly indicates that the work could not have emanated from any Bhadrabahu, neither the srutakevalin one nor any of his later namesakes. This conclusion is also supported by some other considerations. Thus, at one place we are told that an intelligent person should decide the prospects of rainfall after hearing the words of Bhadrabahu (xi. 52). At another place it is stated that Bhadrabahu had described the prospects of fluctuation of prices after observing the auspicious and inauspicious vogas of the planets and stars (xxv.50). Then again, the expression "these are the words of Bhadrabahu" (Bhadrabahu-vaco vatha)

Page #10
Varahamihira and Bhadrabahu 61 is met with repeatedly through out the work.62 Secondly, the Cheda-sutras attributable to Bhardrabahu I and the niryuk tis and the Uvasagga-hara-Pasa of a later Bhadrabahu are all in Prakrit, and it is reasonable to assume that even if any of these Bhadrababus really composed a Samhita it should also have been in the same language whereas the extant Bhadrabahu-samhita is in Sanskrit. Thirdly, Merutunga and Rajasekharasuri represent Bhadrabahu as a superior rival of Varahamihira, and we shall not be unjustified in expecting Bhadrabahu's Samhita, intended to complete with his rival Varahamihira's Brhatsamhita, 53 to excel the latter work in point of contents and presentation. The case is, however, just the opposite. The Bhadrabahu-samhita Jacks unity of authorship. A majority of chapters begin with a verse stating that the author would delineate such and such a subject.54 No such statement is, however, found at the commencement of some chapters.55 In the introductory portion the author promises to deal with every topic in brief (samasatah) as well as in detail (vyasatahi, 56 but he keeps this promise only in a few cases. 67 Then, at the beginning of the Svapnadhyaya (Ch. xxvi) there is a fresh mangalacarana58 which shows that originally it did not form part of the work and was added to it in later times, probably because the topic is mentioned in the list of contents given in the opening chapter (i. 17). The same is the case with ch. xxx called parisistadhyaya.58 The chapters are not arranged in a scientific manner. To give only a few instances. No intelligible system is adopted in the delineation of planetary movements (graha-cara) which form the subjectmatter of chapters xv-xxii. The movements of Venus, which receive the most elaborate treatment, claim the first place (ch. xv) and are followed by those of Saturn (ch. xvi). One would naturally expect it to be followed by the treatment of the ramaining planets from Sun to Jupiter in their fixed serial order. But such is not the case, and an arbitrary order is adopted. After Saturn comes Jupiter (ch. xvii) to be followed by Mercury, Mars, Rahu, Ketus, the Sun and the Moon (chs. xviii-xxiii). The case is not very different regarding the arrangement of other chapters.59 In some cases, part of one topic is dealt with in one chapter while another part of the same subject is reserved for treatment in a stanza of a subsequent chapter intervened by a large number of verses. To cite only one example, the quantum of the effects of two of the five kinds of ulka, viz., Tara and Dhisnya, is described in verse 9 of chapter 2, while that of the three remaining kinds, viz., Asani, Vidyut and Ulka, is specified in verse 12 of the following chapter. Then, there are numerous repititions not only of ideas but even of words, sometimes in one and the same chapser. Verse 7 of chapter 13 is, for instance, repeated once again after an interval of just sixteen verses (xiii. 23).60 Although minor defects of language, metres and grammar are not uncommon in texts dealing NAMAMVw AAAAAAAAAASLANE Niudad20 3151 Buygaz 31 ONE The Stre91311AGE 316892 AN

Page #11
AcArya pravara abhinaMdana AAnanda anya M JR. K 62 Dr. Ajay Mitra Shastri with technical subjects like astrology-astronomy, medicine and philosophy, the Bhadrabahu-samhita is vitiated by these defects in an unprecedentedly serious proportion which many a time hamper a proper understanding of the text. As against this, the Brhat-samhita is distinguished by well-knit chapters arranged scientifically, succient but self-sufficient delineation of relevant topics, variety of metres which are skilfully used, clarity of expression, general correct ness of language which varies according to the requirements of the topics dealt with, originality and poetic talent, qualities conspicuous by their absence in the work allegedly composed by Bhadrabahu. The Bhadrabahu-samhita cannot thus stand comparison with Varahamihira's work, not to speak of surpassing it which was the avowed purpose of composing it. But this is not all. Many statements of Varahamihira are repeated in the Bhadrabahu-samhita, sometimes with the only diffrence that while the former employs only a few words the latter says the same thing in so many words. To mention only a few examples, ch. xxxiii of the Brhat-samhita and chs. ii-iii of the Bhadrabahusamhita deal with ulka. Varahamihira defines ulka and names its five varieties in xxxiii. I which is reiterated in so many words in Bhadrabahu-samhita, ii.5-6. The quantum of the effects of the five kinds of ulka is described in a single stanza by Varahamihira (xxxiii. 3) and the same is repeated by Bhadrabahu in two verses (ii. 9; iii 12) in somewhat similar words. There is a surprising degree of similarity of words and ideas between the two works in many other places. also.la Bhadrabahu-samhita, xxvii. I is adapted from Brhat-samhita, ix.38, and xxvii. 2-3 of the former are literally the same as ix. 3) and v. 97 of the latter62 Then again, verses 183-185 of the Parisistadhyaya the Bhadrabahusamhita are borrowed ad verbatim from Brhat-samhita, Ixx. 1-7, 9-13, 8. We shall, therefore, not be unjustified in concluding that not only is the Bhadrabahu-samhita inferior to the Varahi Samhita but is alse indebted to it for many ideas and verses and consequently later than it.63 Although the extent Bhadrabahu-samhita is thus later than the Brhatsamhita of Varahamihira, it is not possible to ascertain its date precisely in the present state of insufficient information. In the absence of definite evidence on the point, scholars have naturally offered diverse suggestions. The oldest manuscript of the text was copied on Tuesday. the 5th of the white half of Caitra in (Vikrama) Samvat 1504 or in c. 1447 A. D. But Muni Jinavijaya opines that the work is probably a Sanskritised version of Bhadrabahu's work which was composed in Prakrit and that even the Sanskrit version is at least as old as the 11th of 12th century of the Vikrama era. At one place A. S. Gopani says that the above-mentioned dated manuscript shows that the work cannot be later than the 16th century of Vikrama while later he avers that it was composed after the 15th century of vikrama. It is difficult to accept either or these views. While we need not deny that Bhadrabahu did 65

Page #12
Varahamihira and Bhadrabahu 63 really compose a work on astrology, the internal evidence of the extent work, discussed above, clearly proves that it is neither based on nor is a Sanskrit verson of Bhadrabahu's work. So also the 11th-12th century date suggested by Jinavijayaji can at best be regarded as a pure surmise. The dated manuscript indicates that the work must have been in existence or some time prior to the date of its copying, V. S. 1504. This rules out Gopani's suggestion that it came into existence after the 15th century of Vikrama. It is impossible that the episode of Bhadrabahu and Varahamihira found in the Prabandha-cintamani and the Prabanda-khosa may have an important bearing on the present question. Although the former work is fully aware of Bhadrabahu's mastery over astrology, it does not contain any allusion to the Bhadrabahu-Samhita which is first mentioned in the latter work. There is, of course, no reason to doubt that the Bhadrabahavi-Samhita known to Rajasekharasuri was the same as the extent Bhadrabahu-Samhita. Can we, on this basis, conclude that the available Bhadrabahu-Samhita, came into existence some time during the gap between the dates of these two works, i. e., between V. S. 1361 and 1405 ? It will be clear from the foregoing discussion that the work now known as Bhadrabahu-Samhita has nothing to do with any of the Bhadrabahus and is quite a recent compilation, and an unintelligent one at that, dating from about the middle of the persent millennium. Its compiler, who was a man of ordinary calibre, ascribed it to Bhadrabahu, evidently with the object of giving it sanctity, popularity and authoritativeness. His knowledge of Bhadrabahu's traditional mastery of astrology" must have emboldened him to do so. This was not uncommon in ancient India as a number of comparatively late texts ascribed to traditionally reputed astrologers and astronomers are known to exist even now.68 The extent Bhadrabahu-Samhita is thus a very late compilation forged in the name of the renouned Jaina patriarch Bhadrababu.69 The text of the Bhadrabahu-Smhita as it has come down to us bears the appearance of a Jaina work of the Digambara school. It begins with a salutation to Jina Vira, i.e., Mahavira,70 and, as we have seen above, is represented to have been composed by Bhadrabahu in response to the request of his pupils. The object of its composition, among other things, was to enable the Jaina monks to know in advance the places to be visited by calamities and to take refuge in other prosperous countries (i. 11). Bhadrabahu is styled Nirgrantha (i. 6) and described as sky-clad (Digcvasas, ii. 1). The work is said to have been based on the words of Sarvajna (1. 11. 14) or Jina (is. 2), and a statement found in it is represented to be from the Nirgrantha-sasana or the sayings of the Nirgrantha (iv. 28). In the colophons of individual chapters the title of the work, i.e., Bhadrabahuka Nimitta or Bhadrabahu-nimitta-sastra, is generally qualified by the adjective Nirgrantha, i. e., belonging to the Nirgranthas. Then again at the end of some of the chapters the monks are advised to leave one country AcArya 36 pAva abhi zrIAnanda jantha AcArya prava zrI Ananda CHO 380 30 abhi grantha 11 562

Page #13
SNAK 64 Dr. Ajay Mitra Shastri and seek shelter in another if the former was to be afflicted by certain disasters (xii. 38; xiv. 181; xv. 230; xxv. 49).73 But a close examination of the contents reveals a number of Brahmanical elements which tells us quite a different tale. Thus, speaking of the importance of the nimittas while undertaking a military expedition it is said that even the gods had taken the nimittas into account (xiii. 23). We are further told in the same vein that neither the Vedas nor the Angas (i. e., Vedangas) nor the sciences (Vidyas), taken individually, can meet those requirements which are met with by a well-told nimitta.74 One would normally expect a Jaina text to enumerate the various branches of learning begining with the Jaina cannon and not with the Vedas which were an object of reverence only for the followers of Brahmanical Hinduism. It cannot be argued that the word anga may have reference to the Jaina cannon comprising twelve Angas, for, as the word is preceded by reference to the Vedas, it can denote only the Vedangas. Considerable space is devoted to the description of portents taken from fire while performing homa (offerings to fire) on the eve of a military march xiii. 52-60). The Brahmanical practice of regarding the naksatras as presided over by various gods and referring to them by the names of respective divinities is also followed (iii. 38-39 ; xiii. 96-97). As a means of warding off certain evil portents the author recommends the worship of gods, Brahmanas initiated for the performance of Vedic sacrifices (diksita), elderly people and Brahmacarins, for the sins of the kings are extinguished by their penances (xiii. 116). Referring to the duties of a king after the conquest of a new territory, the work recommends that he should worship the gods, elderly people, Brahmana ascetics or Brahmacarins (lingastha), Brahmanas and teachers and make revenuefree land grants (xiii, 181).748 No mention is made in this connection of Jaina monks which would be reasonably expected of a Jaina author. Again, while dealing with the utpatas relating to divine images, the author first names Brahmana-gods and goddesses like Vaisravana, Candra, Varuna, Rudra, Indra, Baladeva, 25 Vasudeva, Pradyumpa, Surya, Sri, Visvakarman, Bhadrakali, Indrani, Dhanvantari, Jamadagnya, Rama (Parasurama) and Sulasa (xiv. 62-81) and it is only while summarising the whole thing again that mention is made of the images of the Arhats (xiv. 82). One would be justified in expecting a Jaina author to accord Tirthankara images place of honour and others a secondary place. The case is, however, just the opposite. And lastly, the author is not only familiar with but gives great importance to the Brahmanical system of the four Varnas. Thus, while describing the effects of astrological phenomena on wordly life he generally begins with the mention of the four castes in the prescribed order. He also appears to believe in the traditional association, colours and castes, and frequently refers to white, red, yellow and black phenomena as particularly affecting the Brahmanas, Ksatriyas, JE

Page #14
Varahamihira and Bhadrabahu 65 Vaisyas and Sudras respectively. These few instances picked up at random appear to reveal that the extent Bhadrabahu-Samhita probably originated out of a Brahmanical text which was later converted to Jainism by introducing a few changes and additions such as the introductory portion associating the work with Bhadrabahu, concluding stanzas at the end of some chapters referring to the utility of the predictions for the Jaina monks and occasional references to the worship of Jina images and such other kindred elements.79. But the garb is transparent enough to reveal its original character which is quite eloquent. Did then Bhadrabahu not compose any work on astrology? As we have noted above, he was traditionally reputed to have been well-versed in astrology (nimitas), and it is quite possible that he may have composed some work on the subject. But, if he really did so, unfortunately we know neither its title nor the exact nature and extent of its contents. But it was probably not known as Bhadrabahu-Samhita, for this name is not met with in the extensive Jaina literature prior to about the middle of the fourteenth century A. D. This title was obviously imitated from Varahamihira's Samhita which, in addition to BrhatSamhita, was also popularly known as Varahi Samhita after his own name, with the motive of highlighting the alleged competition of Varahamihira and Bhadrabahu which was a creation of wild imagination on the part of some late Jaina authors. And just as the statement of the author of the Prabandha-kosa about Bhadrabahu writting a Samhita alleged to have been christened after his own name is untrustworthy, so also must be his alleged contemporaniety and relationship with Varahamihira. Thus, the Varahamihira-Bhadrabahu episode narreted by Merutunga and Rajasekharasuri does not appear to possess any historical value and as such need not be taken into account in any historical study. It is noteworthy in this connection that this anecdote is not found mentioned in any work datable before the fourteenth century A. D. To sum up. (i) The contemporaniety of Sruta-kevalin Bhadrabahu and Varahamihira contemplated by Merutunga and Rajasekharasuri must be rejected as it goes squarely against the internal evidence of Varahamira's own works. (ii) It is possible, however, that the episode may have referance to a leter Bhadrabahu who composed the niryuktis and was confounded with his earlier namesake because of the sameness of thier names. (ii) An examination of the available Bhadrabahu-Samhita proves that it has nothing to do with any of the personages bearing the name Bhadrabahu and that it is inferior to and later than Varahamihira's Brhat-Samhita to which it is indebted for many an idea and stanza. In fact, it is an unintelligent AARNAAAA AveovaMAEAAAAAAAAAA

Page #15
Zdravia zaruchag zrI Ananda jantha zrI Ananda antha JJ 66 Dr. Ajay Mitra Shastri compilation of about the middle of the present millennium attributed to Bhadrababu with the object of according it a respectable position. (iv) The text of the Bhadrabahu-Samhita as it has come down to us appears to belong to the Digambara sect of Jainism. But a critical appraisal ot its contents reveals that in all probability the text was originally a Brahmanical one and was later given a Jaina appearance by adding a few Jainistic elements here and there. (v) Although Bhadrabahu may have composed a work on astrology, it was probably not known as Bhadrabahu-Samhita, which name is met with for the first time in the fourteenth century A. D. (vi) As shown by a critical examination of the contents of the Prabandhacintamani and the Prabandha-kosa, also called Caturvimsati-prabandha, their authots, Merutunga and Rajasekharasuri, had no historical sense, and the Varahaminira-Bhadrabahu episode recorded by them must be dismissed as of no historical value whatsoever. References 1 These include the Brhat-samhita, Brhaj-jataka. Laghu-jataka, Yogayatra, Tikanikayatra, Brhadyatri, Pancasiddhantika and Vivaha-pajala. Of these, the Vivaha-patala still remains unpublished. For a collection of the avai lable fragments of the Samasa-Samhita, vide my paper in Bharatiya Vidya, vol. xxiii, pp. 23-39. 2 Brhaj-jataka, xxviii, pp. 9. 3 For a full discussion of Varahamihira's life, date and works see Ch. 1 of my India as seen in the Brhat-samhita of Vardhamihira, Delhi, 1969. 4 Prabandha-cintamani, edited by Jinavijaya Muni, Singhi Jaina Series, No. 1, Santiniketan, 1933, Prakasa V. pp. 118-119. 5 Prabandhakosa, edited by Jinavijaya Muni, Singhi Jaina Series, No. 6, Santiniketan, 1935, Bhadrabahu-Varaha-Prabandha, pp. 2-4. 6 Tribhuvandas L. Shah, Ancient India, vol. iv, Baroda, 1941, pp. 338-339. On the basis of the Jaina evidence Shah avers that the Varahasamhita was composed 156 years after Mahavira's nirvana (Ibid., p. 339). The Prabandha-cintamani, as stated in its colophone (p. 125), was comple ted in V. 1361 expired corresponding to A.D. 1306, while Rajasekharasuri finished his Prabandha-kosa in V. 1405 (p. 131) or A.D. 1349. 8 For a full discussion, see Kailash Chandra Shastri, Jaina Sahityaka Itihasa: Purvapithika, Varanasi, Vira Nirvana year 2489, pp. 337-339. 9 Ibid., pp. 339f. Also vide, M. Winternitz. A History of Indian Literature, vol. ii, Calcutta, 1933, pp, 462, 476. Cf. Harisena's: Brhat-katha-kosa (Singhi Jain Series, Bombay, 1943).

Page #16
Varahamihira and Bhadrabahu 67 B. Lewis Rise, Mysore and Coorg from Inscriptions (London, 1909), pp.3-4. 12 For a discussion of the whole question, vide Kailash Chandra Shastri, op. cit., pp. 342-346. Also see V. A. Smith, Early History of India (Oxford, 1957), p. 154; Oxford History of India (Oxford, 1923), pp. 75-76; N. C. Raychaudhuri, Political History of Ancient India (6th edition, Calcutta, 1953), pp. 294-295. 13 Kailash Chandra Shastri, op. cit., pp. 339-340. 14 For a detailed discussion of Varahamihira's date see my India as seen in the Brhatsamhird of Vardhamihira, pp. 4-18. 15 The stories appertaining the Caulukyas come under this category. 16 Prabandha-cintamani, Prakasa 2, pp. 44-45. 17 Ibid, Prakasa 2, pp. 34-36. 18 Ibid., Prakasa 1, p. 11. 19 Prabandha 15, p. 68. 20 G. H. Ojha, Bharatiya Pracina Lipimala (Delhi, V. S. 2016), pp. 170-173; D. C. Sircar, Indian Epigraphy (Delhi, 1965), pp. 258-267. 21 Prabandha-kosa, Prabandha 15, p. 72. 22 Ibid., Prabandha 11, p. 54. R. C. Majumdar and A. D. Pusalkar (editors), The Struggle for Empire (second edition, Bombay, 1966), pp. 54-55. 24 This reminds one of the Buddhist councils only first two of which are known to the undivided Buddhist church whereas subsequent ones, being of sectarian nature, are mentioned only in the works of the respective sects. 25 As stated above, the Svetambaras place his death 170 years after Mahavira's passing away. 26 H. Jacobi, The Kalpasutra of Bhadrabahu, introduction, pp. 10ff.; IA, vol. ii, p. 245; vol. xxi, pp. 57ff. This Bhadrabahu is mentioned only in the Pattavalis, other texts remaining reticent about him. According to some scholars, the episode of the migration of the Jaina community to South India recorded in literature and some late inscriptions from Mysore was connected with Bhadrabahu II (vide J. F. Fleet in IA. vol. xii, pp. 158ff.; Kailash Chandra Shastri, op. cit., pp. 350-351). This suggestion is, however, not well-based. 27 Sat-prabhrta (edited with a Hindi translation by Surajbhan Vakil, Varanasi, 1910), Bodha-pada, versa 62. M. Winterniz, A History of Indian Literature, vol. ii, pp. 476-477, 577. 29 Barasa Anga-viyanam cauddasa Puvvanga-viula vittharanam, Suyanani Bhadrabahu gamaya-guru bhayavao jayau. 30 Prabandha-cintamani, Prakasa 5, pp. 118-119; Prabandha-kosa, Prabandha 1, pp. 2-4. `dm mw mrh AbhinaMdana abhinaMdana sahAya prava The F 390 zrIAnandA antha 45

Page #17
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AVM 68 Dr. Ajay Mitra Shastri 31. The niryukti on the Dasasrutaskandha-sutra mentions Bhadrabahu as the author of the Dasasrutaskandha, kalpa and Vyavahara. For the text of the veise, see Brhat-Kalpa-sutra with the niryukti, a bhasya by Sanghadasagani Ksamasramana and a commentary by Malayagiri and Ksemakirti, edited by Muni Caturvijaya and Muni Punyavijaya, Vol. VI (Bhavnagar, 1942), Gujarati Introduction, p. I. 32 The author of the Pancakalpa-mahabhasya also refers to Bhadrabahu as the composer of the Dasa, Kalpa and Vyavahara and repeatedly styles him suttakara. For original text, vide Ibid., p. 2. The churni on the Pancakalpa-bhasya gives Bhadrabahu and the credit of composing the Acaraprakalpa or Nisitha-sutra, Dasa, Kalpa, and Vyava hara. For the text, see Ibid., p. 3. 34 The Dasa-sruta-skandha, Kalpa, Vyavahara, Nisitha, Mahanisitha and Pancakalpa are known as Cheda-sutras. 35 Anuyoga-dayinah Sudharmasvami-prabhrtayah yavad=asya bhagava to niryukti-karasya Bhadrabahusvamihas=caturdasa-purva-dharasyacaryo=tas=tan sarvan=iti. Silanka's commentary on Acaranga-sutra. Quoted in Ibid., p. 4. 36 For citations, vide Ibid., pp. 4-5. 37 Ibid , pp. 5-7, 8. 38 For original text, see Ibid., pp. 7-8. 39 Ibid., p. 7. 40 Arahamte Vamditta, caudasa-puvvi, tah-eva dasa-purvi, Ekkarasamga suttattha-dharae, savva-sahu ya. Quoted from Ibid., p. 7. 41 For some other anachronisms, see Ibid., pp. 5-14. 42 Na ca kesancid=ih-odaharananam niryukti-kalad=arvak-kala-bhavita ity-any-oktatvam-asankaniyam, sa hi bhagavams=caturdasa-purva-vit sruta-kevali kala-traya-visayam vastu pasyaty-ev-eti katham=anya-kstatv asanka iti. Quoted from Ibid., p. 4. no. 2. 43 Gun-adhikasya vandanam karttavyam na tv-adhamasya, yata uktam - gun abie vamdanayam. Bhadrabahusvamins=caturdesa-purva-dharatvaddasapurva-dharadinam nyunatvat kim lesam. namaskaram=asau karoti iti Atr-ocyate gun-adhika eva te, avyavacchitti-gun-adhikyat, ato na dosa iti Quoted from Ibid., p. 4, no. 3. Vamdami Bhaddabahum, painam carima-sagala-suyananim, Suttassa karagam=isim Dasasu kappe ya Vavahare. Quoted from Ibid., p. 13. 45 Ibid., pp. 1-17. It must be remembered in this connection that a late tradition met with in the Jyotirvid-abharana makes Varahamihira one of the nine gems of the court of Vikramaditya who is credited with the institution of the Vikrama era of 57 B.C. In case it is held that Merutunga and Rajasekharasuri followed this tradition which was quite popular in their time, the identification of the two Bhadrabahus will have to be regarded as a certainty. 44 46

Page #18
Varahamihira and Bhadrabahu 69 47 K. A. Nilkantha Sastri (editor), Comprehensive History of India, Vol. II (Calcutta, 1957, p. 662. 48 Punyavijaya, op. cit., Introduction, pp. 1-17. 48(a) Ibid, pp. 15-17. In support of his proficiency in astrology Punyavijaya invites attention to some statements with astrological implications found in the niryuktis and to the fact that the Surva-prajnapati was one of the texts chosen by Bhadrabahu for writing his niryuktis. 49 A Gujarati translation by Pandit Hiralal Hamsaraj was published from Bombay in V. S. 1959 and the text was published a few years later by the same Pandit from Jamnagar. The text critically edited from four manuscripts and with an enlightening introduction by Dr. Amritlal S. Gopani and a foreword by Muni Jinavijaya was published in the Singhi Jain Series No. 26, Bombay, 1949. Later, Dr. Nemichandra Shastri edited it from two manuscripts with an introduction and Hindi translation (Varanasi, 1959). Gopani's edition contains twenty-six chapters and that of Shastri twenty-seven chapters and an additional chapter called Parisist-adhyaya. Unless otherwise stated, references in the psesent paper pertain to Gopani's edition. 50 Bhadrabahu-samhita,, i. 1-20; ii. 1-2. Unless, of course, he is identified with Seniya Bimbisara. Prasenajit of Kosala is out of question. 52 Ibid., iii. 31, 64; vi. 17; vii. 19; ix. 26, 62; x, 16, 44; xi. 26, 30; xiii. 37; xiii. 74, 100, 178; xiv. 54, 136 xv. 36, 72, 145, 166, 178: xviii. 24; xx. 14; xxiii. 28; xxiv. 23; xxvi 42. 53 Called Varahi Samhita in the Prabandha-cintamani and Prabandha-kosa. 54 55 Cf. chs. iii, xix, xxii. xxiii, xxv, xxvii. 56 Bhadrabahu-samhita, ii. 2. 57 Thus, ulka is described in brife in ch. ii and in detail in ch. iii. This practice is not followed in respect of other topics. Namaskrtya-Mahaviram sur-asura-janair-natam. 58 In some cases the concluding verse of a chapter mentions the subject dealt with in the following chapter. Svapn-adhyayam pravaksvami subha-asubha samiritam xxvi. 1. 58a Srimad Vira-jinam natva Bharatinca Pulindinim Smrtya nimittani vakaye sv-atmanah karya-siddhaye parisistadhyaya, verse 2. 59 Clouds, rainfall and connected matters are dealt with in four chapters (vi, viii, x, xii) which are separated from one anothher by chapters dealing with other topics like twilight (vii), winds (ix) and gandharvanagara (xi). 60 This has reference to Nemichandra Shastri's edition. va 13 Tele ST2 ST CO F AcArya pravara A 9131664 56A

Page #19
AAAAAAAAAAPARAAPIRAALAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA Marte . wwwlv 70 Dr. Ajay Mitra Shastri 63 hen e 61 For some such defects, see Gopani, op. cit., introduction, pp. 19-20. 61a Cf. Brahat-samhita, xxxiii. 4,8 and Bhadrabahu-samhita, ii. 8-9; Brahat samhita, xxxiii. 9-10, 12, 15-16, 18-19 and Bhadrabahu-samhita, iii. 5, 9, 16, 18-19. For a detailed comparison between the two works, see Gopani (editor), Bhadrabahu-samhita, introduction, pp. 6-19, 22-32. As pointed out above, ch. xxvii is found only in Nemichandra Shastri's edition. Nemichandra Shastri's view that the first twenty-five, particularly fifteen, chapters, were probably composed earlier than Varahamihira (introduction, pp. 55-56) is contradicted by his own statement that the work may have been compiled in the 8th-9th century A. D. (Ibid., p. 55). As pointed out by him, the mention of Durga's work on the ristas in Bhadrabahusamhita, Parisistadhayaya, verse 10, clearly shows that at least this chapter is later than 1032 A. D. (ibid., p. 54). 64 See the puspika on p. 70 of Gopani's edition. 64a Ibid., Jinavijaya's foreword, pp. 3-4. 65 Ibid., author's introduction, p. 6. 66 Ibid., p. 20. 67 Nemittio (naimittika) is known to have been employed as one of the syno nyms used for Bhadrabahu. See Punyavijaya, op. cit., p. 15, fn. 3. Such are, for example the works attributed to Brahma, Vasistha, Surya, Maya, Garga, Kasyapa, etc. Similar works exist in the field of Dharma sastra, Ayurveda and Silpasastra also. 69 As an analogy may be mentioned the fact that as works supposed to have been composed by the ganadharas were regarded as more authoritative than those composed by others, in later times the tendency to attribute even late works to them came into existence. Thus, some of the Chedasutras and even some Puranas came to be ascribed to the gunadharas. Vide Dalsukh Malwania, ganadhara vada ki Prasta vana, pp. 8-12; Nisihatha Eka Adhayayana. pp. 18-20. 70 This verse is found only in Shastri's edition. The opening verse of ch. xxvi also pays obeisance to Mahavira. 71 According to xx. 1, the movement of Rahu dealt with in ch. xx is also basad on teachings of the Nirgranthas well-versed in the twelve Angas. Likewise, xiii. 428 (Shastri's edition) proclaims that the nimittas dealt with in the chapter are actually those spoken by the Jina (Jinu-bhasita). 72 Occasionally we find the use of the word Nirgrantha which is evidently an error for Nairgrantha. 73 Also Cf. xiv, 182; xxi. 58; xxiii. 58; xxiv. 43. 74 Na Veda n-api c-angani na vidyasca prthak 'prthak Prasadhyanti tani == arthan nimittam yat subhasitam xiii. 38. 68 * ) 1

Page #20
Varahamihira and Bhadrabahu 71 XA CORO 74a Cf. xxii. 54 which recommends the worship, among others, of persons initiated for the performance of Vedic sacrifices manes and Brahmanas for warding off the effects of the appearance of evil comets. 75 The reading in the relevant verse is balandeve (xiv. 68) and there is also a variant, bale kascin, which give no sense. The correct reading, particularly as Vasudeva is mentioned in the following stanza, must be Baladeva, which has been corrupted into Balande ve in the interest of the correctness of the metre. 76 The mention of Vasudeva after Baladeva points to the earlier peried when Vira-worship was popular. The verse in question (xiv. 69), as well as the preceding one, therefore, appears to have been taken from some early text. 77 Copani's edition gives the reading bhadrastali (xiv. 75), which is obviously a mistake for Bhadrakali which is given by Shastri. 78 E. g., xiv. 22-23; 31, 58; 99-101; xx. 2, 57; also cf. xiv. 57 (association of certain trees and castes); xxiv. 18-21 (association of certain tithis and castes). 79 Cf. xiii.76; Parisistadhyaya, verses 30, 143, 158, etc. COM 4 . AARNA A N # SURGAWAP. UA 113TOK STES 1913 decky 316899 ruhy