________________
70
Paramātma-prakasa
simply as Devasena; in Darsanasäral as Devasena-ganin, residing in Dhārā, and in Tattvasara2 as Muninātha Devasena. In the first three works the name Devasena is implied by the word Surasena in the opening Mangala. None of these indications is found in Savayadhamma-dõha. Thus the first argument loses its force and the other two can be easily explained. ii) It is a fact that there are some common topics between Bhavasaṁg raha and this work, but of the 18 parallel passages enumerated by Prof. Hiralal hardly more than three passages are really parallels. Unless there is a significant phraseological similarity common words and ideas prove nothing in a literature of traditional nature. That one verse is common is important. Some Apabh. verses are found in Bhavasangraha; Ms. kha stamps that verse as uktam ca; and the editor has shown how Mss. of Bhävasangraha have included verses from works even later than Devasena.3 It is not at all improbable, therefore, that some copyist might have taken this verse from Sävayadhamma döhalii) The third argument proves nothing. The beginning of the use of dohā is not fully studied as yet. I may, however, point out that Apabh. portions of Vikramõrvasiyam have one dohã,4 and that Rudrata, when illustrating the slēşa of Sk. and Apabh. composes two dohās (IV. 15 & 21) in his Kävyålankāra. Rudrata flourished before 900 A.D. or more probably in the earlier part of the 9th century. Anandavardhana (c. 850) also quotes an Apabh. dohā in his Dhvanyaloka.5 Even if it is accepted that Devasena had a liking for dohā, that he is the author of Sävayadhamma-dõhà cannot be proved. Thus the claim that Devasena is the author has to be given up now.
Laksmicandra's Claims-The colophons of Mss. Pa, Bha and Bha3 attribute this work to Lakşmicandra. Śrutasägara quotes nine verses from this work: one is attributed to Laksmicandra and another to Lakşmidhara. Thus Lakşmicandra alias Lakşmidhara is the author of Savayadhamma-dōhā according to śrutasāgara's information. His use of the words Guru and Bhagavāna with the name of Lakşmicandra, as I now realize,' should not be taken with any special significance, because Srutasāgara mentions Samanta
1 Critically edited by me in the Annals of the B. O. R. I. XV. iii-iv. Five Mss. read
surasēņa, while only one reads surasčni; though the latter suits the meaning better,
the former should be accepted with the majority of Mss. 2 Ed, MDJG. Vol. XIII, Bombay Samvat 1975. 3 See the editor's foot-note on p. 111 (verse No. 516); see also the Intro. p. 2. 4 S. P. Pandit : Vikramõrvasiyam, 3rd Ed., Appendix I, p. 113A a. 5 Pischel : Materialien zur Kenntnis des Apabhramsa, p. 45. 6 Şatprabhstadi-sangraha, pp. 144, 203 283, 284, 297, 349, 350; the numbers of the
verses quoted from this work are : 7, 105, 109, 110, 111, 112, 139, 148, 156. No. 139
on p. 203 is attributed to Lakşmicandra and No. 148 on p. 144 to Lakşmidhara. 7 In my paper in the Annals I had said ... he uses quite familiar terms like Guru,
Bhagavāna, as though Lakşmidhara is his immediate preceptor.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
