Parmatmaprakasha and Yogsara

SR No.: 001876
Original Sutra Author: Yogindudev
Author: A N Upadhye
Publisher: Paramshrut Prabhavak Mandal
Publication Year: 2000
Total Pages: 550
Language: Sanskrit, Hindi, English
Classification: Book_Devnagari & Literature
File Size: 13 MB

Page 96

Introduction
bhadra as Guru and Gautama and Pujyapada as Bhagavana. Prof. Hiralal sets aside the claims of Lakṣmicandra, whom he takes to be the same Laksmicandra, a contemporary of Śrutasagara, on the following grounds: 1) The last verse of Ms. Bha attributes the text of Yogindra, Pañjikā, to Lakṣmicandra and Vṛtti to Prabhacandra. 11) Laksmana, the pupil of Mallibhūṣana, mentioned in the concluding remarks of Ms. Pa, is identical with Lakṣmidhara, Laksmana being his name before entering the order of monks. iti) The phrase 'Laksmicandra-viracite in Ms. Pa is a scribal error; and it should have been either Sri-Lakşmicandra-likhite or Sri-Laksmicandrartha-likhiti, iv) Lastly no other works of Laksmicandra are known to us. It is true that Śrutasagara attributes this work to Laksmicandra (or -dhara), but there is no evidence at all to identify this name with that of a contemporary of his. Jaina hierarchy contains identical names of teachers who lived at different times. i) The verse in Ms. Bha is a later addition for the following reasons: It comes after the concluding colophon 'iti $rävakacara-dohakam Laksmicandrakṛtam samāptam | fr; the contents of the verse are inconsistent with this colophon; a part of the verse claiming Yogindra as the author is not at all proved; and, as Prof. Hiralal himself has said, nothing is definite about the Pañjika attributed to Lakṣmicandra. ii) I have already stated above that there is no evidence to take Lakṣmicandra to be the same as the contemporary of Śrutasagara. Even accepting, for the sake of argument, that Lakṣmicandra (the contemporary of Śrutasagara) was known as Pt. Laksmana in his householder's life, Laksmana and Lakṣmicandra, mentioned at the close of Ms. Pa, are not identical. First we get 'iti Upasakacara acarya Šri Lakşmicandraviracitë dōhaka-sūtrāṇi samaptani' then follows that this Doha-sravakacara was written for Pt. Laksmana, the pupil of Mallibhasana, in Samvat 1555. Pt. Laksmana, therefore, was a householder in Samvat 1555; then how can he mention beforehand his forthcoming ascetic title, Laksmicandra, when he still calls himself Laksmana? The name, Laksmicandra, is mentioned first; and then comes the copyist's mention of Pt. Laksmana. By comparing Mss. Pa and Bha3 it will be clear that the colophon quoted above belongs to the author himself; and the following lines in Pa are to be attributed to the copyist. II) When the proposed identity of Laksmana and Lakṣmicandra is not proved, and in fact disproved, there is no point in suggesting a correction in the actual reading. iv) The last argument does not stand by itself, and needs no independent criticism. Prof. Hiralal's arguments against Laksmicandra's authorship are not conclusive, and his claim that Devasena is the author is already disproved. So, in conclusion, I have to say that the author of this Śrāvakācāra, in the light of the available material and on the authority of Śrutasagara's statement, is Acarya Lakṣmicandra. There is no evidence to
1 Şatprabhṛtādi-sangraha, pp. 65, 77 and 93.
71