________________
XVI
ÞRÁVAOANĂSĂRA.
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 S'vetāmbara 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 gāthā No. 322 of Samayasāra.
KUNDAKUNDA AS THE S'ISYA OF BHADRABAHU DISCUSSED.-It is an important fact that Kundakunda speaks of himself as the s'isya of Bhadrabāhu, whom he glorifies; those gāthās (of Bodha-pāhuda) in question run thus: .
sadda-viyāro hūo bhāsā-outtesu jam jine kahiyam | 80 taha lahiyam nāyam sūsena ya Bhaddabāhussa // 61 // bārasa-Amga viyānam caüdasa-Puvvamga-viüla-vittharanam /
suya-nāni-Bhaddabāhū gamaya-gurū bhayavao jayaü || 62 // From these gāthās two facts are clear that Kundakunda refers to himself as the s'isya of Bhadrabāhu, and this Bhadrabāhu is qualified as suya-ṇāni, as a revered preceptor who knew the exact text and meaning and as one who knew the twelve Arigas and the wide extense of fourteen Pūrvāngas. S'rutasāgara (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 justified to take them as composed by Kundakunda and make a judicious use of them for chronological study. The Pattāvalīs of Digambaras give two Bhadrabāhus, one Srutakevali Bhadrabāhu and the other Minor or One-Angin Bhadrabāhu; so it is necessary to see to whom Kundakunda resers. Pandit Jugalkishore quotes and concentrates his attention on the first gāthā only, and possibly he ignores the second gāthā; and his inference is that Bhadrabāhu mentioned by Kundakunda is Bhadrabāhu II (589-612 after Vīra . e.), 62-85 A. D. It is a very tempting identification, 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 S'rutakevali Bhadrabāhu; Bhadrabāhu II cannot be a proper recepient of the adjectives bārasa-Amga viyānam and caüdasa-Puvvamga etc, at least at the hands of a contemporary of his, if Kundakunda were to be taken, as proposed by Pt. Jugalkishore, as his disciple; and the adjective suya in the light of the above adjectives, should be taken to mean, I think kevali. If Bhadrabāhu referred to is the same as Srutakevalin, it fo naturally that either Kundakunda must have been his contemporan e 3rd century B. C., being his s'ișya, or the word s'ișya must mean something else than a direct disciple. I am tempted to take the word s'işya as a paramparā-s'isya, and this is not without a parallel elsewhere. With Jaina authors guru and s'isya do not necessarily mean direct and contemporary teachers and pupils, but might even mean paramparā-guru and -8ʻişya; sometimes the influence of some previous teacher is so overwhelming thawlater pupils like to mention him as their guru. For instance, Siddharşi, the author
