Varahamihira and Bhadrabahu

Author(s): Ajay Mitra Shastri
Publisher: Z_Anandrushi_Abhinandan_Granth_012013.pdf

Page 11

आचार्य प्रवर अभिनंदन आआनन्द अन्य
M
JR.
K
62 Dr. Ajay Mitra Shastri
with technical subjects like astrology-astronomy, medicine and philosophy, the Bhadrabahu-samhita is vitiated by these defects in an unprecedentedly serious proportion which many a time hamper a proper understanding of the text. As against this, the Brhat-samhita is distinguished by well-knit chapters arranged scientifically, succient but self-sufficient delineation of relevant topics, variety of metres which are skilfully used, clarity of expression, general correct ness of language which varies according to the requirements of the topics dealt with, originality and poetic talent, qualities conspicuous by their absence in the work allegedly composed by Bhadrabähu. The Bhadrabahu-samhita cannot thus stand comparison with Varahamihira's work, not to speak of surpassing it which was the avowed purpose of composing it. But this is not all. Many statements of Varahamihira are repeated in the Bhadrabahu-samhita, sometimes with the only diffrence that while the former employs only a few words the latter says the same thing in so many words. To mention only a few examples, ch. xxxiii of the Brhat-samhita and chs. ii-iii of the Bhadrabahusamhita deal with ulka. Varahamihira defines ulka and names its five varieties in xxxiii. I which is reiterated in so many words in Bhadrabahu-samhita, ii.5-6. The quantum of the effects of the five kinds of ulka is described in a single stanza by Varahamihira (xxxiii. 3) and the same is repeated by Bhadrabahu in two verses (ii. 9; iii 12) in somewhat similar words. There is a surprising degree of similarity of words and ideas between the two works in many other places. also.la Bhadrabahu-samhita, xxvii. I is adapted from Brhat-samhita, ix.38, and xxvii. 2-3 of the former are literally the same as ix. 3) and v. 97 of the latter62 Then again, verses 183-185 of the Pariśistadhyaya the Bhadrabahusamhita are borrowed ad verbatim from Brhat-samhita, Ixx. 1-7, 9-13, 8. We shall, therefore, not be unjustified in concluding that not only is the Bhadrabahu-samhita inferior to the Varahi Samhita but is alse indebted to it for many ideas and verses and consequently later than it.63
Although the extent Bhadrabahu-samhita is thus later than the Brhatsamhita of Varāhamihira, it is not possible to ascertain its date precisely in the present state of insufficient information. In the absence of definite evidence on the point, scholars have naturally offered diverse suggestions. The oldest manuscript of the text was copied on Tuesday. the 5th of the white half of Caitra in (Vikrama) Samvat 1504 or in c. 1447 A. D. But Muni Jinavijaya opines that the work is probably a Sanskritised version of Bhadrabahu's work which was composed in Prakrit and that even the Sanskrit version is at least as old as the 11th of 12th century of the Vikrama era. At one place A. S. Gopani says that the above-mentioned dated manuscript shows that the work cannot be later than the 16th century of Vikrama while later he avers that it was composed after the 15th century of vikrama. It is difficult to accept either or these views. While we need not deny that Bhadrabahu did
65