________________
230
A COMPREHENSIVE HISTORY OF JAINISM
same as Vairi of that text. Agastyasimha was the disciple of one Rsigupta and it appears that he lived before Jinadāsa. The Sutrakrtāngacūrņ752 refers to the mosquito menace in the Tāmralipta coun
try.353
Haribhadra, who lived in the mid-eighth century AD, and was a senior contemporary of Udyotanasūri, has left a number of Sanskrit commentaries called urttis. He was a disciple of Jinabhata354 and belonged to the Vidyādhara kula. As we have already seen he was a native of Citrakūta (Chitor) and one of most learned men of his time. His commentaries on the following Agamic texts are well known: Āvaśyaka, Daśavaikālika, fivābhigama, Prajñāpanā, Nandīsūtra, Anuyogadvāra, and Pindaniryukti. He has expressed his indebtedness to the earlier commentators, including Jinadāsa. Šīlānka, 355 who lived a century later, also wrote several commentaries, of which the Acārānga356 and the Sūtrakstāngavivaranas357 have survived. Another commentator was Santisūri who lived in the early eleventh century AD, and was a contemporary of Paramāra Bhoja, Caulukya Bhima, and the poet Dhanapāla. We have his Uttarādhyayanatīkā.358 In this commentary he has referred to the text, accepted in the council, held under the presidentship of Nāgārjuna. Sāntisūri belonged to the Kotikagana and Vaira-śākhā.359
Abhayadeva, who lived in the eleventh century AD, wrote commentaries on all the Anga texts, except the first two, and also one on the Aupapātika. We have two definite dates for him; they are vs 1120 and 1128, corresponding to AD 1062 and 1070.360 It is evident from his works that he spent the major part of his life at Anahilapāțaka (Patan, Gujarat). His preceptor was Jineśvara of Candrakula.361 He further admits his indebtedness to Dronācārya of Anahilapāțaka who corrected the texts of his commentaries. It should, however, be pointed out that the commentaries of Abhayadeva do not help us much in understanding the Jaina Agamic texts. The Jaina commentators of the post-Gupta period had practically no idea regarding eastern India where the canonical texts were composed, and also no understanding of the teachings of the contemporaries of Mahāvīra. Unlike Buddhaghoșa, they received no help from their predecessors, and it is also doubtful whether they fully understood the Ardhamāgadhi language in which the Jaina canon is written.
Lastly I should mention the name of Malayagiri, who was a contemporary of the celebrated Hemacandra. We have at least twenty
