Parshvabhyuday

Author(s): Jinsenacharya, M G Kothari
Publisher: Gulabchand Hirachand Doshi

Page 16

(11)
pleted in the year 733 of the Vikrama era, the year 700 was to be accepted as belonging to the Vikrama era. From this one has to arrive at a conclusion that the word does not invariably refer to the year of the Salivahana era and that whenever it is used in conjuction with the word विक्रम or विक्रमार्क, it refers to the year of the Vikrama era. In the northern part of India time was and is recorded according to the Vikrama era generally.
In the same way Acarya Jinasena is found to have designated a certain king of the Gupta dynasty Śaka king. In the stanza गुर्जर नरेन्द्र कीर्तेरन्तः पतिता शशाक कशुभ्भ्रायाः । गुप्तेव गुप्तनृपतेः शकस्य मशकायते कीर्तिः ॥
found in the Prasasti of the Jayadhavalā commentary written by Acarya Jinsena, a certain king of the Gupta dynasty is referred to as saka king. History also supports this statement.
It can, therefore, be said that the title Saka was applied to any king who made an epoch from the time of Acarya Yativṛṣabha to that of Acarya Jinasena at least. From this it can be imferred that though in the Prasasti of the Uttarapuraṇa the word is employed, it does not invariably imply the year of the Salivahana Saka era. It may be taken to imply the year of the Vikrama era also.
Now, let us turn to the dates of Acārya Virasena and his disciple, Acarya Jinasena. The transcription of the original manuscript was completed in the year 738 of the Salivahana Saka era. The original of the commentary was transcribed by some Mālideo, a general of some king, Nṛpagandodeo by name. As the transcription was completed in the year 738 of the Salivahana Śaka era, the completion of the original work must have been effected at least two years earlier than the year 738. The scribe was a general. I, therefore, think that the work of transcribing could not have been carried on simultaneously with the work of composition of the Dhavala which might have required a period