________________
10
TILOYAPANNATTI
the s of TP. Similarly another passage which Dhavala specifically attributes to TP (Dhavala III, pp. 36, second reference with foot-note No. 1) has corresponding contenta in TP as shown in the foot-notes of the edition of Dhavala.
v) Pt. Phulachandra draws the attention of readers to a passage in the TP (p. 766) which mentions TP-sutta; and his conclusion is that the present TP is quoting this passage from Dhavala (IV. pp. 152-157) which rightly mentions an earlier TP. Pt. Jugalkishore has thoroughly scrutinised this argument; and as he shows, the passage concerned is not quite in its place; and in all probability it is prakyipta and added in TP by some intelligent reader from the Dhavala. As I have shown above from an evidence casually left in the Mss, of TP that eminent Saiddhantikas (expert in the Siddhants, namely, Dhavala, Jayadhavala etc.) like Balacandra have handled the text of TP, and there is nothing surprising that some excerpts from the Dhavala were added on the margin for elucidation, and later on they got themselves mixed with the text of TP. The present text is certainly longer than eight thousand Slokas; and this extra bulk may have been due to such interpolations, alternative views and elucidatory passages.
Thus all the arguments advanced by Pt. Phulachandra to show that TP is later than Dhavala and that the author of Dhavala had another TP before him contain hardly any strength; and they do not at all prove his position. It is one thing to admit interpolations here and there and it is another to postulate another TP. Further his proposition that Jinasens is the author of the present TP has absolutely no evidence at all.
4. Some Aspects of TP
Here may be reviewed in passing some of the important aspects of the contents of TP which is not only a work of great authority but also of antiquity. It is primarily a text of the Karaṇanuyoga group, dealing with the detailed description of all about and all that is to be known in the three worlds. In the very shaping of this huge text, however, many sections of interesting information have got themselves included in it; and a student of Jaina dogmatics and literature has to search for their earlier and later counterparts and institute a comparative study. Being a work of traditionally inherited. contents, the TP might show contact with the contents of earlier works without being directly indebted to them and with those of later works without its being directly used. The contents can be studied comparatively, but the chronological relation and mutual indebtedness require to be ascertained on independent grounds.
So far as the Karaṇānuyoga material (with its requisite details and mathematical formulae of calculation etc.) is concerned the contents of TP are closely allied to the Surya(Bombay 1910), Candra-, and Jambudvipa-prajñapti (Bombay 1920) of the Ardhamagadhi canon, and to other ancient and modern works in Prakrit and Sanskrit, such as Lokavibhaga, Dhavala and Jayadhavalá commentaries (referred to above), Jambudvipaprajñapti-samgraha (still in Ms., see Indian Historical Quarterly, vol. XIV, pp. 188 £), Trilokasara (Bombay 1917) and Trailokya-dipika (still in MS.). What Kirfel has presented in his Die Kosmographie der Inder (Bonn u. Leipzig 1920) deserves to be compared in details with the contents of TP.
Turning to the incidental topics, the discussion about Mangals, indeed a traditional topic, deserves comparison with what we get in the Visesavadyakabhasya of Jinabhadra (in two parts, with Gujarati translation, Surat Samvat 1980-83), Dhavala commentary and in the commentary of Jayasena on the Pañcastikaya (Bombay 1915) Jinabhadragaui's Kṣetrasamisa and Samgrahani also deserve to be compared with TP.
