Sumati Jnana

Author(s): Shivkant Dwivedi, Navneet Jain
Publisher: Shantisagar Chhani Granthamala

Page 69

46
Sumati-Jñāna and others > Srutakevalin Bhadrabahu > Candragupta > Padmanandi or Kondakunda > Umasvati > Samantabhadra > Devanandi > Pujyapada > Akalanka > Gollacarya and so forth (Verses, 3-13). Other inscriptions like 42, 43, 47 and 50 support this view. All these inscriptions confirm that Kundakunda belongs to Nandigana lineage and were an indirect disciple (Paramparasisya) of Srutakevalin Bhadrabahu. Therefore he may be placed in the first century AD.
The Second Bhadrabahu was the authour of Niruktis in the Svetambara traditional Agamas. He is said to be the elder brother of Varahamihira who lived in the 6th century AD. Kundakunda cannot be contemporary of the second Bhadrabahu, as Kundakunda has already been mentioned in Markara inscription of fifth century AD. We shall discuss this point afterwards. There have been some more Bhadrabahus in different times in opinion of scholars. But the views are not supported with sufficient evidence. For instance, Dr. Fleet and Dr. T. V. G. Shastry are of view that there were three Bhadrabahus in Jain tradition. Kundakunda was the disciple of second Bhadrabahu who was the contemporary of Acarya Dharasena, Arhatvali and Bhutabali. All these three Acaryas were responsible for the division of Jain order (Moolasangha) into Digambara and Svetambara. This is not correct. Dr. Shastry forgot the details of reference of Bodhapahuda, which mentions clearly the Srutakevalin Bhadrabahu. There is no evidence to prove the identity of Guptgupta and Candragupta as one and the same. Likewise, any credential evidence does not support the twelve years famine during the second Bhadrabahu. The earliest inscription of Sravanabelagola of about Saka Samvat 522 (No. 1) mentions of course the event happened during the first Bhadrabahu (Srutakevali) very clearly.
2. The question of Digambara and Svetambara Division
The rudiments of schism in Jain order can be traced out in the Samannaphalasutta of Dighanikaya. The famine in Magadha for twelve years during the period of Srutakevalin Bhadrabahu and Candragupta Maurya in third century BC further strengthened the division. Both the Darsanasara (Gatha 11) and Harivamsapuran of Digambara tradition and Kalpasutra and Nandisutra of Svetambara tradition accept more or less the 136 and 139 year after Vikrama as the point of origin of schism into Jainism. This is the period when the differences became rather more acute. Both the traditions agreed upon Bhadrabahu and the point of early schism in about second Century AD. Acarya Kundakunda criticized some of the controversial points such as liberation for women and use of clothes by ascetics in the Sutta Pahuda (Verses, 17-26), and Pravacanasara (III. 3-5, 8-9, 6-14,20, 24 etc.). This criticism bears the early stage wherein deep logical ground is not adopted. Even the word Jinakalpa is not found in the Kundakunda's works. The Linga Pahuda refers obviously to the characteristics of Pasattha Sadhus and not the Digambara Sadhus. Therefore, Kundakunda cannot be placed after second century AD.
3. The Question of Sivakumara Episode
It is Jayasena of 12th century AD who Mentioned Sivakumara Maharaja in his commentaries