Pravachanasara

SR No.: 003289
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: A N Upadhye
Publisher: Shrimad Rajchandra Ashram
Publication Year: 1964
Total Pages: 612
Language: Hindi, Sanskrit
Classification: Book_Devnagari
File Size: 16 MB

Page 155

122
Pravacanasira
Parikarma. In his opinion its contents primarily covered Saiddhantikaganita. It is mentioned as Parikarma-satta; it is closely connected with the Satkhandagama on which possibly it was a Vyakhya, now and then expressing different views. Virasena does not mention the name of the author, but Pt. Kailash Chandra is inclined to accept Kundakunda as its author, because Indranandi says so and because some of its expressions have their counterparts in the Niyamasara as already noted by Dr. H. L. Jain.
Page 21, para 2, on the words 'Christian era': Muni Sri Kalyanavijayaji has advanced some arguments against an early date for Kundakunda (Sramana Bhagavan Mahāvīra, Jalor 1941). But his observations are not objectively presented; nor do they stand strict critical scrutiny. Some of his arguments are already met by my discussion to which he makes no reference. On his other details, I may just passingly note the following points: i) The Hindu deities Vienu, Brahman etc. are mentioned in the Satrakṛtänga (I. 6. 21; 1. 1. 5; etc.), one of the earliest works in the Ardhamagadahi canon; and it is not correct to presume that these are just deities of the Puranic age. ii) Reference to Caityagrha has nothing to do with Caityaväsa. iii) It is still to be proved that the Rayanasara is the work of Kundakunda, the author of the Pravacanasara. iv) Some of his presumptions are obviously incorrect. In chronological discussions evidence is more valuable than anybody's opinion, however ingenious it might be..
Pt. Sukhalalaji has expressed his assertive voice against such an early date for Kundakunda (Sanmati Prakaraya (Hindi), Ahmedabad 1963). But he has not presented any evidence which could be weighed. by a historian of literature. It is not the conclusion but the evidence which is presented that matters more in objective studies. The philosophical concepts and the attendant terms have flown in India in various currents and cross cnrrents, and there is very little individualistic about them. So any attempt to come to chronological conclusions on the basis of similarities of ideas and so on will always remain problematic. F. W. Thomas (vide his Intro. to the Pravacanasära pp. 16 ff., Cambridge 1935.) has already made an objective attempt in this direction by putting together various terms etc. (as a sign of antiquity) used by Kundakunda whom he puts earlier than Umasvati and would not at any rate put him after Siddhasena as perhaps Pt. Sukhalalaji has in his mind. The studies about Kundakunda are still in their infancy, and there is scope for further investigation. It is well-known that scholars are not agreed even on the age of Kalidasa for the simple reason that some of them try to usher in arguments which have hardly any relevance and definiteness while determining questions of chronology. This is a good lesson for us who are working on chronological problems. Page 22, foot-note 2: It is suggested that Kondakunde-Konkondla (Anantapur Dt.)
is the place to which Kundakunda belonged and possibly derived his