________________
292
A COMPREHENSIVE HISTORY OF JAINISM
enth in descent from Manikyacandra. As the author of the Pārsvanāthacaritra (AD 1219), we have to place him in the third quarter of the tenth century. In the Pārsvanāthacaritra we are told that Pradyumna defeated the Digambaras in debate at Venkapatta.119 His disciple Abhayadeva, who flourished around AD 1000, is the author of the vsttil 20 on Sarmatimahātarka of Siddhasena Divākara. Another work of his is Vādamahārņava, 121 which is not currently available but which is repeatedly mentioned by the writers of the Rājagaccha. 'He is described as the lion that roared at ease in the wild forest of books on logic. That the rivers of various conflicting opinions might not sweep the path of the good, Abhayadeva wrote his Vādamahārnava’.122
The above discussion shows that a great number of Jaina thinkers of both the sects wrote philosophical and logical texts and enriched the ancient Indian philosophical literature by their solid contributions. Even in the later medieval period Jaina metaphysicians and logicians continued to write thought-provoking texts, which will be discussed in the vol. II.
REFERENCES
1. Ed., J.L. Jaini, Arrah, 1920; for other edns., see Winternitz, HIL, II,
p. 578, n. 3. 2. A History of Indian Logic, Calcutta, p. 168. 3. This Bhāsya is included in the edition published by the Asiatic Soci
ety, Calcutta, 1903–5. 4. See in this connection J.P. Jain, The Jaina Sources of the History of Ancient
India, p. 135. 5. As noted by Sukhlal Sanghavi (English trans. of his Hindi work on
Tattvārthasutra), p. 21; even Jacobi, ZDMG, 60, pp. 287 ff., accepts the
authenticity of this bhāsya; see also p. 34 of Sukhlal's work. 6. See Hoernle in IA, XX, 1891, p. 391. 7. See J.P. Jain, op. cit., p. 136. 8. As noted by Sukhlal op. cit., p. 114, the earliest epigraph referring to
Umásvāti as belonging to the anvaya of Kundakunda is no. 47 dated Saka 1047 from Sravana Belgola. Premi also does not believe that Umāsvāti has anything to do with Kundakunda (see Sukhlal, pp. 111 ff.) Elsewhere Premi has sought to show that Umāsvāti was probably a monk belonging to the Yāpaniya Samgha (see Jaina Sahitya aur
Itihāsa, pp. 533 ff., which is clearly untenable). 9. See Vidyabhusan, op. cit., p. 182. 10. See Winternitz, op. cit., p. 581.
