Anekantajay patakakhyam Prakaranam Part 2

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

Page 18

INTRODUCTION
XV
Samvat 800 to 950, and assuming that this belief is correct, he says:
(i) There is scope for discussing as to whether Haribhadra is anterior or posterior to Sankarācārya. Neither Haribhadra has mentioned the name of Sankarācārya in any work of his nor has the latter that of the former in any of his works. But this proves or disproves nothing about the priority or posteriority of one or the other. On the contrary the exposition of the topics such as bhūtavaicitryasiddhi, bhūtacaitanyotpatti, kşanikatvanirāsa, bāhyārthasiddhi and sumavāyanirāsa treated in Dhamna. sangahani (v. 65–67, 76, 77, 168, 310 and 228-330) and in Pañcasaga, is an imitation of Sārīraka-bhāsya of Sankarācārya. So I am inclined to infer that this bhāsya was seen by Haribhadra. Further, in Yogabindu, there is a reference to abhūsavada, and it suggests that Haribhadra flourished later than Sureśvarācārya alias Mandanamiśra, the foremost exponent of abhāsavāda. I, however, leave this question open for final decision,
(ii) If it is posible to believe that Haribhadra is later than Sankarācārya, the colophon of Upamitio fits in to a greater extent. But, if we were to accept the colophon of Kwalayanālā, it must be admitted that Haribhadra is anterior to Sankarācārya, and that the former colophon loses its validity. It may be that the year 700 referred to in Kuvalayamālā belongs to the Gupta era ; for, the year according to Śālivāhana era ends in Phālguna.
I shall say a few words about these views which are more or less his suggestions.
(i) I agree that the absence of a reference is not a conclu: sive proof by itself for proving a case or disproving it."
1 I may however note that a negative argument, too, has some force
at times. And this is practically the case here; for, it is rather strange that a towering personality and great opponent of Jainism like Sankarādärya remains annoticed by Haribhadra, I am there fore inclined to share the opinion expressed by Jinavijaya, Prof. N. Y. Vaidya and Mr. P. K. Gode that Haribhadra is anterior to Sankaräcārya, and especially when it proves the tradi. tional date of Sankara 788-820 A, D, to be correct -as guggested by N. V. Vaidya in his intro. (p. yiii) to Samarāiccakahā (VI). N. D. Mehta, too, has assigned this date to Sankaräcărya, Vide his face 774915771 ERTER (STITI, P. 209).