Ratnakarandaka Shravakachara

SR No.: 010669
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Jugalkishor Mukhtar
Publisher: Manikchand Digambar Jain Granthamala Samiti
Publication Year: 1982
Total Pages: 456
Language: Hindi, Sanskrit
Classification: Book_Devnagari
File Size: 7 MB

Page 205

समय-निर्णय ।
११७
___ हमारी रायमें, राइस साहबका यह अनुमान निरापद अथवा युक्तियुक्त प्रतीत नहीं होता । हो सकता है कि समन्तभद्र सिंहनन्दिसे पहले ही हुए हों, और ईसाकी पहली शताब्दिके विद्वान् हों, परंतु जिस आधार पर राइस साहबने इस अनुमानकी सृष्टि की है वह सुदृढ नहीं है; उसके लिये सबसे पहले, यह सिद्ध होनेकी बड़ी जरूरत है कि उक्त शिलालेखमें जितने भी गुरुओंका उल्लेख है वह सब कालक्रमको लिये हुए है, अथवा उसमें सिंहनन्दिका समंतभद्रके बाद या उनके वंशमें होना लिखा है । परंतु ऐसा सिद्ध नहीं होता-न तो शिलालेख ही उस प्रकृतिका जान पड़ता है और न उसमें 'ततः' या 'तदन्वये' आदि शब्दोंके द्वारा सिंहनन्दिका बादमें होना सूचित किया है-उसमें कितने ही गुरुओंका स्मरण क्रमरहित आगे पीछे भी पाया जाता है । उदाहरणके लिये 'पांत्रकेसरी' विद्यानंदको लीजिये, जिन्होंने अकलंकदेवकी ' अष्टशती' को अपनी 'अष्टसहस्री' द्वारा पुष्ट किया है और जो विक्रमकी प्राय: ९ वीं शताब्दिके विद्वान् हैं । इसका स्मरण अकलंकदेवसे पहले ही नहीं, बल्कि 'श्रीव- . र्द्धदेव' से भी पहले किया गया है। श्रीवर्द्रदेवकी स्तुति 'दंडी' नामक कविने भी की है, जो ईसाकी छठी शताब्दीका विद्वान् है और उसकी
might, in connection with the remarks made below, be placed in the 1st or 2nd century A. D................ :. There is accordingly no reason why Sinha nandi should not be placed at the end of the 2nd century A. D.
१ पात्रकेसरी और विद्यानंद दोनों एक ही व्यक्ति थे इसके लिये देखो 'सम्यत्वप्रकाश' ग्रंथ, तथा वादिचन्द्रसूरिका 'ज्ञानसूर्योदय' नाटक अथवा 'जैनहितैषी' भाग ९, अंक ९, पृ० ४३९-४४० । सम्यक्त्वप्रकाशके निम्न वाक्यसे ही दोनोंका एक व्यक्ति होना पाया जाता है-"तथा श्लोकवार्तिके विद्यानन्द्यपरनामपात्रकेसरिस्वामिना यदुक्तं तच्च लिख्यते-।"

Translation AI Generated

Time-Decision.
117
_ In our opinion, Mr. Rice's conjecture does not appear to be safe or reasonable. It is possible that Samantabhadra may have lived before Singhnandi, and may have been a scholar of the first century A.D., but the basis on which Mr. Rice has created this conjecture is not strong; for this, first of all, it is necessary to prove that all the gurus mentioned in the said inscription have occurred in chronological order, or that Singhnandi is mentioned after Samantabhadra or in his lineage. But this is not proven - neither does the inscription appear to be of that nature, nor does it indicate Singhnandi's later existence by words like 'tatah' or 'tadanyaye' - in it, the remembrance of many gurus is found in a random order. For example, take 'Pantrkesari' Vidyānanda, who has strengthened Akalankadev's 'Ashta-shati' with his 'Ashta-sahasri' and who is a scholar of the 9th century A.D. His remembrance is not only before Akalankadev, but also before 'Srivardhadeva'. Srivardhadeva has also been praised by the poet named 'Dandi', who is a scholar of the 6th century A.D. and his
might, in connection with the remarks made below, be placed in the 1st or 2nd century A.D................ :. There is accordingly no reason why Sinha nandi should not be placed at the end of the 2nd century A.D.
1 For the fact that Pantrkesari and Vidyānanda were the same person, see the 'Samyattvaprakash' text, and the 'Jnan Suryodaya' play by Vadi Chandrasur or 'Jain Hitaishi' part 9, issue 9, pages 439-440. The following sentence from Samyattvaprakash itself shows that both are one person - "Tatha sloka-vartike Vidyānandya-paranāma-pātra-kesari-svāminā yaduktam taccha likhyate-."