Dvadasharnaychakram Part 4

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

Page 97

was conversant with Purva'. Knowledge of "Purvas' became extinct in Vira Samvat 1000 i. e. Vikrama Samvat 530. Hence the author of "Karmaprakrti flourished earliar than V. S. 530 The last personage conversant with Purva is Acarya Satyamitra.
Scholars interested in history to believe that this Arya Sivasaraman Suri flourished in the fifth century. But they have no proof for it. Venerable Umasyati has mentioned air-bodied and fire bodied beings as 'trasa' whereas Sivasarman Suri designates them as 'Suksmatrasa by qualifying 'Trasa' as 'Suksma'. Hence there is no doubt in saying that Suri is posterior to Umasvati as already stated.
One verse of this Karmaprakrti is extracted by this commentator. Consequently it gets proved that he flourished after Vikrama Samvat 530 and not earlier.
Two verses 141 and 142 of 'Visesavasyakabhasya agree with those of the 'bhasya on 'Brhatkalpa'. The Mulakara' has not quoted a single verse from 'Viseasvasya kabhasya but he has done so from the 'bhasya' on 'Brhatkalpa!. For this reason, too, the 'bhasya' on 'Brhatknlpa is earlier than 'Visesavasyakabhasya. All the same, this commentator has not quoted these two verses from it, but he has done so from 'Visesavasyakabhasya' and no other work.
The first two verses occur in (the bhasya on) 'Brhatkalpa' whereas all the three? just one after the other in Visesavasyakabhasya'. So we decide that the commentator has quoted from no other work but . Visesavasyakabhasya'. The following line is quoted from either · Astangahrdaya' or 'Caraka
“aher i at FATAHOT HTE."
It is believed that the author of 'Astangahrdrya' flourished in the fifth century A. D. Hence it gets paoved that the commentator flourished after the fifth century of the 'Vikrama' era,
The commentator of Nayacakra' has given in this way numerous quotations by way of corroboration, in his own exposition. Some of them are seen as utilized by posterior author. too. Sources of some quotatious are untraceable. In this very way, the original sources of quotations occurring in the text and its commentary remain untraced. That is why we have not mentioned their sources e. g. for 5 :2 Ti aprila"
They are met with in 'Prameyakamalamartanda. The Sanskrit commentaryon 'Brhatkalpa etc., but all of them are extracts,
On taking into account sources traced by us for quotaations we can say that the strongest proof for believing that the commentator is posterior to the 'Mulakara' is no other work but Visesavasyakabhasya. The commentator has given the following quotation in the first spoke. :
fachadas GPIOT () ÅHTH1744'
{ "f01ogglatt foole." P. 349
“qoural resourag0377 They are found in this very sequence in printed works.
"