________________
(
16
)
1027 A. D. He has not, however, specifically pointed out, as far as I see, to any inscriptio2 in which Sirijaca Oderadeva Vādïbhasimha (all the three together) is referred to as claiosd or mentioned by him in his paper. As long as the title Tādibhasiña is not associated with Stīvijaya Odeyadeva, the question of identification remains open,
If there is a reference by Slesa to a raler Rājarāja in the concluding verse of KC, then the author of it might be a coatemporary of the Chola monarch Rājarājadeva I (1. D. 935); or some put him as a contemporary of a second Rājarāja (4. D. 1145).
. The title Jiyaka-Ciatāmani has a regular significance ; and the name Gadya-Cintāmani can be understood clearly only by presupposing Jivaka-Cintamani. The Tamil JCi is in verse, and the term Cintāmaņi is appropriate in its title i:i apposition to the proper name Jivaka. Outside the Tamil area the Tamil text was klona possibly by the name Ointamaņi oily, and thereby its author also came to be famous as Cintāmaņi (EJ, III, Narasipur No. 105). In the Tamil area, it seems to have been read in every house as it covered the fourfold topic of Dharma, Artha, Kāma and Moksa (EC, II, 67 (54)). The Periyapurāņa came to be composed, because the Saivas used to read the Cintamani 'of the rough, false and thievish Jainas'. That only shows that the Cintamani had become popalar even outside the Jaina cire!es (The Yasodhara-carita, Tanjore 1912, Intro. pp. 2-3). The Tamil text is more exhaustive, and it is not surprising that Odeyadeva thought of giving a Sanskrit adaptation of it in croate style following the models of Subandhu and Bāņa. It is not unlikely that this is hinted by sleśa in the concluding verse : loke Cintamanir iväparah : and that the Sanskrit (Gadya-) Cintāmaņi was asthāna-bhūṣaṇaḥ possibly patronised by some king.
So far, among the available texts Guṇabhadra's JC is taken to be the oldest, and by an objective textual test Professor K. K. Handiqui puts CJ after GC and KC. Similar study bas to be carried on with regard to the relative chronology of JCI, GC and K with special reference to Gunabhadra's text, individually and amo.g themselves. A full translation of Guņabhadra's text is available büth in English and Hindi (also in Marathi and Kannada); and it is to be earnestly hoped that some Tamil scholar will give us an authentic randering of the Jivaka-Cintāmaņi either in English or in Hindi to facilitata further researches on the subject. We learn from our friend Shri T. S. Sripal, Madras, that the Czechoslo
