Kalplata Vivek

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

Page 25

16 and alters this order while giving their detailed treatment. Kalpalata follows suit. But Viveka questions this unwarranted change in the order, by both, and pleads complete inability to divine the reason for such a change. It would not have done so if the author were common. He would have effected the change instead of meekly imitating Bhoja. (iv) At one place in Viveka there is a reference which makes a distinction between the treatment in Pallava and that by the author of Viveka (asmabhih ). This distinction would be need less if the author of the two were the same. If Ambaprasada is not the author of Viveka, who that author is, would be the next question. It is not possible to give a positive reply. Prof. H. R. Kapadia notes, 3 a commentary named Viveka alias Pallava is believed to have been written by Vibud hamandiragani. It begins with the words yatpallavena vivytam &c." (yat Pallave na vivytam' is the correct reading). He further notes that it is mentioned in the Jinaratnakosa that a ms. written in V. S. 1205 is available in the Jesalmer Bhandara. In the above reference in the Jinaratnakosas, as quoted by Prof. Kapadia, one Vibudhamandiragani is believed to be the author of Viveka. We are not in a position to say anything definite, either for or against the proposition. Yet it is possible that this surmise is ill-founded if not unfounded. It has its root probably in the last verse at the end of the present work, wherein Kalpalata is compared, as noted earlier, to a temple (vibudha-mandira). We do not know whether there is a double entendre here. If so, it might refer to the author indirectly. But the occurence of this verse even below the colophon, marking the end of Kalpalala, may argue against such an attribution. Whatever be the case it is certain that even according to this reference, the author of Viveka is imagined to be distinct from the author of the original. The next question would be concerning the religious creed of the author of Viveka, whoever he be. One may ask whether he was a Jaina or a non-Jain. If we accept the above proposition from the Jinaratnakosa, we also accept that the author of Viveka was a Jain, as the very name suggests. 1. Viveka P, 253, 1. 5: 'aa ga f 64%afatargfula 49f2H I 89 FIFT रपि धनिस्वरूपनिरूपणे तन्मतेनैव तथैव प्रागुपदर्शितम् / पल्लवेऽपि लक्षणाविचारे नृपतेर्भगबagagaratar 6441a salgari qalsafoan sta ll? Here the use of two affas clearly points to distinct authorship of the two viz. Pallava and Viveka. 2. Jain Samsksta Sahityano Itihasa Vol. I (P. 171 ). 3. Jinaratnakosa (Part I, P. 89).