Critical Study Of Paumacariyam

SR No.: 022643
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: K R Chandra
Publisher: Research Institute of Prakrit Jainology and Ahimsa
Publication Year: 1970
Total Pages: 672
Language: English, Sanskrit
Classification: Book_English & Book_Devnagari
File Size: 18 MB

Page 41

12
A CRITICAL STUDY OF PAUMACARIYAN
V. S. i. e. 81 or 85 A. D. Therefore, the specific mention of Svetāmbara or Digambara must not have occurred before 81 or 85 A. D. Muni Kalyānavijayajia opines that the specific reference to a particular sect had started not before the 7th century of V.S. i. e, later half of the 6th cent. A. D. and according to that view Vimalasuri's date should not fall earlier than that period. But, the epigraph of Śrī Vijayaśivamsgesa Varma (470-488 A. D.) at Devagiri refers to the 'Svetapaļamahāśramaṇasargha'. It proves that on this basis Vimalaśuri cannot be relegated to so late a period of the 6th century A. D. The PCV (22. 24-27) further refers to not less than twenty kinds of penances. Generally the Jaina Canonical literature and the Malăcăra do not refer to most of them. Dr. S. B. Deo4 writes that a large number of tapas is probably a later development. The puspikā at the end of the praśasti of Paumacari yaṁ refers to Vimala as a Sūri. The Kalpasūtrasthavirāvali and the Nandisūtra-patțăvali do not refer to any Sūri. The general epithets are Thera and Ajja (Sthavira and Ārya). The early Jaina Inscriptions of Mathurā also do not refer to any Jaina Sūri of early christian era. Dr. S. B. Deo states that it is the Gacchāsāra which explains 'Sūri' as a sole supporter of a gaccha. He further mentions that Süri seems to be a later term for Ācārya as it is seldom found in the earlier portions of the Jaina canon and in the Mülācāra also there are very scanty references to the term 'Sari'. He says that closer we come to the medieval period we have the predominance of the Súri etc. All these evidences create difficulties in believing the prasasti's claim that the work was composed in the first century A. D.
The PCV gives the planetary position existing at the time of the birth of Hanumān (17.107-112). The position of the planets is not accurate. Are these verses interpolated by some mediocre scribe or does accurate plenatory position given in the Padmacaritam of Ravişena indicate that the portion in the PCV is not an interpolation but there are some defective readings in it ? Prof. N. Shastry writes to me that in the PCV only seven planets are taken into consideration, so the system seems to be old whereas the tungatva of the planets in zodiacs
1. See JS1, p. 97. 2. Sramana Bhagawan Mahavira, p. 307. 3. Insep. No. 98 vide Faina Sirālekha Songraha, Pt. II; see also VGA p. 219 and
SIE, p. 193. 4. HJM, p. 187 ff, p. 563. 5. Ibid pp. 232, 237. 6. Ibid. p. 514.