Date of Kundakundacharya

Author(s): M A Dhaky
Publisher: Z_Aspect_of_Jainology_Part_3_Pundit_Dalsukh_Malvaniya_012017.pdf

Page 10

196
M. A. Dhaky
remoter antiquity, say second or third century A. D. in terms of language, style, mannerism and content.56 This period-position for the Satkhandagama would entail Kundakundācārya to be posterior to early sixth century A. D., providing he really wrote such a commentary.57
3. The compilation Mülācāra of Vattakera, a Yāpaniya work wrongly ascribed to Kundakundācārya by some recent Jaina writers on account of some late and misleading colophons58, seemingly was known to Kundakundācārya. Because the Mülācāra embodies about four gāthās from the Sanmati-prakarana of Siddhasena Divākara (t. 5th cent. A. D) as also several which are paralleled in the Avašyakaniryukti and some noticeable in the Ācārārga-niryukti, the Ogha-niryukti, and in the Pinda-niryukti as well, -- these four being the Svetāmbara ägamic glosses of the early sixth century A. D.59,--the Mülācāra at the earliest can be dated only to the sixth century.60 The Mulācāra has one of its verses regarding the sāmāyika, pratikramana, and cognate self-purification rites, which eulogise these as "amrta-kumbha" (nectorjar). Kundakundācārya, from his sophistic standpoint, creates a counter verse calling the above-noted rites as visa-kumbha ( poison pitcher) !61 So Kundakundācārya is posterior to Vattakera's Mūlācāra and hence flourished any time posterior to the middle of the sixth century A. D. Indeed, Kundakundācārya is not, as some Digambara Jaina writers earlier and on a different basis had argued, the author of the Mulācāra, although a few verses do commonly figure inside his works and particularly the Samayasār adhikara of the Mulācāra, the latter reasonably could have been interpolated after the work was admitted in the Digambara scriptural fold.
4. Upadhye, after the linguistic analysis of Kundakundācārya's available works ( with a strong focus on the Pravacanasāra ), has concluded that the language employed by the author is Ardhamāgadhi ( of the Svetāmbara āgamas ) and Jaina Saurasent. Now, Sauraseni is the language of the Yapaniya āgamas as well as of the “secondary", "substitute", “surrogate" or "isoāgamic” texts of the Digambara Church -- which in point of fact is the mainstay62 of Kundakundācārya's Prābhrtatraya. Also the influence of Jaina Mahārāstri ( the language to some extent employed in the Svetāmbara niryuktis, bhāş yas, and prakaranas ) and even Apabhramsa ( racest found only in the Aşta-prabhrtas ). is in evidence in his, waitings. What .conclusion can be drawn from this miscellany? How do we explain this phenomenon ? First of all, before beginning his linguistic analysis, Upadhye did not isolate the "quotes” of earlier agamic works of the Ardhamāgadhi canon ( acknowledged by Svetāmbara and Yāpaniya ) from the author's own verses, although he is aware that such are certainly there63. Most of such "quoted” verses are paralleled in the Svetāmbara prakirnakas, a few in the niryuktis (and in the bhāsyas as well ), and some decidedly from works now lost 64, the earliest of which are dateable to a period between the 4th and the 6th century A. D. Pt, Malvania, for instance, has shown that a verse in Jaina Mahārāștri from the Mahāpratyākhyāna which occurs also in the Devendrastāva, both being the prakırnaka works ( c. 3rd 4th cent. A. D. ) of