Bruhat Katha kosha

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

Page 88

INTRODUOTION
57
1290, 1632, 1755 etc.); but as far as I have seen, the name of its author is not mentioned. In one or two places Aparăjita writes in Prākrit in continuation of his Sanskrit commentary (p. 355 ); and it looks quite likely that he might be reproducing from an earlier Prākrit commentary. Ašādhara quotes some Țippaņakas (pp. 779, 1737, etc.); and two authors of these Tippaņakas, Jayanandi (pp. 1755-6) and Sricandra (pp. 773, 793, 1834), are specifically mentioned by him. More than once he takes cognizance of anonymous views (pp. 1021, 1632 etc.). Amitagati's metrical Arādhanã in Sanskrit is already there before him (pp. 339, 392, 528, 1333 etc.); some of his quotations, however, which closely agree with the gāthās of Sivārya but differ from Amitagati's rendering, indicate the possibility that there was another metrical Arādhana in Sanskrit (pp. 84, 397, 473, 485, 575, 1021, 1037, 1045, 1747 etc.). Of chronological interest are some of his quotations from the Tattvānuśāsana (Nos. 89-95) of Rāmasena (pp. 1534-35 ) and Jõānārņava (p. 1690). There is a quotation on p. 1093 from Siddhyaňka, i. e., the Bharateśvarābhyudaya of Asādhara himself, of which no Ms. has come to light as yet ; and texts like Siddhāntaratnamālā (p. 1195), Vidagdhapriti. vardhani (p. 1291), from which he quotes, are new names of works which are still to be discovered. It is true that he quotes verses (V. 4, IV. 150 etc.) from his Dharmāmrta (Anagāra-) in this commentary (pp. 445, 1176), but in his Sanskrit commentary on that work he not only refers to Mulārādhana-darpaņa but takes over also lengthy passages from it even with some irrelevant sentences. A comparative study of both the commentaries, in all the details, is necessary to settle their mutual relation.
There are two other small commentaries, Ārādhanā-pañjikă of an unknown author and Bhāvārtha-dipikā of Maņijidaruņa (Samyat 1818), the Mss. of which, though not fully studied as yet, have come to light. According to the Jinaratnakośa, one more Tikā of Nandigaņi is reported, but no Ms. of it has come to light so far.
iv) Kathākos'as Associated with the Bha. Ārādhanā
The commentarial activities, so far reviewed are quite worthy of the importance of the contents of the Bhagavati Arādhanā which must have been studied and interpreted in different ascetic circles by eminent monks as a part of their daily study and for the benefit of the Arādhaka. The text itself tells us that the attending monks narrate in a sweet and attractive manner various tales to the departing Aradhaka on the eve his life; they avoid the Vikathās, but address him with those stories that make him mentally firm and disgusted with worldly life (găthās Nos. 651, 653-55 etc.). Major portion of this text is such that it can be conveniently read to the Arādhaka at the time of his Samădhi-marana; and consequently there are gāthās in this work which contain references
1 See Anagāra-dharmāmita pp. 166, 672-75 and Bha. Arādhanā pp. 616-17; etc,