Prakritadhyaya

Author(s): Kramdishwar, Satyaranjan Banerjee, Dalsukh Malvania, H C Bhayani
Publisher: Prakrit Text Society Ahmedabad

Page 50

INTRODUCTION
41
that period. It is not impossible, therefore, that Jumara who might have descended from a high official of the Pala's who acquired a semi-independent status after the house called himself a 'Mahārāja' in the 11th or 12th century A.D.. Sandhyākaranandi's (11th century A.D.) father, Prajāpatinandi was a minister, & pleni-potentiary as well 88 & provincial governor (Pratirāja) under king Rāmapāla. Jumara might have, therefore, lived in the 11th or 12th century A.D.
$ 62. We are still in the dark as regards the date of Goyicandra ; but from one of his commentators, namely, Vaņšīvadana, son of . Vašiştha and Rāyamatī, we may say that Goyicandra might have lived before 1300 A.D. The date of Vamśivadana, as can be deduced from a manuscript which bears the date of its composition, is Saka 1243 (=1321 A.D.), If that is correct, then it can be said that Vamsivadana is to be placed before 1300 A.D., and GoyĪoandra earlier still.
$ 63. There is a tradition that Jumaranandi and Goyīcandra, were contemporaries. Although there is no genuine proof on this point, excepting one single manuscripta in which it is stated that that Goyicandra's tīkā was corrected by Jumaranandi, still it can be said that if Vamśīvadana's date can be taken before 1300 A.D., then we may probably place Jumaranandī at least in the 12th century A.D., if not earlier. From the above it is guessed that Jumaranandi might have lived in the 11th or 12th century A.D., Goyīcandra, therefore, may be a little later to that time. Kramadīśvara's date, therefore, may be placed earlier i.e. between the tenth and the eleventh centuries A.D.
1). In Notices of Sanskrit Manuscripts (2nd series), Vol-III, Calcutta, 1907, No. 319, pp. 208-09, by H. P, Sastri, we find the date in the following verse :
1950. spal-de-f47-fafat HTË STATE
पक्ष चापि तु कृष्णके शुभ-तिथौ वारे तथा भूभिजे ॥ 2) IOC, p. 218, No. 816. The reading of the manuscript is defective. N. N. Dasgupta has corrected the reading of the manuscript and says as follows: *'If we correct the "krtāyām' and 'parisodhitāyām' of this corrupt colophon as 'krtā' and 'parisodhita', it would give rise to the presumption that Gogicandra Was but a contemporary of Jumaranandi, who corrected his tikā". 10. (V) p. 360.