Book Title: Anekantajay patakakhyam Prakaranam Part 2
Author(s): Haribhadrasuri, Munichandrasuri
Publisher: Oriental Research Institute Vadodra
View full book text
________________
INTRODUCTION
XLIII
As editio princeps may be mentioned the edition by F. L. Pullee in GSAI 1, 47 ff. ; 8, 159 ff.; 9, 1 ff. There is. a publication' by Jaina Dharma prasāraka Sabhā, Bhavanagar. It is styled as “Sri-Haribhadra-Sūrikrta-granthamālā", is dated as Samvat 1964 and it includes over and above this work two more viz. S'āstravartásamuccaya and Astaka.
Saddarsanasamuccaya has at least four commentaries. Of them Gunaratna Sūri's com, TRD has been edited by L. Suali and published along with the text in Calcutta Bibliotheca Indica in 1905-7 A. D. The text and this com. are subsequently published by Sri Atmānand Sabhā, Bhavanagar, in Samvat 1974.
In TRD (p. 42a) and in SM (p. 97, com. on v. 15), too, the following line is attributed to Patañjali:
"Tetsfa goa: gazi &944, a inyers TS 1% प्रतिभासते"।
This is not found in Patañjali's Yogasūtras, but it practically occurs in Vyāsa's Bhāşya (p. 91) on them (s. 20). So is this a slip or is it that in the time of Mallişeņa Patañjali was looked upon as the author of this Bhâsya, Vyāsa 'being too ancient to be a commentator of Patañjali?",
I In this publication S'astravērtasamuccaya is divided into eight
slabakas, and each begins with the word 'stabaša' and its correspon
ding number. See intro. (p. XXXIX). % On pp. 20a and 20b are mentioned 18 incarnations of Rudra (Siva).
This reference is wrongly attributed to Haribhadra by D, K. Shastri in his "a la ETE" (p. 69). This has led him to say on p. 78 that Rašikara has been looked upon as the 17th incarnation of Rudra by Haribhadra. Similarly, on p. 88 he has wrongly fathered upon Haribhadra the montion of the characteristics of the Saiva yogins and that of the S'aiva seots and
sub-sects. For, all these topics are dealt with in TRD. 3 'aise SATA957: 98:
9
4' is the reading in the Bkāsya. The very frequent practioe of commenting upon one's own work i, e. of writing a svopajña vrtti prevalent amongst the Jaina authors, may have led to the confusion between the sutra-kära and the bhāsya-kāra.
This is, of course, a conjeoture to aocount for the slip, if admitted. 5 Sea "Notas" (p. 174) on SM. Bere the remark viz. 'the slip was
originally Ganaratna's and was afterwards repeated by Mallisena' is wrong; for, SM was composed in Saša 1214 i. e. Sanivat 1349 whereas Gunaratna, the author of TRD, composed K'riyaratnasamuccaya in Samvat 1466, and thus he (Gunaratna) flourished about 100 years after Mallişena.
