________________
yo
enumerated by me in the serial no. 7 (cf. Introduction, p. 28). Then, according to Pt. Kațāriya's opinion, Bhāskaranandi belongs to Mūla sangha, Sarasvati gaccha, Balatkāra gana, sometime in the 16th century A. D., possibly in Rajasthan. However, no evidence is yet brought forth in the MSS. that his suggested reading śubhayati stands for Subhacandra. And as I mentioned in the Introduction, there is a definite distance between Bhāskaranandi and Hemacandra as to the concept of the non-āgamic divisions of dharmya dhyāna such as pindastha, which are introduced after the exposition of all the āgamic divisions of dhyāna with a very ambiguous expression, “uktameva punardeva sarvam" dhyanam caturvidham (verse 24 )". We can understand this line only when we know how Amitagati classified dhyāna, whom Bhāskaranandi followed. Should Bhāskaranandi be preceded by Hemacandra, it is impossible for us to expect that he presents the four sthas in such a manner as discussed in the Introduction and in such a context, because he is the author capable of elucidating the concept precisely and systematically as evidenced in his Tattvārthavrtti. Also I have not yet come across in his Vytti any citation that Bhaskaranandi made from the other authors later than 13th century A. D. This is the reason why I disregarded the serial no. 7 from further consideration for verifying the lineage of the author. Pt. Kațāriyā's suggestion to read 'subhayati' for 'subhagati' is very much inspiring, although it is not convincing enough for me to accept him as Subhacandra for the reason as I have given above. However, it is
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
