________________
Siddhasena Divākara and Vikramāditya
125
of remote age82, still the above literature does not allow of further conclusions re Siddhasena's time beyond the fixation of his terminus ante quem for about 450 A.D.
Those references, culled as they are from Digambara (Items Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, 9 ) and Śvetāmbara works ( Items Nos. 4, 5, 6, 8 ), illustrate the fact alluded to before that Siddhasena is acclaimed as an authority by both the sects, similar to Umāsvāti (or ‘Umāsvāmī') and Samantabhadra, so much so that the problem to which sect he belonged remained long unsolved. It was only internal evidence which enabled the editors of the Sanmati-tarka to decide that he 'cannot have been a Digambara’83.
In the meantime, the inscription on a Jina statue recently found in the Candraprabha temple of Jaisalmer has come to their support. It reads as follows84 :
१. श्रीनागेंद्रकुले 7. Sif hashafal (-) B. Brarfod 37 (-) ४. म्माछुप्ताभ्यां कारिता ५. संवत १०८६
This legend also shows that Siddhasena belonged to the Nāgendra-Kula. As, according to the Pattāvalīs, this Nāgendra-Kula was founded on Vajrasena's death 620 years after Mahāvīra, i.e. in 93 A.D., along with the Candra-, Nirvrtti-, and Vidyādhara-Kulas85, it is clear that he could not have belonged to the Vidyādhara-Kula. If, therefore, the Prabandhas declare, Siddhasena to have belonged to the ‘Vidyadhara-Vara-Amnāya’86, to the ‘Vidyādhara-Vaṁśa'87, to the 'Vidyādharendra-Gaccha'ss, or to the 'Vidyādhara-Gaccha' respectively, all these references might point to the ‘Vidyādharī Sākhā' ( founded centuries earlier by Vidyādhara Gopāla ), as inferred by Pts. Sanghavi and Doshi89, on the basis of other premises.
To return to the question of Siddhasena's date, H. Jacobi and afterwards P. L. Vaidya had previously tried to fix the same
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
