________________
Introduction
bhadra as Guru and Gautama and Pujyapāda as Bhagavāna. 1 Prof. Hiralal sets aside the claims of Laksmicandra, whom he takes to be the same Lakşmicandra, a contemporary of Srutasāgara, on the following grounds i) The last verse of Ms. Bha attributes the text of Yogindra, Pañjikā, to Lakşmicandra and Vitti to Prabhācandra. ii) Lakşmana, the pupil of I bhūşana, mentioned in the concluding remarks of Ms. Pa, is identical with Lakşmidhara, Laksmana being his name before entering the order of inonks. iii) The phrase 'Lakşmicandra-viracitë' in Ms. Pa is a scribal error; and it should have been either Sri-Lakşmicandra-likhiti' or Sri-Lakşmicandrartha-likhitē. iv) Lastly no other works of Lakşmicandra are known to us. It is true that Śrutasāgara attributes this work to Laksmicandra (or -dhara), but there is no evidence at all to identify this name with that of a contemporary of his. Jaina hierarchy contains identical names of teachers who lived at different times. i) The verse in Ms. Bha is a later addition for the following reasons: it comes after the concluding colophon 'iti Srävakācāra-dohakaṁ Lakşmicandrakytam samāptam sri', the contents of the verse are inconsistent with this colophon; a part of the verse claiming Yogindra as the author is not at all proved; and, as Prof. Hiralal himself has said, nothing is definite about the Pañjikā attributed to Lakşmicandra. ii) I have already stated above that there is no evidence to take Lakşmicandra to be the same as the contemporary of Srutasāgara. Even accepting, for the sake of argument, that Lakşmicandra (the contemporary of Srutasāgara) was known as Pt, Laksmana in his householder's life, Lakşmana and Lakşmicandra, mentioned at the close of Ms. Pa, are not identical. First we get 'iti Upāsakācāra acārya Sri Lakşmicandraviracitē döhaka-sūtrāņi samāptāni': then follows that this Döha-sravakācāra was written for Pt. Lakşmana, the pupil of Mallibhūşana, in Samvat 1555. Pt. Lakşmana, therefore, was a householder in Saniyat 1555; then how can he mention beforehand his forthcoming ascetic title, Lakşmicandra, when he still calls himself Laksmana ? The name, Lakşmicandra, is mentioned first; and then comes the copyist's mention of Pt. Laksmana. By comparing Mss. Pa and Bha3 it will be clear that the colophon quoted above belongs to the author himself; and the following lines in Pa are to be attributed to the copyist. iii) When the proposed identity of Laksmana and Lakşmicandra is not proved, and in fact disproved, there is no point in suggesting a correction in the actual reading. iv) The last argument does not stand by itself, and needs no independent criticism. Prof. Hiralal's arguments against Lakşmicandra's authorship are not conclusive, and his claim that Devasena is the author is already disproved. So, in conclusion, I have to say that the author of this Śrāvakācāra, in the light of the available material and on the authority of Śrutasāgara's statement, is Ācārya Laksmicandra. There is no evidence to
1
Satpråbhstädi-Sangraha, pp. 65, 77 and 93.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
