________________
Paramātma-prakasa
identify him with another Lakşmicandra who was a contemporary of śrutasāgara. All that we know about the age of this Lakşmicandra is that he was earlier than Srutasāgara and Brahma-Nemidatta (A.D. 1528).
7) Dõhåpāhuda :1 Name, Contents, etc.-Of the two Mss. of this work that have come to light one mentions the name as Dohāpähuda and the other Pahudadoha. Prof. Hiralal has explained the meaning of the title; and even according to his explanation the title should have been Dihapähuda. Despite his correct interpretation, ? I fail to understand, why he gave currency to the name Pahudadõha. Like P-prakāša this is a mystical work in which the author broods on the reality of Ātman. Undoubtedly the text, as it stands, is an inflated one; and that explains the presence of Sk. verses at the close and two gāthās in Mahārāştri after dohã No. 211, which mentions the name of Rāmasimha who according to the colophon of one Ms. is the author.
Joindu's Authorship-The concluding colophon of Ms. Ka attributes this to Yogendra, and this work has many common verses with P.-prakasa and Yogasära. But Yogindu's authorship is not well founded for the following reasons: i) As in P.-prakasa and Yõgasära he does not mention his name in the body of the text; and moreover verse No. 211 mentions the name of Rāmasimha. ii) In many places, even in common verses (Nos. 34, 35, 46, 49, 80, etc.), Dohäpähuda shows terminations -ho and -ho in the Gen. sg. of a-ending nouns, but P.-prakala has uniformly -ha'; the forms like tuhäraü, tuhäri, dõhim mi, dēhaham mi, kahim mi, (Nos. 56, 182, 55, 72, 132 and 197) are not found in P.-prakāša. ii) The Ms. Da has a colophon attributing this work to Rāmasimha, whose name occurs in dohā No. 211. In the beginning, with the Ms. Ka alone before me, I suspected whether the name of Rāmasimha, which does not occur in the last verse, might be that of a traditional author like śānti incidentally mentioned in P.-prakāša (II. 61). But now after a closer study of Dohāpāhuda I find that the evidences to prove Joindu's authorship are insufficient. So many common verses and the Apabh. dialect have perhaps led some scribe to put Yogendra's name in the colophon, though Rāmasimha's name is mentioned by the text itself.
Ramasimha as the Author-Rāmasimha's claim is based on two facts that according to both the Mss his name is found in one of the verses of the text and one Ms. mentions his name in the colophon. The only apparent objection against his authorship is that his name is not mentioned in the last verse. But I have remarked above that the present text is an inflated one, and many of the verses after 211 appear to have been added later on. Thus in 1 Critically edited with Intro. Hindi translation, etc., by Hiralal Jain (KJI. Vol. II).
Karanja 1933; see also Anekānta Vol. I and Annalsof the B.O. R. I. XII, ii., pp. 151, etc. 2 Intro, to his Ed. p. 13.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
