Jain Shwetambar Conference Herald 1915 07 08 09 Pustak 11 Ank 07 08 09

SR No.: 536627
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Mohanlal Dalichand Desai
Publisher: Jain Shwetambar Conference
Publication Year: 1915
Total Pages: 394
Language: Gujarati
Classification: Magazine, India_Jain Shwetambar Conference Herald, & India
File Size: 11 MB

Page 100

MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMAAAAAAAAAAAA
URU
274 j Shri Jain Conference Herald. dark; while the traditional date of Haribhadra's death is cor. roborated by subsequent authors closely near him in time and well in a position to speak authoritatively in such matters.
The epithets Puryakavi and Parmarthgnanin &c. used by Shantyacharya and others are explained away by you with one stroke of pen by declaring them as legendary. Legends are likely to arise in a oriental country, but under these circumstances the interval between Shanty acharya and Haribhadra will be so small that it would be simply a feat of imagination and an effort to reconcile unreconcilables only. 50 years is such a small period that eyewitnesses also might be living. Besides you ought to consider the place where these words are used. In the matter of discussions his name and quotation is given as an authority. If there is ony weekness in the oppenent's argument it is sure to be exposed. Hence we must come to an inevitable conclusion that the date of his death can be brought down to the 9th century. This part of my argument is so carefully prepared that I hope you will please once consider it exactly from the above standpoint. सिद्धसेन is a commentator of उमास्वाति'तत्वार्थाधिगम and so also Haribhadra. you confound this freen with fagcha fearst the well known author of संमतितर्क- This सिद्धसेन has copied from what Haribhadra the commentator of maief and a conteni porary of Yoshobhadra said in his commentary on gears; but I do not understand how it goes against my rule. Had they been contemporaries they generally would not have copied each other. This is the only maxim which I tried to lay down generally for all the ancient authors. I never meant to say that because an author writes on a subject and does not mention the name of the author who previously has written on the same snbject, both are to be regarded as contemporaries. This I never said. My meaning is that generally not only they did not mention each other, but they never copied from each other. Quotations from and in these two commentaries, on the contrary streng. thens my position. It clearly shows that they are not contemporaries, This was the only relation I tried to establish between Devardhigani and Haribhadra.