Date of Kundakundacharya

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

Page 11

The Date of Kundakundācārya
197 the Svetāmbara canon,-and a parallel verse in the Paūmacariya of Vimala Sūri of Nagendra kula ( c. A. D. 478 ) 65 also figures in Kundakundācārya's Pravacanasāras. The Svetāmbara āgamas and âgamic works are of course completely ignorant of Kundakundācārya's works; it is then clear that Kundakundācārya borrowed the selfsame verse and several others either through some Yāpan Iya intermediary or perhaps in a few cases directly67 (Unfortunately, nobody has attempted to pursue the line of research Pt. Malvania had opened). Therefore, the results of the linguistic analysis without the proper sifting of data in Kundakundācārya's works, can be misleading and now so proven, possesses little determinative value for the pontiff's date. At any rate, a few relatively early-seeming (quoted) verses in Kundakundācārya's works at best compare with the third period (approximately late Kuşāņa and post-Kuşāņa). Svetāmbara āgamas and agamie works. From the standpoint of language, even when some earlier word-forms and phraseology occasionally are discernible in Kundakundācārya's works, this factor has to be thoroughly tested against other evidence. My own experience is that the later talented Jaina writers sometimes emulated (or unconsciously picked up ) relatively earlier Prākşta of the cononical brand, since they were well-versed and much too familiar with that kind of traditional writing. For instance, some of Haribhadra Sūri's works, or parts thereof, from language standpoint, do possess an early look, as to some extent also does the imposter Mahānisithasūtra (C, 8th cent. A. D. ). Where Kundakundācārya's real period revealed is the later Prakrta Aryās which he consistently uses, often the more modern style in composition he adopts, and the typical formal cadence he builds. Also the inaugural mangala verses of his famous works are in a form, style, phraseology, predilections metwith and mood noticeable only from the seventh eentury onward. These factors, viewed alongside his highly advanced thought-constructs, fresh concepts, new epistemological positions, novel approaches to and new interpretations, as well as fresh application of old knowledge, and the concomitant or relevant terminological jargon (which oftener is far ahead of the canonical literature ), clearly indicate that he cannot be an early author, as has been persistently, even obstinately, claimed to be.88
5. Keeping those latter facts and criteria ( mentioned in Haribhadra Sūri's case ) in view in the analysis of Kundakundācārya's works, the period-perspective that takes shape considerably differs from what Upadhye and other proponents taking his line and following his intent had conjunctured, even conjured up.
Kundakundācārya's style of writing, excepting where he adopts the traditional mould or has Ardhamāgadhr (and Saurasen! ) quotes, is in effect far advanced compared to any exhibited in the available early nirgrantha writings in Ardhamāgadhi and other Prākstas. His own verses in his works show powerful articulations and strong directness and acuity combined with subtleties, precision and mystical power but reflect no archaisms nor is there any resort to cleverness, puns, deliberate