________________
162
THE CANONICAL LITERATURE OF THE JAINAS
[CHAP.
can be rather settled by taking into account the dates of the works noted on p. 161. But, since unfortunately the Jaina commentaries are silent about them except the mention of the 4 Vedas and their 6 Angas, some of them cannot be at all identified. Further the dates of the rest are not still finally fixed. So I shall make a tentative suggestion in this connection as under:
By Bhāraha and Rāmayana are meant the two well-known Indian epics viz. Mahābhārata and Rāmāyaṇa. It seems at the time of the composition of Anuoyaddūra, the former was known as Bharata which later on went on increasing in-size on account of the various verses interpolated therein from time to time and which finally received the name of Mahābhāratu. As stated in Anuogaddāra (s. 25) Bhāraha was read and heard in the morning and Rāmāyana in the afternoon.
Bhimăsurukku orokkhay may be taken to be Bhimäsuru or Bhīmāsurākkhyāna. Its subject and authorship are not known up till now,
Kodillayu is equated with Kautilya's Arthuśāstru. Its date is not fixed. Some take it to be 326 B. C. and some even suppose it to be so very late as 400 A. D.
Ghodayamuhat is supposed to be some work on kõmusāstra by Ghotakamukha', a predecessor of Vātsyāyana.
Sagadabhaddiyā stands for Sakatabhadrikā. Nothing can be said about this work except that its title is in plural.
1 Nandicunni (p. 39), Haribhadra Sūri's com. (p. 83) on Nandi, Malayagiri
Sūri's com. (p. 1945) on Nandi, Aņuogaddăracunni (p. 16), Haribhadra Sūri's com. (p. 22) on Anuogaddāra and Hemacandra Sūri's com. (p. 365)
un Aruyogaddāra are the sources I have examined in this connection. 2 Hemacandra Sūri in his comi (p. 36b) on Aņuogaddāra (s. 41) says:
"चत्वारश्च वेदाः सामवेद-ऋग्वेद-यजुर्वेदाऽथर्वणवेदलक्षणाः साङ्गोपाङ्गाः, तत्राङ्गानि शिक्षा १कल्प २ व्याकरण ३ च्छन्दो ५ निरुक्त ५ ज्योतिष्कायन ६ लक्षणानि षट्, उपाङ्गानि तव्याख्यानरूपाणि तैः
सह वर्तन्ते इति साङ्गोपाङ्गाः।" 3 See p. 14 fn. (here fra faser is a misprint; it should be fasi). 4 In p. 14 fn. and in D. C. J. M. (vol. XVII, Pt. II, p. 292), too, there
is mention of Khodamuha instead of Ghodayamuha. So it may be some
unknown work. 6 He is referred to in Artñaśāstro.
