________________
The date of Siddharshi.
आचार्य हरिभद्रो मे geaià miaài ga
धर्मबोधक गुरु |
a già fààíça: 11
255
may possibly he the continuation of the same metaphor. But at p. 138 fas II. r is put in the same position as तद्दया and सद्बुद्धि. These words do not go against my theory though taken in its close sense, but therein also the function if . is to be considered. Any how, one inevitably comes to the same conclusion that धर्मबोधकर is more or less a symbolical personage.
Before going to the second point I should like to note here that we agree as to the date of Sid. It is to be taken as a Vikrama Date. I take it that the only question is whether Haribhadra was a contemporary of Sid. or not.
should like to know whether there is any book in the Jain literature in which Gupta dates are to be taken unless specifically directed to the same effect. Gupta era, according to my information, was almost out of use at the time under consideration and hence the year 585 (the date of the death of Hari.) cannot be taken as a Gupta date after due weight has been given to all possible theories.
In this connection, then, the abovementioned difficulty again confronts where is the warranty? There are very few references to Gupta date and again the date of Haribhadra is the last thing which can possibly be mistaken. A slight mistake in subsequent writers is possible under the general prevalence of ignorance as to dates in those times, but a wholesale mistake of 300 years for a well known and celebrated author like H. is an impossibility.
Your argument as to the date of Merutunga as given in the Gurvavali making him contemporary Bana and thereby showing a mistake af 280 years is based upon a mis-conception. You say Bana's date 580 A. D. is a historical fact, but according to the latest information his date is taken to be the third century A. D. However this may be we are sure that the date of Bana is not as yet unanimously fixed
