________________
XXII
PRAVACANASĀRA.
Vhas some gāthās common with the eighth chapter of Mülācāra, but these găthās do not figure therein; and I am not aware of these gāthās in any of the earlier Jaina works. Under these circumstances and in view of the maintenance of. the original order of these quoted gāthās, it is clear that Pūjyapāda is quoting from Bārasa-Anuvěkkhā of Kundakunda. . That puts a good later limit to the age of Kundakunda. Pujyapāda lived earlier than the last quarter of the 5th century A. D.2 so Kundakunda must be prior to him. Then the Merkara copper-plates of Saka 388, i. e. 466 A. D., to which reference is already made, 'mention six Ācāryas with a clear statement that they belonged to Kundakundānvaya; that means Kundakundānvaya was in vogue, on the innocent hypothesis that these six teachers were successors in that lineage, at least a hundred years before the date of the copper-plates, and further back if we take that Kundakunda's lineage began one century, if not more, earlier, it is not too much, because the lineage of a saint does not begin immediately after his death. That brings us to the middle of the 3rd century. A. D. as the later "limit of Kundakunda's age.
"THE TWO LÍMITS AND THE POSSIBLE CONCLUSION.-- In the light of this long discussion on the age of Kundakunda wherein we have merely tried to weigh the probabilities after approaching the problem from various angles and by thoroughly thrashing the available traditions, we find that the tradition puts his age in the second half of the first century B. C. and the first half of the first century A. D.; the possibility of Şatichandāgama being completed ·before Kundakunda would put him later than the middle of the second century..
A. D.; and the Merkara copper-plates would show that the later limit of his vage would be the middle of the third century A. D. Further the possibilities,
in the light of the limitations discussed, that Kundakunda might have been a contemporary of King Sivaskandha of the Pallava dynasty and that he, if proved to be the same as Elācārya on more definite grounds, might be the author of Kural, would imply that the age of Kundakunda should be limited,
in the light of the circumastantial evidences noted above, to the first two - centuries of the Christian era. I am inclined to believe, after this long survey
of the available material, that Kundakunda's age lies at the beginning of the || Christian erai.
arnataka Kavicavit valkar; Systems of sangen: 75-79; K.
1 Mülācāra, Ed. MDJG Vols. 19 and 23. 2 On Pūjyapāda and bis dato etc, see F. Keilhorp: I. A., Vol. X, pp. 75-79; K. .
1. A., Vol. XII pp. 19-21; Dr. S. K. Belvalkar: Systems of Sanskrit Grammar Narasimhacharya: Karnūtaka Kavicarite, Vol. I, pp. 5 etc.; Pt. Promi: Jarr Vols. XIII pp. 345 etc. and XIV pp. 49 etc.; Pt. Jugalkishore: Svāmi Samaw aid
pp. 141 eto. 3 I should passingly refer here to a recent discussion on the date of Kundakunda. The
second line of the 17th gathā of Niyamasära runs thus: cdesini vitlharam loya-vibhagosto nadavraml; on this Padmaprabha Maladhāridera comments thus: elesain calurgali-jipabhedanāni tistäral Lohavibhāgábhidhina-paramagame drstaryah / (p. 16 of Niyamasira, Bombay 1916!). Pt. Premi (Jaina Jagat VIII, iv) inferred from this that Kuodakunda
is referring to the Prakrit Lokavibhāgas of Sarvanandi composed in Saka 380; it is not I availnble, but the Sanskrit version of it by Simhasūri is atailable; and that, therefore, | Kundakunda is lator than 458 A. D. Pt. Promi's position is logically weak, nor is it
