Atmanandji Jainacharya Janmashatabdi Smarakgranth

Author(s): Mohanlal Dalichand Desai
Publisher: Atmanand Janma Shatabdi Smarak Trust

Page 233

The Quotations in the Nītivákyämrta Commentary for the sumavatyins which word he explains by लिङ्गिनः शैवबौद्धकौलनाffa T:1 but omits the Vaisnavas. In this connection the Commentator quotes the “ Guru". In the Anukramaņikā of authors and their quoted verses the editor understands the guru as Brahaspati; but there is no reason for such a suggestion. The fact that the Commentator chose the Nitiv. by a Jaina author as the subject of his work would rather point to his own Jainism. Would it not be known by other works it would be difficult even to ascertain the religion of Somadeva only by the help of the Nītiv. p. 282 ( 27, 29 ) Somadeva says:
श्रीमतोऽर्थार्जने कार्यक्लेशो धन्यो यो देवद्विजान् प्रीणाति' । kayaklesa is a term of Jinism, but, assuming this text, it is no Jaina doctrine to say that rich, in a metaphorical sense of course, happy is
ho satisfies gods and twice-born, especially Brāhmaṇas. In the new edition there is no samvibhaga, but it occurs in the verse, quoted by the Commentary, under the name of rşiputraka ( p. 283 ).
कायक्लेशो भवेद्यस्तु धनार्जनसमुद्भवः ।
स शंस्यो धनिनो योऽत्र सविभागो द्विजार्थिषु ॥ From this can be seen the difficulty with which the critical reader of the Nitiv. and its Commentary is confronted; for neither the text of the Nītiv, is about all doubts nor are the sources of the Commentary known. Another instance for the uncertainty whether the Tīkākāra was a Jinist or an adherent of Brāhmanism is given by the reference to p. 311f. ( 29, 3f. ) Somadeva says- TASTA. When the Commentator explains daiva by Tife #, as he does here and p. 347 ( on 30, 13), it sounds as well Jinistic as Brahmanic; cf. e. g. Hitop. Prastáv. sl. 21 TATARSA #Raç qarafa Feta. In versə 5 Somadeva says, after having
1 On kaula cf. the Commentary on 1, Ii (p. 8); he explaius the word abhyudaya as Svarga, because dharmır is that by which attainment to heaven and moksa take place. But not so with the kaulanaslika who are attached to striseva, madyapana; in I, ?h: refe:s to madyamamsastrinisevana, thus omitting the two others "m" of the Panca-attva
2 The older edition reads: srim utah, kay akleso na devagurudvijatithi prinati, kintu vibhavasamvibhagah,explained in the Mugdhabojhini that prayascitla consisting in pilgrimages etc. are only fit for the poor, they have to part with the prayascitt. .: 152:
[ Shree Atmaramji