Comparative Study of Mantrashastra

SR No.: 006575
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Mohanlal Bhagwandas Jhaveri
Publisher: Sarabhai Manilal Nawab
Publication Year: 1944
Total Pages: 376
Language: English
Classification: Book_English, L000, & L020
File Size: 21 MB

Page 357

348
INTRODUCTION
duction. They could have atleast appended a note about Pt. Premiji's latest and considered views.
EXAMINATION OF MR. PATEL'S VIEWS
We are surprised however, to see the same unhistorical Bhaktāmaracaritra being relied on in fixing the date of Subhacandrācārya by Mr. Gopaldas Jivabhai Patel in his Introduction to 'Yogaśāstra', which purports to be a free rendering by him in Gujarāti of the original Yogaśāstra. Relying on the said work he takes Subhacandrācārya to be a brother of the famous King Bhoja whose date he takes to be 1078 Vikrama era. He ascribes the same date to Subhacandrācārya and consequently considers him to be about 70 or 80 years older than Hemacandrācārya. Starting with such incorrect assumption Mr. Patel compares their respective works. Although he notes that Yogasāstra is a concise and systematic work and that jñānārņava is a work written in the loose style of a religious discourse, he credulously says that there is greater reason to suppose that Yogaśāstra was composed by systematizing and abridging jñānārņava. We are inclined to think that if Mr. Patel had minutely compared both the works or if he had realised the unhistorical nature of Bhaktámaracaritra he would have probably come to a different conclusion. He himself has felt doubts about his own conclusions and he has expressed the same in his Introduction. He also says that Hemacandrācārya, having been surrounded by many enemies, always ready to denounce him, could not have dared to commit such plagiarism. He has however not been able to free himself from the tangle of Bhaktámaracaritra, and has landed himself in an inextricable hole, when he hazards the conjecture of a very large portion of Yogaśāstra viz. chs. V to XI being interpolation by some unknown and unnamed overzealous pupil of Hemacandrācārya with the object of enhancing the glory of his great Guru. He does not assign any reason for his conjecture except that Hemacandrācārya himself could not have been guilty of devoting disproportionately a large portion of his work to the