Kalplata Vivek

Author(s): Murari Lal Nagar, Harishankar Shastry
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 13

get but scanty information about his life. Probably he was a Jain, for he is mentioned in Prabhavakacarita, as going to Mount Abu as a member of Devasuri's party. He is called a minister in that work, not a chief minister. Devasuri returned from Abu about 1122 A.D.', therefore Ambaprasada who introduced him to the royal court was a minister in 1122 A. D. In S. R. and Gala inscription (c. 1137 A. D.) 8 he is referred to as the chief minister. According to epigraphical evidences Dadaka was the chief minister in c. 1139 A. D.* The Prakrit work Puspavati was copied in 1135 A.D., when Gangila was the chief minister.5 If we accept that there was only one chief minister (mahamatya) we may say that Ambaprasada enjoyed this important position for a couple of years. The mere mention of Ambaprasada in S. R. by Devasuri does not justify a conclusion that he was himself a philosopber? The author was a contemporary of the great Hemacandra-acarya. He was undoubtedly influenced by that luminary and borrows copiously from his Kavyanusasana. It must have been quite a privilege for Ambaprasada to discuss these subjects with the Acarya. Their junior contemporary was Manikyacandra, who also borrows a lot from Hemacandra in his Kavyaprakasa-samketa. It appears that 1. The late Shri D. K. Sastri remarks that the names of Jain ministers only are available in Jain Prabandhas [ Gujaratano Madhyakalina Rajaput Itihasa (P. 309) ] If we accept this statement we have directly to conclude that Ambaprasada who is mentioned in P, C, is a Jain. But even otherwise there are several reasons which bear out such a surmise. Devasuri's guru Municandrasuri died in c. 1122 A. D. ( vide Introduction to H, K. S. (P. 259) - on P. 251 of the work it is stated that Devasuri's guru died in c. 1115 A. D., which appears to be a misprint ). Devasuri had returned to Patan a few months before his guru's death, and was introduced to Siddharaja about that time, This means that probably S. R. was written about 1137 A. D. That is, to say, if we think with Shri Sastri that there was only one post of the chief minister during the reign of Siddharaja (G. M. R I.-P. 308). It is possible that there were several chief ministers connected with different departments as is suggested by the Gala inscription. Yet the conclusion regarding the composition of S. R. seems to be unobjectionable. G, M. R. I. (P. 266) vide Intro. H. K. S. (P. 193) for a contrary opinion. 5. G, M. R. I. (P. 309) and History of Jain Literature (P. 252). 6. G. M. R. I. (P. 308) For a contrary opinion vide Intro, to H. K. S. (P. 193), where Shri R. C. Parikh suggests that there were several chief ministers, in Siddharaja's time, which appears more probable. Vide Intro. to H, K. S. (P. 250). This conjecture was made when the nature of Kalpalata was not known. Now that we know that Kalpalata is a work on Poetics we can say that Ambaprasada was well versed in Poetics, though we do not know whether he was a philosopher also, for Poetics and Philosophy are not at all antagonistic, Dharmakirti, Anandavardhana, Abhinavagupta, Hemacandra and many others prove this.