________________
256
Shri Jaina Conference Herald.
and that therefore we cannot force any argument based upon this theory. But as you yourself are not very particularly argumentative on this point I leave it without more remarks.
Had there been any question as to the year 962 ( the date of the completion of sihiahanga by Sidh.) being taken as a Vikrama date I should have emphasised the date of Garga and Suracharya the latter of whom is a historical personage who flourished in the time of Bhima. ( a king of Gujarat ). But I think your former letters clearly put this point out of question, Now I quote one more proof which technically I called positive proofs in former correspondence.
Munichandra Suri has written a Par jika on the ima jarati of Haribhadra. This Munichandra is a hitorical personage being 41 in Munisundar Suri's ( see verse 62 ) Gurvavali. He has written पंजिका on अनेकान्तजय पताका and various other compilations of Hari ( 68-69 of the same ). He is said to have passed away from this world in Vikram year 1178 (72nd verse), so he is away from Sidh. by two hundred years nearly. The interval was a cause of the rise and fall of Jainism and historically an eventful period. He cannot mistake the in: cidents which have happened 200 years before his time as we at this interval are prone to. He in his पंजिका of ललितfaratr writes :
यां बुद्धा किल सिद्ध साधु रखिल व्याख्यातचूडामणिः, संबुद्धः सुगतप्रणीतसमयाऽभ्यासाचलच्चेतनः । यत्कर्तुः स्वकृतौ पुनर्गुरुतया चक्रे नमस्यामसी,
कोह्येनां विवृणोतु नाम विकृतिं स्मृत्यै तथाप्यात्मनः ॥
This verse clearly says that Sid. whose religious faith was shaken by the study of the books of Budhism and who bows down to the poet ( Haribhadra ) in his composition as his Guru &c. This much is relevant for our purposes. Now if there was anything like the evenness of time between the two authors garage could have at once told to the same effect to the world,
