Bruhat Katha kosha

Author(s): Harishen Acharya,
Publisher: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan

Page 85

54
BRHAT-KATHAKOSA
The evidence available for settling the date of Bha. A. is quite insufficient. A more thorough study of the text in comparison with various other works may help us to put closer limits to the age of this work; at present, however, an attempt may be made to lay down certain broad limits. All that we can definitely assert at present is that this work is earlier than Jinasena's Adipurāņa; but there are a few other considerations which shed: some light on the early date of this work. i) The Digambara tradition, as recorded by Prabhācandra, certainly admits the remote antiquity of this work by saying that it is based on the Aradhana of Lohācārya' and that its author was a contemporary of Samantabhadra, though this is not confirmed by the text itself. ii) It is quite probable that this work includes the missing Aradhana Niryukti; the ideas and verses which it has in common (with dialectal and minor variations) with Nijjutti's, Païņņas,3 Mulăcăra etc. definitely suggest that this text contains matter which antedates the division of the Jaina Church into Digambara and Svetambara; and it substantially represents the traditional verses collected by the Digambara monks who did not recognise the authority of the Ardhamāgadhi canon. iii) The section on vijahana, disposal of the body, prescribes certain practices which have an appearance of antiquity and which became obsolete in course of time.. The story of Dhanna and Salibhadda indicates that similar practices were in vogue and are recognised by the Svetambara canon too. iv) The text contains legendary references which breathe the same spirit as those in the Ardhamāgadhi canon, and some of them are expressed in almost identical words. Digambara tradition says that some of these stories were present in the canon which is lost beyond recovery. v) This work had the honour of having a Prakrit commentary: this corresponds to the spirit of the age of Cūrņis some of which are available on the texts
1
Lohācārya is one of the Angadharins, and according to the Paṭṭāvalis he might be assigned to the first half of the first century B. C.
2 Compare the discussion about the seventeen types of death in the Uttaradhyayanani. and that found in the Bha. A., also ef, Bha. A. No. 32 with a similar verse in that Niryukti.
3 Compare Samtharaga Nos. 94, 95, 99, 100, 101, 111 and 115 with Bha. A. Nos. 1561, 1562, 1669, 1670, 1667, 1538 and 108; cf. Bhattaparinna Nos. 21, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 77 and 81 with Bha. A. Nos. 408, 735, 737, 739, 738, 740, 741, 744, 746, 748, 749, 750, 755 and 759; cf. Maranasamahi Nos. 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 175, 176, 180, 185, 186 and 189 with Bha. A. Nos. 538, 539, 540, 543, 546, 547, 207, 206, 248, 256, 257 and 260.
4 Comparing Mülacara with Bhaga. A., I find more than sixty gathas common. I have incorporated the details in my paper on the Müläcara which is awaiting publication; see also the Varnanukramaņikā, p. 725, of the Bombay ed. of Bha. A., and Anekanta Vol. II. No. 5 (Obviously I do not agree with the conclusion of Pt. Paramanand).
5 Maranasamahi 443-48.
6 See for instance the references to Avanti-sukumala, Caṇakka, Ciladaputta, Jama (Java), Devarai, Sukosala etc. are expressed in almost identical verses.