Tulsi Prajna 1993 02

SR No.: 524574
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Parmeshwar Solanki
Publisher: Jain Vishva Bharati
Publication Year: 1993
Total Pages: 166
Language: Hindi
Classification: Magazine, India_Tulsi Prajna, & India
File Size: 7 MB

Page 130

Mabávira Era
might intend to carry a prophecy that one "Sakarājā' would be born 9785 years 5 months after the death of Mahāvīra while the other would be born after 14793 years. The figure 605 years 5 months is supposed to be linked with the Saka era of 78 A.C. But the birth of a Sakarājä in 78 A.C. is not proved by literature and epigraphy. What really happened in 78 A.C. was that Gupta dynasty killed a Saka ruler and saved the honour of Dhruvadevi. Soon after the event Ramagupta lost his life as well as the throne and Chandragupta II became king and assumed the title of Vikramaditya. It would be simply absurd to say that he was born in 78 A.C. As for the figure 461 years, there is nothing in the Tiloyapannatti to warrant linking the "Sakarājā' either with the Vikram era or with the era of 78 A.C. The Tiloyayannatti docs not mention Vikramaditya at all.
Sakarājā' in fact does not mean a king born in the Saka tribe. It means a king who founded his era. The verses, therefore, refer to four king who founded their era or are expected to do that. Wellknown works on Sanskrit grammar use the word 'SAKAPĀRTHIVA' in the same sense. There is nothing to question the statement that a king who founded his era was born 461 A.M. and another of the same kind was born 605 years after the death of Mahāvira. Though we know nothing about the two kings now, we ought to respect the tradition in absence of anything to disprove it. The two Sakarājā' mentioned in the gātbās of Tiloyapannattī were identified with the founders of Vikrama era (57 B.C.) and Saka era (78 A.C.) sometime after the ninth century A.C. Such identification could not be done smoothly. The difference between the two figures 461 and 605 in the Tiloyapannattī was 144 years while the difference between the two eras was 135 years only. The difficulty was remoyed by replacing 461 with 470 years in later works without bothering to explain and justify the adjustment. That is highly improper and invalidates the conclusions drawn by Hemachandra Sūri and Merutunga etc. III. KALKĪRĀJĀ
The Jaina literature mentions a ruler called Kalki who was hostile to and persecuted Jaina munis. We can see if the references to Kalki are of any use to us. I have come across the following in this respect.
(1) Nemi Chandra in his Trilokasāra says Sakarājā was born 605 years 5 months after the death of Mahāvira and Kalki followed 394 years 7 months after Sakarājā :
पणछस्सयवस्सं पणमासजुवं गमिय वीर णिव्वुइदो। सगराजा ततो कक्की चहुणव तिय महिय सगमासं ॥