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 234

१४६ .
स्वामी समन्तभद्र।
NNNNNNNN
ही उनका समय भी वि० सं० ३६४ से ३८६ तक बतलाया है । क्रमभेदके साथ साथ इन दोनों समयोंमें भी परस्पर बहुत बड़ा अन्तर जान पड़ता है । इतिहाससे वसुनन्दीका समय विक्रमकी १२ वीं शताब्दी मालूम होता है परन्तु पट्टावलीमें ६ ठी शताब्दी (५२५-५३१) दिया है। इस तरह जाँच करनेसे बहुतसे आचार्योंका समयादिक इस पट्टावलीमें गलत पाया जाता है, जिसे विस्तारके साथ दिखलाकर यहाँ इस निबन्धको तूल देनेकी जरूरत नहीं है । ऐसी हालतमें पाठक स्वयं समझ सकते हैं कि यह पट्टावली कितनी संदिग्धावस्थामें है और केवल इसीके आधार पर किसीके समयादिकका निर्णय कैसे किया जा सकता है। प्रोफेसर हेर्नल, डाक्टर पिटेर्सन और डा० सतीशचंद्रने इस पट्टावलीके आधार पर ही उमास्वातिको ईसाकी पहली शताब्दीका विद्वान् लिखा है और उससे यह मालूम होता है कि उन्होंने इस पट्टावलीकी कोई विशेष जाँच नहीं की-वैसे ही उसके रंग-ढंगपरसे उसे ठीक मान लिया है । अस्तु; यदि पट्टावलीमें दिया हुआ उमास्वातिका समय ठीक हो तो समन्तभद्रका अस्तित्व-समय उससे प्रायः ४० वर्षके फासले पर अनुमान किया जा सकता है-यह ४० वर्षका अन्तर एकके समयारंभसे दूसरेके समयारंभ तक अथवा एककी समय-समाप्तिसे दूसरेकी समय-समाप्ति तक भी हो सकता है और तब डा० भाण्डार
१. Ind. ant., XX, P. 341, 351. R. Peterson's fourth report on Sanskrit manuscripts
P. XVI. ३. History of the Mediaeval school of Indian Logic,
P. 8, 9.

Translation AI Generated

146.
Swami Samantabhadra.
NNNNNNNN
His time is also mentioned as being from Vikrama Samvat 364 to 386. There is a very large difference between these two times, along with the difference in order. From history, the time of Vasunandi is known to be in the 12th century of Vikrama, but in the lineage, it is given as the 6th century (525-531). In this way, upon examination, the time, etc., of many Acharyas is found to be incorrect in this lineage, which does not need to be elaborated upon here to give this essay more weight. In such a situation, the reader can understand for themselves how doubtful this lineage is and how the time, etc., of anyone can be decided based on it alone. Professor Hernell, Dr. Peterson, and Dr. Satishchandra have written that Umasvati was a scholar of the first century CE based on this lineage, and it seems that they did not do any special examination of this lineage - they simply accepted it based on its appearance. Thus, if the time of Umasvati given in the lineage is correct, then the time of existence of Samantabhadra can be estimated to be approximately 40 years away from it - this 40-year difference can be from the beginning of one's time to the beginning of the other's time or from the end of one's time to the end of the other's time, and then Dr. Bhandarkar
1. Ind. ant., XX, P. 341, 351. R. Peterson's fourth report on Sanskrit manuscripts
P. XVI. 3. History of the Mediaeval school of Indian Logic,
P. 8, 9.