________________
Sec. 4. HISTORICAL POSITION OF THE T. S.
to the 9th century A. D.102 Kundakundānvaya is then recorded in 797 A. D. (saka 718)'03 onwards. Kunda kunda's style of writing is surely archaic, and 'sad-dravyalaksanam' (V: 129)) which is added to the text of Pujyapada and appears in the Pancāstikāya 1.10 can be well born in the context of the Pañcāstikāya 1.8-9 wherein he analyzes the nature of sat in relation to dravya.'o* Pūjyapada's revision of the T. S. clearly reveals his mastery skill in editorship, thus this sūtra V:(29) must have been drawn from the other source, namely, the Pañcāstikaya. Pūjyapāda was thus acquainted with the Pañcastikāya at least, even if not with his later works such as Sam zyasara. So Kundakunda and Pujya pada were likely the contemporaries. The Southern inscriptions generally record the lineage of Kundakunda-Umāsvāti-Pujyapada. Since the later Southern Jainas believed Umāsvāti to be the author of the revised version of the T. S., this sequence is not insensible. Samantabhadra quotes mangalācarana of Pujya pada in bis Āptamimāmsā, and Pūjyapāda refers to Samantabhadra in the Jainendra vyakarana while enunciating a rule, 'catusțayam samantabhadrasya' (5.4.140) which refers to jhayo hah' (5.4.136) and which does not exist in the Astådhyāyi. Therefore both authors are speculated to have been the contemporaries. 105 Samantabhadra in lead wie in proficient Sanskrit, however it can be suspected if this logician was the same grammarian or not. His name occurs in the epigraphical sources after 1074 A. D. (Śaka 996)106 onwards. At present we are not getting into the ascertainment of the relative chronology of these early Southern authors including Vattkera and Sivakoti, which is a big problem by itself. However from the fact that all these pro-canonical authors were well acquainted with the Agamic tradition, they cannot belong to too late period. They must have lived in the earlier period after the schism, before the Agamic tradition started to fade away in the South. And their late registration in the epigraphical records does not offer a decisive clue for the determination of their chronological sequence as is evinced in the case of the relevant inscriptions of the T. S. which make their appearance only after 1077 A.D.107 Pūjyapāda's name occurs after 729 A. D. (Śaka 651)'08 in the inscriptions.
After the finalization of the canon at the Third Valabhi Council, the Western Jainas entered the stage of the commentarial period in continuation of the niryukti literature. Niryuktis, which likely had existed side by side the canonical texts prior to Budrabāhu 11,109 pinpoint only the important concepts in the canon by the method of anuyogadvāras and therefore differ from the so-called canonical commentaries in nature. The commentarial anthors in the medieval period well responded to problemi raised in the T. S. by way of criticism and affirmations. And the T. S. gradually came to win an authoritative position by the time of Hemacandra in the West wherein the canonical tradition continued to subsist. Sanskrit came to be adopted after Haribhadra, although writing in a prakaranı form accompanied by a svopajñabhāşya commenced earlier.
143
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
