________________
Introduction
Armans ( 121-4) closely agrees with that in Mökkhapahuda4-8. The definitions of Samyagdrsti and Mithya-drsti (1. 76-77) almost agree with those given by Kundakunda in Mökkhapahuda 14-5; and rightly indeed Brahmadeva quotes those gāthas in explaining these dohās. Besides, the following parallels also deserve notice : Mökkha-pahuda 24 & P.-prakasa I. 86; Mp. 37 & Pp. II. (partly); Mp. 51 & Pp. II. 176-77; Mp. 66-69 & Pp. II. 81; etc. It is not without significance that Śrutasagara in his Sanskrit commentary on mökkhapahuda, etc. quotes many dohas from P-prakasa though this may not have historical justification. A closer comparison would reveal that Yogindu has inherited many ideas from Kundakunda of venerable name. Turning to Samadhisatakaz of Pajyapada, P.-Prakasa agrees with it very closely; and I feel no doubt that Yogindu has almost verbally followed that model. For want of space I could not quote the parallel verses here, but I give only references from both the works that have close agreement. Samadhišataka 4-5 & P.-prakasa I. 11-14; Ss. 31 & Pp. II. 175. I. 123*2; Sś. 64-66 & Pp. II, 178.80 (very close agreement): Ss. 70 & Pp. I. 80: Sś. 78 & Pp. II. 46*1. Ss. 87-88 & Pp. I. 82 (amplified); etc. There are many common ideas besides these close agreements. But there is a vast difference between the st of Pujyapada and Yogindu. Pajyapāda is a grammarian; and we know, as the popular saying goes, that a grammarian is as much happy on the economy of words as on the birth of a son. Pujyapada is concise in his expressions, chaste in his language and precise in his thoughts; but Yogindu's style, as seen above, is full of repetitions and general statements. The very virtues of Pujyapada have made his work very stiff, and it can be now studied only by men of learning. Perhaps Yogindu thought of propounding in a popular language and manner the important ideas of Samadhišataka which, being written in Sanskrit often in sūtra-style, could not be understood by all Yogindu's work appears to have attained sufficient popularity, and commentators like Jayasena, śrutasāgara and Ratnakirti quote from his works. 3 Passingly I might note here that there are some close similarities between P.-Prakaša and Tattva-sdra* of Devasena : Pp. II. 38 & Ts. 55; Pp. II. 79-81 & Is. 51-53; Pp. II, 97-8 & Ts. 37-8; Pp. II. 156 & Ts. 40; Pp. II. 183 & Ts. 50. Here and there Devasena shows Apabhraṁsa influence in his works; he has put some Apabhramsa verses in his Bhavasa ngraha," and he uses words like bahirappa (Ts. 40) in spite of the fact that he opens 1 Ed. Şat-Prabhytadi-sangraha MDJG., vol. XVII. pp. 304-379. This ed. is accompanied
by Srutasagara's Sk. commentary on six Pahudas, 2 Ed. SJG., vol. I. Bombay 1905. pp 281-296.
Jayasina in his commentaries on Pancastikaya and Samayasara, Srutasagara on Six
pähudas and Ratnakirti on Aradhanasara of Davaszna (MDJG., vol. VI). 4 Ed. MDJG, vol. XIII. pp. 145-51. 5 Ed. MDJG., vol. XX.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
