________________
INTRODUCTION
help him to describe Raghunāthakīrti (DVM I.2). Similarly Mk, while proclaiming the fame of Mukundadeva in the concluding verse of PS, compares him with Raghupati. Last but not the least, we can observe that both the works end in number 20, i. e., DVM ends in 20 sargas as also PS in 20 pādas.
The striking parallels shown above are not certainly accidental. Thus there is sufficient ground to conclude that both the works were composed by one and the same person and he was no other than Mārkaņdeya Kavindra who was in his early times called Mārkaņdeya Miśra and then possibly Kavirājacakracakravartī. Here it is to be noted that the title Kavindra is definitely superior to Kavirājacakracakravarti in so far as the former suggests a higher rank than the latter. The difference in title should not mislead us to separate one from the other in respect of authorship. There are some more points which deserve notice here in strengthening the view that the authors of the two works are identical. As we have seen above, Mārkandeya Kavindra belonged to Brāhmaṇa caste and so also Mārkandeya Misra being expressly mentioned as such. From Mārkaņdeya's PS we learn that he lived in Virapratāpapura-šāsana, not far from Puri. He might have originally resided somewhere near Puri or in Puri itself and after the above-named village was founded by Pratāparudra, the son of Puruşottama, he might have shifted to it. Thus the two authors come closer in respect of their place of residence and patronage as well.
The coincidences as shown above, being authentic in themselves, prove the two authors as identical. Thus the doubt which was raised primarily with regard to the title Kavīndra of Mārkaņdeya is best removed by taking
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org