Anekantajay patakakhyam Prakaranam Part 2

Author(s): Haribhadrasuri, Munichandrasuri
Publisher: Oriental Research Institute Vadodra

Page 16

INTRODUCTION
XII
the days of Haribhadra Sūri, Ambā and Kuşmāņdi vere the vidyas and Vidyārāja Harinaikamişi was mantra, while Kotyācārya notes Kuşmāndi as vidya and Harinaikamiși as mantra. So the latter is senior to the former. Moreover, both have flourished during the period when the Puvvas had become extinct. Haribhadra Sīri's Date and the Pāżya Sources--
Most of the scholars believe that Haribhadra Sūri flourished in the middle of the 8th century A. D.; for, Uddyotana Sūri in his Kuvalayamālā (completed a day earlier than Saka 700 i. e. on the 21st March 779 A. D.) mentions him as his teacher in philosophy and praises him as an author of a great many works, Jinavijaya has assigned to him a period 700 A. D. to 770 A. D. i. e. Vikrama Samvat 757 to 827. This date is consistent even when we take into account that Haribhadra mentions Jinabhadra Gani Kşamāśramaņa as Bhāṣyakāra, and quotes from his monumental work Visesa'; for, according to the Jaina tradition Jinabhadra Gani died in Vikrama Samvat 645 i. e. 598 A.D. But this is not so with respect to the two Päïya verses noted on p. XXIII of Vol. I of AJP unless they are read in another light. The word "Vikrama' occurring in the first is interpreted by H. A. Shah” as referring to 'Gupta', and so the statement that Haribhadra died in Vikrama Samvat 585 means that he died in Gupta Samvat 585 (i, e. Saka 707 – Vikrama Samvat 8423 = 785 A.D.). For, Jinasena in his Harivariusapurāna says that Gupta Sumvat began in Vira Samvat 727 (i. e. Saka Samvat 122 = Vikrama Samvat 257 = 200 A. D.). So, if this interpretation is accepted, the statement of the first Païya verse fairly agrees with the period 700 A. D. to 770 A. D.
If the word 'Hari' in the second verse is taken as a slip for 'Harila', the incongruity disappears; for, in that case it does not give the date of Haribhadra but it gives that of Hārila who
.-.-
-
-
-
--
----
1 In Haribhadra's com, on Nandi, he has twice said: "
3 7 Tator". See pp. 26 and 46 of this com. Does this not suggest that
the traditional date of Haribhadra's death is unacceptable ? 2 In his Guj. article (P. 41 ) he observes that the Saivat which
commenced in Sak: 241 is not Gupta Samrat but it is 'Gupta
Valabhi' also known as Valabhi'. 3 H. A, Shah in his above-mentioned article (p. 41) writes 961
instead of this. But this is a slip; for, he equates it to 785 A. D.