Parshvabhyuday

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

Page 33

(28)
Govindarāja III cannot be said to be the first king assuming the title` Amoghavarşa'. One of these two kings seems to be the son of king Nirupama alias king Dhruvarāja. None of these two kings can be acknowleged as the contemporary of Acārya Jinasena, for both of them belonged to the period posterior to that of Acārya Jinasena, the author of the Hārivamśapurāpa. King Amoghavarşa, who is referred to in the Prasasti of the Jayadhavalā and in the colophons of the Pārsvābhyudaya by Acārya Jinasena, is identical with none of the two kings, assuming the same title, and referred to in the copperplate inscription from Sanjānā.
It is argued that the date of Acārya Jinasena, the author of the Pārśvābhyudaya, cannot be pushed back to the period prior to that of Acārya Jinasena, the author of the Harivamśapurāņa, on the ground of the Pārsvābhyudaya being referred to in the Harivamśapurāņa, for oa that ground Acārya Jinasena, the author of the Pārśvābhyudaya, may, at the most, be acknowledged as the contemporary of the author of the Harivamśāpurāņa. According to those who argue like this, the Adipurāņa and the Jayadhavalā commentary were written after the year 738 of the śālivāhana saka era, for in the Adipurāņa the Dhavalā commentary, which was completed in the year 738 of the sālivāhana saka era, is referred to.
I think that this argument is fallacious. The Pārsvābhyudaya, being referred to in the Harivamsapurāņa, must have been written in the year 700 of the sālivāhana saka era, for the HarivamSapurāna itself was completed in the year 705 of the śālivāhana Saka era. The work of Adipurāņa, which is found to have referred to the Dhavalā commentary which was, according to those who argue as above, completed in the year 738 of the salivāhana saka era, must have been undertaken by the author after the year 738 of the same era. Can it be said that the author of the