Arya Bhadrabahu

Author(s): M A Dhaky
Publisher: Z_Nirgranth_Aetihasik_Lekh_Samucchay_Part_1_002105.pdf and Nirgranth_Aetihasik_Lekh_Samucchay_Part_2

Page 5

112
M. A. Dhaky
Jambu-jyoti
is indebted, mainly indeed, to the aforenoted work for its information on Bhadrabāhu namely the Kahāvali and, to some extent, to the Tirthavakālika and the Avasyaka-curni, though for a few details, Hemacandra also may have consulted one or two other concise textual sources, including perhaps a Southern one.
Southern Nirgrantha Sources on Bhadrabāhu Unlike Northern and, importantly, the Southern sources also include epigraphical. Among the literary works—what have been looked upon by Western (particularly German) scholars as secondary, substitute, or surrogate āgamas, theĀrādhanā of Sivārya (c. early 6th cent.)22, and the Tiloyapannattī, (Trilokaprajñapti, assigned to c. mid 6th cent. A.D.) 23 are the earliest to have a bearing, in a small measure though, on Bhadrabāhu. Next comes the Harivamsa-purana of Jinasena of Punnāta Sangha (A.D. 783)24, the Dhavală-tīkā of Svāmī Vīrasena of Pancastūpānvaya (completed A.D. 816)25, as also the Arādhana-Kannada-tīkā (popularly known as Vadda Ārādhane26), now ascertained to be a work of Bhrājisnu (c. A.D. late 9th or early 10th cent.])27, and the Brhat-kathakośa (A.D. 931) of Harisena28 (who, too, like Jinasena, was a monk of the Punnáta Sangha29). All of these, in the Southern context, relatively are older and more useful among literary sources. Incidentally, also theBhāvasangraha of Pt. Vāmadeva (c. 16th cent.), the Bhadrabahu-carita of Ratnanandi (c. 16th cent. A. D.)30, the Munivamśābhyudaya of Cidānanda-Kavi (A. D. 1680), and the Ratnāvalikathākośa of Devacandra (A. D. 1838)* which contain overtly sectarian material and which, from their particular standpoint, orientation in thinking, liking, and hence the attitude adopted and predilections set, has been considered authoritative and used by some Digambara Jaina scholars.
As for the the epigraphical domain, it is restricted exclusively to Karnataka and, the earlier records there, happen to be the inscription no.1 (C. A. D.600)31 as well as no. 24 (c. mid 7th cent. A. D.)32 at the Cikkabeta or Candragiri, Śravanabelgola, are more ancient and, to a large extent, also crucial. Also are the two inscriptions from some site in the Srirangapattanam taluq (c. A.D.
*
The first, the third, and the fourth work, all very late, were not available to me for consultation. But, from their content known through others' writings, they all are, like Ratnanandi's work, highly sectarian.