________________
MUKHERJEE THE KALAKACHARYA KATHANAKA
39
According to some recensions the Sakas were uprooted by one Vikramaditya. 16 The Long Anonymous Version states that this Viramaditya, who had become the king of Malava by exterminating the Saka family, established his own era, and that his family was later destroyed by another Saka king, who started his own reckoning when 135 years of the Vikrama had already lapsed.17
The earliest manuscript of the Long Anonymous Version, the most elaborate of all recensions, is dated in the year 1335 of the Vikrama Samvat, 18 i.e. A.D. 1277/78 or 1278/79. Again, another manuscript of the same recension, dated in following year, 19 contains many copyists' errors,20 and hence indicates that between the date of the original manuscritpt of this version and that of the present one should be allotted time enough for the accumulation of a number of bad readings, possibly as a result of inaccuracies of succeeding generations of the copyists. It may be noted in this connection that Bhavadevasūri, who wrote a brief version of the Kalaka story, is known to have flourished about the middle of the 13th century, A.D.21
Thus by this time the Kalaka legend had already become wellknown in Jaina literary circles. On the other hand, it has been pointed out22 that we should recognise in the name of Vairasimha of Dharavāsadescribed in most of the versions as the father of Kalaka-one of the Vairasimhas of the Paramara family of Khārā or Dhar.23 Thus the full
16. N. Brown, Op. cit, p. 43, v. 65; p. 90, v. 63 p. 95, v. 31, See also the version of Vinayachandrasuri (S.M. Nawab, Op cit, pt.II, p. 97. v. 25). 17. Ibid. p. 43 vv. 65 and 68-70. Some versions refer to the establishing of
the Saka rule 135 years after the time of Vikramaditya (N. Brown, Op. cit., p. 93, v. 64 p. 95, v. 32), but not to the Institution of the Vikram Era. 18. Ibid. p. 2.
19. Ibid.
20. Ibid, p. 25.
21. Ibid, pp. 2 and 87. Brown notes in one place that Bhavadevasuri flourished
in A.D. 1250 (ibid, p 2). And again he states in another place (ibid. p. 87) that the latter lived in samvat 1312 of the Vikrama Era (?)-A.D. 1254-55 or 1255-56.
22. Ibid, p. 2.
23. Brown considers the Vairasimha in question to be Vairasimha II of the Paramara family (ibid, p. 2). However, there is no reason why he should not be identified with Vairasimha I. Brown is probably wrong in thinking that Dhara became the capital of the Paramaras in the time of Vairasimha II. It may have been so from an earlier period (B. C. Ganguly, History of the Paramara Dynesty, p. 27).16. N. Brown, Op. cit, p. 43, v. 65; p. 90, v. 63 p. 95, v. 31, See also the version of Vinayachandrasuri (S.M. Nawab, Op cit, pt.II. p. 97. v. 25).
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
