________________
70
Paramatma-prakasa
simply as Devasena; in Darsanasdral as Devasena-ganin, residing in Dhara, and in Tattvasara2 as Muninatha 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. 11) It is a fact that there are some common topics between Bhavasaṁgraha 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 Bhavasangraha have included verses from works even later than Devasena. It is not at all improbable, therefore, that some copyist might have taken this verse from Savayadhamma daha.111) The third argument proves nothing. The beginning of the use of dohã is not fully studied as yet. I may, however, point out that Apabh. portions of Vikramörvasiyam have one doha, * and that Rudraça, when illustrating the slēşa of Sk. and Apabh. composes two dohas (IV. 15 & 21) in his Kavyalankara. Rudrata flourished before 900 A.D. or more probably in the earlier part of the 9th century. Ānandavardhana (c. 850) also quotes an Apabh. dohā In his Dhvanyaloka. Even if it is accepted that Devasena had a liking for doha, that he is the author of Savayadhamma-doha cannot be proved. Thus the claim that Devasena is the author has to be given up now.
Lakşmicandra's Claims-The colophons of Mss. Pa, Bha and Bha3 attribute this work to Lakşmicandra. Śrutasagara quotes nine verses from this work : one is attributed to Lakşmicandra and another to Lakşmidhara, Thus Lakşmicandra alias Lakşmidhara is the author of Savayadhamma-doha according to śrutasagara's information. His use of the words Guru and Bhagavana with the name of Lakşmicandra, as I now realize,? should not be taken with any special significance, because Śrutasagara mentions Samanta
1 Critically edited by me in the Annals of the B, O. R. I, XV. 111-1v. Five Mss. read
surasina, while only one reads surasini; though the latter suits the meaning better.
the former should be accepted with the majority of Mss. 2 Ed, MDJG, Vol. XIII, Bombay Sarhvat 1975. 3 See the editor's foot-note on p. 111 (verse No. 516); see also the Intro. p. 2. 4 S. P. Pandit: Vikramðrvadıyam, 3rd Ed. . Appendix I, p. 113A a. 5 Pischel : Materialien zur Kenntnis des Apabhramsa, p. 45. 6 Șatprabhytadi-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,
Bhagavana, as though Lakşmidhara is his immediate preceptor',
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
