________________
340
Studies in Jainology, Prakrit
presume that the concerned inscription belongs to 910 A.D., we will have to say that it is referring to some other image of Bahubali as Gommatadeva' - the stahāvara-lirtha. But why should an inscription in Chikka Hanasoge near Mysosre ever refer, in the .context, to an image of Bahubali at Badami, Aihole or Ellora, if at all it was then called Gommatadeva? Moreover M.M.R.Narasimhachar in the concerned Report has rather inferred the date (910 A.D.) by distinguishing, on the strength of the 'gana', the Kelneledeva of this inscription (as of Desiga-gana to which his Guru Elacārya belonged) from the Kalneledeva of a later (Ag.96 of 1095 A.D.) inscription (of Surastha-gana). In fact, neither Elācārya nor Kalneledeva is a proper name, but a designatory or descriptive one and, hence, is an uncertain means for identifying persons. So the Elācārya of Yd, 84 (EC XIV) could be different from the Elēcārya of Yd, 28 (EC IV). Hence the date of the concerned inscription mentioning 'Gommatadeva' cannot be said to be 910 A.D, and predating Camundarāya.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
