________________
Introduction
Another Tempting Theory-Against the above view that the TKMrecension is only a mutilated version of Joindu's text, more inflated than original, another theory might be put forth like this : Joindu's original text is represented by TKM-group of Mss.; and the text accepted by Brahmadeva and others is only a redaction of it by some pupil of Joindu. possibly by Bhatta Prabhākara himself, who shaped it to show that it was addressed to him by his Guru. This redaction, it might be further argued, is inade probable by the facts that Joindu calls himself as Jina (1. 8) and the work is too much glorified in the concluding verses (II. 205-12); and these things cannot be expected from a modest author like Joindu. This is a very fascinating theory, but it is not in any way supported by facts, T. K & M are traced back to one source, possibly a South-Karnātaka Ms. with a Kannada gloss, our postulate K'; therefore differences especially of omission, can be better explained on the ground of mutilation than of genuine tradition. All this takes for granted, or at least implies, that Joindu was a southerner and the text went on getting inflated in the North as seen from B. C. etc.; but there is no evidence at all to say that he belonged to the South. Then we have seen above that certain tendencies are working under this Shorter Recension shaped possibly by a Kannada commentator; and these tendencies are not without significance in South India where Jainas had to put a stiff fight against Vedāntic schools and saivites at the time of Sankarācārya, Rāmānuja, Basava etc., and where the Jaina community is more for casteexclusion than in the North. If Joindu as a spiritual mystic above sectarianism could use the names of other deities for his Paramātman in his Yogasära, he must have used the same more freely in P. prakāśa which is a bigger work than Yögasära. This shows that there is no justification at all for TKM-recension to leave these verses, etc. The name Sri Yögindu- jinaḥ indicates no vanity to necessitate the hypothesis that it might have been used by some pupil, when we remember that we have many names like Akalanka-deva ending with -deva; and further Brahmadeva qualifies him as Bhagavān. Siri-Joindu-ji nàu can be interpreted in another way also. Sri-Yoginduh eva nämā, i.e., Sri-Yogindu by name; and this way of interpretation is hinted by Brahmadeva as well (Sri-Yogindra-deva nämá bhagavân). Then as to the glorification of this work in the concluding verses, I think that this work deserves more praise than that; and moreover the word paramappa-pa yasu is used with a double meaning, as it is suggested more than once by Brahmadeva.2 So however tempting this theory might be, it is not at all backed by any cogent evidences.
1 See I. 8, further this text gives the form ņāu-nama (I. 19. II. 206), 2 See his remarks on 205-7 etc.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
