________________
Introduction
19
identification that he mis-interpreted the words tad-anvaya in those copper-plates of the Rāştrakūta dynasty; the mistake in his interpretation is already noted above. More plausible is the view of Prof. Chakravarti, who identifies this Sivakumāra Mahārāja with [p. 20:] Sivaskandha or Yuva Mahārāja of the Pallava dynasty, as it has some favourable circumstantial evidences. The only difficulty, in the way of this identification, is the uncertainty of Pallava genealogy and chronology.1 In their records the kings of the same name appear to figure at different periods: Sivaskandhavarman figures fifth in the Pallava line and before him there was one Skandhavarman; and there, in those records, the mention is made of reign-years and not of any standard era. The beginning of the Pallava genealogy, therefore, is chronologically uncertain. Prof. Chakravarti, though not explicit, appears to be aware of these difficulties when he says: 'It is quite possible, therefore, that this Sivaskandha of Conjeepuram or one of the predecessors of the same name was the contemporary and disciple of Sri Kundakunda'. So, if any historical value can be attached to the statements of Jayasena, the identification of Sivakumāra with the Pallava king Sivaskandha is more probable than the one proposed by Pathak,
KUNDAKUNDA AS THE AUTHOR OF KURAL.-The attribution of the authorship of Kural to Kundakunda has, no doubt, some bearing on the date of Kundakunda, but the way in which Prof. Chakravarti tackles that problem, I am afraid, contains the famous flaw of kunda-badara-nyāya. Despite various sectarian claims, an unbiased critic would certainly find in Kural many Jaina indications, which cannot easily and naturally be explained according to other faiths, such as the divinity walking on lotuses and possessing eight qualities etc. The commentator of Nīlakesi, a Jaina work, calls Kural 'as our own Bible'; this indicates, in addition to the internal evidences, that the author of Kural is claimed by the Jainas, since a pretty long time, as belonging to their community. As to the date of Kural there are divergent opinions. On very good grounds M. S. Ramasvami Ayangar puts Kural at the beginning of the Christian era.2 Further the Jaina tradition attributes the authorship of Kural to a Jaina saint Elācārya, who after composing gave it away to his disciple Tiruvalluvar, who introduced it to Madura Sangha. Now Kundakunda's authorship of Kural depends on the identity of Elācārya with Kundakunda, but this identity is not a sure ground. In our previous discussion, a part of the tradition that Kundakunda had five names has been shown to be dubious and not well founded; so, if Prof. Chakravarti relies on that very tradition, I must say, it is insufficient to prove the identity, though I am aware that I have not been able to disprove Kundakunda's having a name Elācārya, as I have been in the case of the name Vakragrīva etc. So some more evidence is necessary to show that Kundakunda had a name Elācārya; and if that is made more definite, it can be accepted that Kundakunda was the author of Kural, and consequently his age would be put in the first century A.D. I may indicate, however, that at the beginning of the Christian era the circumstances, as they might possibly have been then, appear to be quite tempting for an author of the stamp and dignity of Kundakunda, or any other Jaina teacher
1 H. Heras: The Pallava Genealogy; Aiyangar: Some contributions of South India to Indian
culture, chapter viii etc. 2 Studies in South Indian Jainism pp. 40 etc.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
