________________
INTRODUCTION
17 ater on to the first part. The order of the references o the (Bha.) Ārādhanā is not only disturbed but some stories are also repeated, as remarked above. There is no learcut evidence to state whether both the parts are composed by one and the same Prabhācandra in the zarly and later part of his career, or composed by two different persons, Prabhācandra Pandita and Bha țțāraka Prabhācandra. To me, the former alternative looks more probable, though it is equally possible to plead for the second, in view of the only Ms. on the basis of which the case is to be argued. The style and presentation of contents are nearly alike in both the parts. The only difference in style is that in the first, the stories are introduced with Sanskrit sentences in Āryā metre, but in the second most of them with bits from Gáthás of the ( Bha.) Ārādhanā. The make up of the last story is rather peculiar. As our edition is based on a single Ms., the form of our text has its limitations; and it can become more authentic when some additional Mss. are used.
Further, Nemidatta (beginning of the 16th century A.D. ) also follows this very order in his Kathākośa with minor additions and omissions, and leaves some indication about this division at the close of his story No. 82, especially in the verse No. 21. So it is quite likely that Prabhācandra himself is responsible for this two-fold division : and it can be explained in this manner. As discussed in my Introduction to the Bșhatkathākośa (Singhi Jain Series, Bombay, 1943 ) these stories were originally included in the commentaries of the (Bha.) Ārādhanā plenty of which were known to Aparājita and
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
