Bruhat Katha kosha

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

Page 87

BRHAT KATHAKOSA
and a pupil of Baladevasuri. He had studied under Naganandi at whose instance he composed this commentary. These facts are too meagre to help us either to settle his date or the place of activity. In some of the inscriptions, these names are individually met with; but as they stand isolated, we cnnnot identify them with those in the Prasasti. If it is accepted that Candranandi and Candrakirti are interchangeable names, then I have in view a group of inscriptions which mention one Śrīvijaya who had another name Pandita Pārijāta and who could be compared with Hemasena with regard to his learning and austerities. He had predecessors Candrakirti and Karmaprakṛti by name. Śrivijaya flourished earlier than Asadhara who finished his commentary on the Anagaradharmamṛta in Samvat 1300 (-57=1243 A. D.) in which there are references to Aparajita (pp. 166, 673 etc.). Karmaprakṛti is a rare name, and in all probability Srivijaya and the inscriptions refer to one and the same monk. This would mean that the age of Srivijaya is slightly earlier than A. D. 1077, that being the year of an inscription, even if we hesitate to accept Śrīvijaya's identity" with others of that name. Turning to the internal evidence, Aparajita is acquainted with texts like Acaränga, Sūtrakṛtānga, Kalpa, Daśavaikǎlika etc. of the Ardhamāgadhi canon (pp. 2, 611, 1130, 1196 etc.); further he quotes from the works of Kundakunda, the Tattvärthasutra of Umäsväti, Svayambhūstotra (No. 83) of Samantabhadra (p. 1306), Sarvärthasiddhi of Pujyapada and the Varangacarita (VII. 26, I. 13) of Jatila (pp. 243, 258, 747) whom I have assigned to the close of the 7th century A. D. This certainly means that Aparajita is later than 7th century. Till more definite evidence comes forth, he might be put in the 8th to 10th century.
56
The next exhaustive commentary is the Mulāradhana-darpaṇa of Asadhara who carefully notes the number of gathās in different sections, though his aśvasa-division of the text is not quite satisfactory. He closely follows Aparajita (p. 68 etc.) whom he refers to as Sri-vijaya (-ācārya) and Tikäkära (pp. 797, 1047, 1442; 108, 150, 1043; etc.) and whose commentary he mentions as Tikā or Samskṛta-ṭīkā (pp. 420, 440, 744, 779 etc.). It is quite likely that he has in view some other Samskṛta-ṭīkākāras than Srivijaya (pp. 297, 1343, 1746, especially the phrase iti tikākārau vyācakratuḥ). Besides, Asadhara repeatedly refers to a Prakṛta-tikā (pp. 643, 744, 763, 779, 1085,
1 Pt. Premiji's suggestion that Aparajita belonged to the Yapaniyasamgha deserves respectful consideration, but we might wait for some positive and direct proof: see Jaina Sahitya aura Itihasa pp. 41-60.
2 EC. VIII, Nagar Nos. 35-37, Tirthahalli No. 192; IV, Nagamangal 100; V, Channarayapattana 149, Belur 17, Arsikere 1; II, No. 54 (or No. 67, 2nd ed.); VI, Kadur 69.
3 Published in the Manik. D. Jaina Granthamālā, No. 14, Bombay 1919.
4
About other Śrīvijayas see Karnataka Kavicarite I, p. 13 (Bangalore 1924); S. Shrikantha Sastri on the date of Jambudvipaprajñapti, Jaina Antiquary (Arrah 1938) IV, pp. 81-84.
5 Manika. D. Jaina Granthamälä No. 40, Bombay 1938.
6
About Asadhara and his works see Jaina Sahitya aura Itihasa, pp. 129-49.