Dvadasharnaychakram Part 4

Author(s): Mallavadi Kshamashraman, Labdhisuri
Publisher: Chandulal Jamnadas Shah

Page 68

17
The Jain authors look upon him as contemporanous with Sakatala, "father of Arya Sthulabhadra and the prime minister of King Nandal. So he may have flourished in about Vira Samyat 170.
There is no consensus of opinion as regards the date of Patanjali's Mahabhasya, too, whether the very author of 'Yogadarsana' is (this) Patanjali or some one else, is a question so far unsolved.
In many a place there is a difference in readings between those in the printed 'Mahabhasya’ as is before us at present and those given in this "Nayacakra'.
The reason for this is that the Mahabhasya got lost several times and it was restored many a time, Kalhana in his 'Rajatarangini' has said that "Mahabhasya' had perished in the eighth century of the Vikrama era. We come across such other references too. We should not discard the probability of serious changes in this work that arose at the time of its such destructions and restorations. We can undoubtedly say that variants are due to such changes.
The following verse occurring in the text of 'Nayacakra, is loeked upon as 'bhrajasanjnaka' by the author of Mahabhasya :
यस्तु प्रयुड़े कुशलो विशेषः
We are led to infer that according to the commentators Kaiyata and others, the author of this verse may be Kalyayana, The pupil of Sadgur says :"
“ pal **1971 77679 8114 :"
This means : the author of Bhraja-verses is an author of some 'Smrti'. This word 'Katyayana' has in the end a termination for a leneage, Vararuci, son of Katyayana, too, is named as Katyayana . He may have written some smrti. This Katyayana has composed
Vartika' on Panini's aphorisms as correctness of some words could not be proved by these aphorisms. For the difinition of vartika' is :
उक्तानुक्तदुरुक्तानां चिन्ता यत्र प्रवर्तते । तं ग्रंथं वार्तिकं प्राहुरूतिकज्ञा महर्षिणः॥ The date of Katyayana alias Vararuci is posterior to that of Panini but it is prior by 300 to 200 years from Patanjali. the author of 'Mahabhasya' for Katyayana is respectifully referred to by Patanjali, Some historians opine that Katyayana flourished in the fourth century before the Vikrama era
1 (Katyayana' which is the 28th time of 16th page is connected with this foot note. *Some historians on comingacross the sentence
"a RITE 407744" Believe that this author of the 'Vartika' is posterior to. Vahinar, son of 'Udayana', But that is not Proper, Vaihinari' is mentioned in pravaradhyaya of Bodhayanasrantiasutra: Even Patanjali while expounding the Vartika has said as'under :
कुरणबाडवस्त्वाह-" नैष वहीनरः, कस्तर्हि, विहीनर एष-विहीनो नरः कामभोगाभ्याम् , विहानरस्यापत्यं वैहीनरिः”
In the time of Kuranavadava the reading was 'Vahinara'. Taking it to be incorrect he says that the correct word must be Vihinara'. So it is improper to believe that Katyayana is posterior to Vahinara, son of Udayala.
2 See Parisistaparvan of Hemacandrasuri.