Dvadasharnaychakram Part 4

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

Page 85

34
Acarya, has mentioned views of Sabarsvamin in his works such as (Mimamsa) Slokavartika, The date of Sabarsvamin is believed to be about 150 A. D. But in the commentary on Nayacakra, similarity of thought with Sabara-'bhasya' is seen in certain places (Statements). For instance
“godetica a (?) Fra01:" "appar al TEUTAT" in the cominentary of the text. and purvavijnanakaranabhava (non-existence of previous the cause of vijnana) etc. while 'discussing Vaidaka heaven etc. Most probably, the commentator (Simhasura) must have seen Sabara-bhasya,
Investigation of the Date of Mallavadin Suri Mallavadin Suri given in this work of his quotations from 'Anuyogadvara' and Nandisutra by way of an evidence. So he is posterior to both the authors of these sutras ( canonical treatises ). All the modern scholars admit that the author of Anuyogadvara, is venerable Aryaraksita Suri, If this Suri is none else but student of Vajrasvamin he has flourished after vira Samyat 597. The author of Nandisutra' is 'Devayacake Gani' who is pupil of Dusya Gani, and who is different from Devarddhi Gani Ksamasramana the redactor of the (Jaina ) canon. This Dusya Gani Acarya is pupil of Lohitya Suri, pupil of Bhutadinna, pupil of Nagarjuna Suri.
at from
Dellandisutra" is student of Vauthor of A
This is what is know from the sthaviravati of Nandi. Nagarjuna mentioned herein is a contemporary of Anuyogadhara Skandila suri of the Nagendra Vamsa.
The date of this (Mallavadin) Suri is mentioned as vira Samvat 827 to 840. (Vikrama Samvat 357 to 370 ) by Pannyasa Kalyanavijayaji in his prabandha paryalocana of Prabhavakacarita, Hence it follows that Devavacaka Gani, the author of Nandisutra, was certainly alive in vira Samvat 840, but this date does not seem to be reasoneble. Venerable Mallavadin Suri respectfully quotes from Nandi by referring to this sutra as under,
__ भगवदर्हदाज्ञाऽपि श्रूयते
This means even the commandment of the divine Tirthankara is heard. Conseqently it follows that the author of Nandisutra is far anterior to this author (Mallavadin). The date of Skandila Suri, a contemporary of Devayacaka Gani, mentioned as vira Samvat 827 to 840 is not quite appropriate. The date of this Suri is already treated by us, while discussing the date of Siddhasena Divakara Suri, In this Nayacakra we do not come across any quotation from any work of Buddhist Acarya Dharmakirti', any view of his or any thesis of his who flourished earlier than Vikrama Samvt 600. So there is no place whatsoever for doubting the fact that the author of Nayacakra is antirior to Dharmakirti. Jinabhadra Gani Ksamasramana, the author of Mahabhasya (i.e. Visesavassayabhasa ) has refuted the doctrine of simultaneous 'upayogas (attentions ) attributed to Mallavadin. So Mallavadin is earlier than vikrama Sanvat 645 to 677. It appears that in this work (Nayacakra ) nothing is based upon work of Uddyotakara, who has refuted views of ) Dinnaga, who is antierior to Dharmakarti and who flourished in the sixth century. Consequently this (Mallavadin) Suri is anterior to even Uddyotakara. It seems to us
(1) See Brhuditihas. (2) That this doctrine is a production of Mallavadin Suri and that of none else cannot be believed, for in Sammatitarka composed by Siddhasena Divakara, we come accross all the three doctrines viz. simultanety of two upayogas, succession of two upayogas and nondistinction of two upayogas,