Tiloy Pannati Part 2

Author(s): Vrushabhacharya, A N Upadhye, Hiralal Jain
Publisher: Jain Sanskruti Samrakshak Sangh Solapur

Page 18

INTRODUCTION
In India much of the ancient knowledge is traditional; naturally the author's claim that it is his view cannot be a safe evidence to be used as a chronological limit. Pt. Phulchandaji's insistence is thus open to a methodological weakness; and on the other side, the works like Harivamsa, Kārttikeyanupreksā and Jambūdvīpaprajñapti are not as yet clearly proved to be definitely earleir than Vīrasena.
ii) The TP, I. 7-87, has much common with the discussion of Mangala in the Dhavalā. The author of TP has taken it from other sources, and is following here Dhavalā.
As observed by Pt. Jugalkishore, this is just a deduction from a presumptive conclusion which is baseless. The meaning of viviha-gamtha-juttīhim as taken by Pt. Phulchandra is not at all justified. The discussion about Mangala must be looked upon as something substantially traditional, and it is not at all proved that Virasena is the author of it. It may be pointed out passingly that similar discussion about the topic of Mangala is already found in the Visesăvaśyaka-bhāsya of Jinabhadra (A. D. 609). Moreover the fundamental nature of the two works, namely TP and Dhavalā, has to be taken into consideration. The TP, as I have shown above, is a well planned unit and discusses its subject-matter quite systematically and independently. It contains, however, a good deal of matter of traditional inheritance, no doubt, as stated by the author himself. On the other hand, Dhavala is a commentary which incorporates earlier commentaries on the Satkarma-prābhrta. On the very face of it, if any one is required to quote by the very nature of the work he is composing, it is the author of Dhavalā and not that of TP.
iii) TP has taken (see I. 83) a sentence of Akalanka which occupies an essential position in his Laghiyastrayam (iii. 2).
As shown by Pt. Jugalkishore, the facts do not really stand as Pt. Phulchandra presents them. Akalaska is a great logician, no doubt; but even his works reflect an enormous output of logical and epistemological studies carried out by Buddhistic, Nyāya-Vaisesika and Jaina logicians. Earlier Jaina authors like Jinabhadra in his Viśeşāvaśyaka-bhāsya and Siddhasena in his Stutis show how they were developing clearly polemical style showing their reactions to contemporary thought. Even Pūjyapāda's commentary on the Tattvärthasūtra I. 10 deserves our attention in this context. Akalanka not only availed himself of all this but also made distinct contribution of his own, thus paving the way for Haribhadra, Vidyānanda and others. The fact is that both Akalanka and Virasena are putting into Sanskrit, the language par excellence of polemical disscussion of those days, whatever was already discussed by their predecessors in Präkrit.
iv) A sentence duguna etc. (Dhavalā, vol. III, p. 36) attributed to TP by Dhavalá is not found in the present text of TP. Pt. Phulachandra, therefore, concludes that the TP which Virasena had before him was a different text of the same name.
It is true that this particular wording of the sentence is not traced in the TP the text of which, as argued by Pt. Jugalkishore, is far from being thorough in its collation and perfect in constitution. It may be further added that Virasena, as was usual in early days, is quoting from memory: in fact, that very line appears to be quoted differently by him elsewhere (Dhavalā vol. IV, p. 151). We should not always insist on tracing a particular line; but if we read a major portion of the discussion in Dhavalä (especially where it specifies TP) and compare it (see Dhavală III, pp. 35-36) with corresponding discussions in TP, one can hardly have any doubt about the fact that Virasena is following the contents of TP which has inherited many of them through parar parā. The edition of Dhavalá has already quoted the parallel passages from
2