________________
III. SOME UNRESOLVED ISSUES.
Before we proceed to investigate the issue indicated in the title of this article, we note some relevant issues which are not resolved yet and are a subject matter of great controversy, many times again with sectarian undertones. We list here 4 such issues.
i) As per the authority of Tiloyapannatti [3; part 1; p. 340] and Dhavalā [4; part 1; p. 64-67), masters in Canon (Angas) flourished up to 683 years after Nirvāna (emancipation) of Mahāvīra in 527 B.C. By this time the knowledge of 11 Angas and 14 Pūrvas was totally lost. But there were few scholar-saints who possessed knowledge of a small fragment of Pūrvas. Accordingly, Bhūtabali and Puşpadanta learned it from Dharasena of Saurāstra and composed the monumental Satkhandāgama. Now how many years after 683 years from Nirvana of Mahāvīra, Dharasena flourished is nowhere chronicled. It may be 100 or 200 years after this deadline of 683 years. But almost all Dig. scholars assume that Dharasena flourished exactly 683 years after Mahāvīra, i.e. in 2nd C. A.D.
ii) The genealogy of Dig. Acāryas (chief pontiffs) begins with Arhadbali (there are indications that he flourished around the same time as Dharasena) and is followed by Māghanandi, Padmanandi of Koundakunda, Umāsvāmī, etc. Because of certain SB-inscriptions of 14th C. A.D. stating that Padmanandi is another name of Kundakunda ( a), the celebrated author of trilogySamayasāra, Pravacanasāra and Pañcastikāyasangraha - majority of Dig. Jaina historians and scholars identify padmanandi of above genealogy with Kundakunda ( a). The said SB-inscriptions nowhere mention about the celebrated trilogy. All earlier SB-inscriptions between 10th and 13th C.s A.D. only talk of Padmanandi of Koundakunda, most probably the author of Parikarma, a commentary on Satkhandāgama, mentioned by Virasena in Dhavala [4; part3; p.19). Also, most probably Koundakondānvaya (Chigidu) started with him since the title of anvaya (lineage) was generally after the name of the place, i.e. Koundakonda ( HTC) to which Padmanandi belonged. With passage of time (of about 1000 years), the name came to be changed as Kundakundānvaya ( baru) because of similarity in name and majority of scholars tended to believe that Kundakunda ( a) is sanskritisation of Koundakonda (कौंडकोंड) and that the anvaya was named after Kundakunda (कुंदकुंद). Even the so-called Koundakondānvaya (Chiccu) was first mentioned in copper plates of Mercara of 5th C. A.D., where a chain of 6 Acāryas of this anvaya are mentioned and which neither refers to Kundakunda (40) nor to his trilogy [5] and thus many scholars put him in 6th C. A.D.
iii) Normally accepted chain of Acāryas (since the time Arhadbali split the original Mula Sangha of Dig. sect in number of sanghas probably any time between 2nd and 4th C. A.D.) runs as follows as per Pattāvalīs or Gurvāvalīs of various sanghas: Arhadbali, Māghanandi, Padmanandi (Kundakunda gaga?), 376 , 23 (3), 2011
57
