________________
Introduction
69
The forms Jogendra and Yogindra, it appears, are meant to imply the author of P.-Prakasa; and it must be seen how far these claims are justified. As in P.-Prakasa and Yogasära Joindu does not mention his name in the body of the text. Secondly, the high flights of spiritualistic fervour of Joindu are conspicuously absent here; and the subject-matter of Srāvakācāra is not quite in tune with the mystic temperament of Joindu. Thirdly, Prof. Hiralal finds this work more profound as a piece of poetry than other works of Joindu and brushes aside the possibility that Joindu might have composed it in his younger days. Fourthly, as I have already noted, despite some common ideas there are no striking phraseological similarities between this work and P-prakosa. Lastly, I might point out that Sävayadhamma-dõhà shows the termination -hu in Abl. and Gen. Sg.; but we have seen that P.-prakáša uniformly shows -haboth in the sg. and pl. So there is no strong evidence to attribute this work to Joindu. Perhaps it is the common Apabh. dialect and a few similar ideas that might have led some one to put the name of Yogindra in the colophon
Devasena's Claims--Prof. Hiralal upholds the claim of Devasena on the following grounds : i) Ms. Ka mentions 'Davasēnai uvadittha' in the last verse. ii) Sävayadhamma-dõha has many striking similarities with Bhāvasangraha of Devasena. iii) Devasena had a liking for composing dohās, and it was perhaps a new form of metre in his days. Thus he attributes this work to Devasena, the author of Daršanasāra. His arguments are not quite sound. i) Ms. Ka does not deserve so much reliance of the nine Mss. it is the longest so far as the number of verses is considered and the latest so far as its age is considered. The text itself (No. 222) says that there should be 220 or 222 verses the earliest known Ms. contains 224, while Ms. Ka contains 235 if not 236 verses. This plainly means that it is as inflated recension. Now the dohā which mentions the name of Devasena is not only corrupt but contains plain errors: the form Divasenai is very queer, and a similar form is not traced in the whole of the text; the phrase akkharumattā, etc., is meaningless as it stands: as I understand dohā, both the lines of this verse are metrically irregular; the concluding rhyme of the two lines, which is a regular feature of dohā and which is seen throughout this text, is conspicuously absent in this verse; and lasıly Prof. Hiralal himself does not include this verse in his settled text. Such a concluding verse, therefore, cannot be attributed to the author of Sāvayadhamma-dõha: and we cannot believe that Devasena, the author of Daršanošāra, might have composed it. Turning to the four Prākrit works of Devasena, in Bhāvasaņgrahahe mentions his name as Devasena, the pupil of preceptor Vimalasena; in Aradhanàsāra2 1 Ed. MDJG. Vol. XX, Bombay Sanvat 1978. 2 Ed. MDJG. VolVI, Bombay Samvat 1973
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
