Pravachanasara

Author(s): A N Upadhye
Publisher: Shrimad Rajchandra Ashram

Page 48

Introduction
15
that is a clear indication that the main stream might have branched into two streams from his time. Circumstantial evidences gleaned from the after-effects of the famine are also favourable for such a division in the Jaina church. So the definite seeds of this must have been sown in the days of Bhadrabāhu, a contemporary of Candragupta Maurya, say about in the 3rd century B.C. The later traditions that the Svetāmbara sect, according to the statement of Digambaras, arose in 136 years after the death of Vikrama and that the Digambara sect, according to the statement of Svetāmbaras, arose in 139 years after Vikrama,1 merely show that the doctrinal differences, by [p. 16:] this time i.e. at about the close of the first century A.D., had become visibly acute so far as the popular appreciation of these differences is concerned. Thus the indication that Kundakunda refers to Svetāmbara inclinations, as noted by Pathak and Premi, is not of great help to decide the date of Kundakunda; the other indication that Vişņu-worship was popular among the masses is not guaranteed by the correct interpretation, in the light of the proper context, of that găthā No. 322 of Samayasāra.
KUNDAKUNDA AS THE SISYA OF BHADRABĀHU DISCUSSED.-It is an important fact that Kundakunda speaks of himself as the sişya of Bhadrabāhu, whom he glorifies; those gāthās (of Bodha-pāhuļa) in question run thus:
sadda-viyāro hūo bhāsā-suttesu jam jime kahiyam / so taha kahiyam ņāyam sīseņa ya Bhaddabāhussa //61// bārasa-Amga viyānam caüdasa-Puvvamga-viüla-vittharaṇam /
suya-nāņi-Bhaddabāhū gamaya-gurū bhayavao jayaū //62// From these gāthās two facts are clear that Kundakunda refers to himself as the sisya of Bhadrabāhu, and this Bhadrabāhu is qualified as suya-ņāņi, as a revered preceptor who knew the exact text and meaning and as one who knew the twelve Angas and the wide extent of fourteen Pūrvāngas. Srutasāgara (c. close of 15th century A. D.) admits both of these gāthās in his Sk. commentary; and, as long as it is not shown on sound MSS.-evidence that these găthās are of an interpolatory character, we are justfied to take them as composed by Kundakunda and make a judicious use of them for chronological study. The Pattāvalis of Digambaras give two Bhadrabāhus, one Srutakevali Bhadrabāhu and the other Minor or OneAngin Bhadrabāhu; so it is necessary to see to whom Kundakunda refers. Pandit Jugalkishore quotes and concentrates his attention on the first gāthā only, and possibly he ignores the second gathā; and his inference is that Bhadrabāhu mentioned by Kundakunda is Bhadrabāhu II (589-612 after Vira i.e.), 62-85 A. D. It is a very tempting identfication, but one has to stand this temptation in view of the second gāthā, which gives substantial information about Bhadrabāhu. The adjectives in the second gāthā clearly show that this Bhadrabāhu is none else than Srutakevali Bhadrabāhu; Bhadrabāhu II cannot be a proper recepient of the adjectives bārasa
verses of Jayadhavală sīkā, figure also in the Svetāmbara Sthavirāvali, as given in Nandisūtra verses No. 28-30 (Agamodayasamiti Edition), as Ārya Mangu and Arya Nägahasti
almost contemporaries; 'Arya Mankşu' is an attempt at Sanskritisation of 'Aija Mamgu'. 1 Darsanasāra gāthā 11 etc. and Pt. Premi's notes thereon in Jaina Hitaishi XIII, pp. 252, 265
etc.