________________
INTRODUCTION
Hiravijaya was called Kunrā. But here, the father of the scribe was Sura (cf sūrātmajena).
(b) M. D. Desai also wrote that Hiravijaya became a vacaka or upadhyaya (teacher) in 1608 Samvat, and a Sūri in 1610 Samvat, i.e., 1553 A. D. If this account is true, as it should be because Desai was a recognized authority on the history of Jajna literature, then our Hira, the scribe of Mi cannot be identical with the well-known Hiravijaya. It is obvious that Hiravijaya could not have been, merely a student in 1561 A. D., when M, was copied for study.
My starts with a namaskāra 'salutation "Om namo (namah) Śri gana pataye". And folio 62a ends as follows: "iti Sri-mahamaho padhyāya Sri-Sasadharakstam prakaraṇam sampūrņam" Then there is a "puzzle” verse by the scribe followed by the date and place of the copying of the manuscript :
न सुमुखी (?) न बकी न च काकी तोयवहा न नदी न च वापी सा चतुरा चतुरेण गृहीता
मुंचति वाक्यं वाक्ययुतानि पदानि ।। संवत् १६५० फाल्गुनमासे कृष्णपक्षे द्वितीयदिने गुरुवासरे बुकानापुरे लिखितम् लेखककाहाजी शुभं भवतु ।
Thus, the copying of the manuscript was complete in the month of Phalguna of 1650 Samvat (i, e., 1593/94A, D.) The scribe was Kābnāji, and most probably he was neither a student nor a Jaina as is evident from the obeisance to Ganapati (and not Mabāvıra)
1. 0. starts as follows :
«Vacakasirahkoțir-ahiravācakasrı-5 Kalyānavijayagani.caranendivarebhyo na. maḥ / Śrı-Śaradayai namah / Śrl-vilarāgaya namaḥ. /"
This clearly indicates that the scribe was a Jaina, and most probably a pupil of Kalyāņavijayagaại. According to Desai's account, Kalyāņavijaya was a direct pupil of Hiravijaya of Vijaya-prašasti. In 1644 Samvat (1587 A.D.), Kalyāņavijaya performed the Pratiştha 'inaugаration' of an image at Sirobi.
If we can hazard an intelligent guess, then this manuscript should belong to the end of 16th century. Thus, all the three manuscripts consulted belong to the the latter half of 16th century, and probably M, was the earliest of the three.
I have also reason to believe that these three manuscripts represent three different "families” of manuscript. In other words, one had not been copied from the other. The main argument in favour of this view is the fact that the order and numbering of the 26 or 27 chapters of 1,0, is quite
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
