Jain Journal 1974 01

Author(s): Jain Bhawan Publication
Publisher: Jain Bhawan Publication

Page 23

JANUARY, 1974
107
democratic republic in which the whole country was supposed to rule. While the Viruddhrājjāni, according to the same authority, was a State which was ruled over by parties. 46 These definitions do not improve matters. According to Professor Altekar, the Do rājjāni (or Dvirājaka) was a State where two kings ruled ; if they pulled in opposite directions, there was a fighting State (Vairuddharājya).47 No authority is cited by the learned professor for these definitions.
We must leave the above six forms of government as given in the Jaina Sūtras at this stage, merely noting that, while the Sutras certainly give the names of the different forms of government, they do not help us to understand their exact nature. This does not mean, however that we could agree to the view of Professor Beni Prasad that the Sutras merely touch on government "in a rather left handed way".18
In marked contrast to Jinasena's idealism was the realism of Somadeva Suri. Like Jinasena, he too served under a ruler of the Deccan. But Somadeva's patron was in political status unlike the powerful Rastrakuta monarch whose preceptor was Jinasena. This difference in the status of the two royal patrons of the two Jaina authors may be borne in mind in our estimate of their contribution to the totality of Indian political thought. Somadeva Suri lived at the court of a ruler called Yasodhara, who was the feudatory of the great Rastrakuta monarch Krsna III. He wrote two works-one called Nitiväkyāmộtam (The Nector of Political Maxims), and the other Yaśastilaka. His age is determined from the end of the latter work wherein it is stated that it was finished on the 13th of Caitra when 881 years of the Saka king had elapsed, the cyclic year being Siddhartin during the reign of Yasodhara, when the latter's suzerain was Krsnarajadeva.49 Somadeva, therefore, lived in A.D. 959. From the two works mentioned above, and especially from the Yaśastilaka, we learn that Somadeva was an Acarya of the Devasangha. Incidentally, it may be noted here that as pointed out, by me elsewhere, the Devasangha was one of the four
46 Jayaswal, ibid, pp. 84, 85. If the State called Vairuddharajjani was called by that
name because, as Dr. Jayaswal assumes it was ruled over by parties, then, in what way was it different from the Gana State which on the evidence of Panini, as seen
above, had two Parties ? Dr. Jayaswal's explanation is unconvincing. 47 Altekar, op. cit., p. 21. 48 Beni Prasad, op. cit., p. 228. 49 Peterson, Professor, Report on the Skt. Mss. for 1883-1884, p. 48 ; Bhandarkar,
R. G., op. cit., p. 207, and note (2). The Nitivakyamrtam was first published in the Manik Candra Grantharatnamala 22, Vikrama Era 1979. It was also edited with an anonymous Tika by Pandit Pannalal Soni, Bombay, 1923.