________________
xxiv
अभयदेव in his commentary on भगवती22 has already anticipated objection of anachronism which of course he answers as follows in his orthodox way:
'एक्कारसअंगाइ अहिज्जइत्ति । इह कश्चिदाह-'नन्वनेन स्कंदकचरितात्प्रागेवैकादशांगनिष्पत्तिरवसीयते, पंचमांगान्तर्भूतं च स्कंदकचरितमिदमुपलभ्यते इति कथं न विरोधः?'। उच्यते, श्रीमन्महावीरतीर्थे किल नव वाचनाः, तत्र च सर्ववाचनासु स्कंदकचरितात् पूर्वकाले ये स्कंदकचरिताभिधेया अर्थास्ते चरितांतरद्वारेण प्रज्ञाप्यन्ते, स्कंदकचरितोत्पत्तौ च सुधर्मस्वामिना जंबूनामानं स्वशिष्यमंगीकृत्याधिकृतवाचनायामस्यां स्कंदकचरितमेवाश्रित्य तदर्थप्ररूपणा कृतेति न विरोधः; अथवा सातिशायित्वाद् गणधराणामनागतकालभाविचरितनिबंधनमदुष्टमिति भाविशिष्यसंतानापेक्षयाऽतीतकालनिर्देशोऽपि न दुष्टः इति ।
The explanation thus given by the ga needs no comment as no body with any vestige of historical sense would accept it. In our scripture अंत० पृ. २४. पं. १६, the historic sense is flagrantly thrown to winds when जालि,-the son of वसुदेव and धारिणी, who became the disciple of Arittha. nemi. the twenty-second Tirthankara, is described as बारसंगी. These anachronisms can not be explained historically unless we explain in the way I have done.
Coming back again to the legend of the 22. भगवती Com. of अभयदेव on II. i. leaf. 124.
