Varahamihira and Bhadrabahu

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

Page 14

Varāhamihira and Bhadrabāhu
65
Vaisyas and Sūdras respectively. These few instances picked up at random appear to reveal that the extent Bhadrabahu-Samhita probably originated out of a Brahmanical text which was later converted to Jainism by introducing a few changes and additions such as the introductory portion associating the work with Bhadrabāhu, concluding stanzas at the end of some chapters referring to the utility of the predictions for the Jaina monks and occasional references to the worship of Jina images and such other kindred elements.79. But the garb is transparent enough to reveal its original character which is quite eloquent.
Did then Bhadrabāhu not compose any work on astrology? As we have noted above, he was traditionally reputed to have been well-versed in astrology (nimitas), and it is quite possible that he may have composed some work on the subject. But, if he really did so, unfortunately we know neither its title nor the exact nature and extent of its contents. But it was probably not known as Bhadrabahu-Samhita, for this name is not met with in the extensive Jaina literature prior to about the middle of the fourteenth century A. D. This title was obviously imitated from Varahamihira's Samhita which, in addition to BrhatSamhita, was also popularly known as Varahi Samhita after his own name, with the motive of highlighting the alleged competition of Varāhamihira and Bhadrabāhu which was a creation of wild imagination on the part of some late Jaina authors.
And just as the statement of the author of the Prabandha-kosa about Bhadrabāhu writting a Samhita alleged to have been christened after his own name is untrustworthy, so also must be his alleged contemporaniety and relationship with Varahamihira. Thus, the Varāhamihira-Bhadrabāhu episode narreted by Merutunga and Rājasekharasuri does not appear to possess any historical value and as such need not be taken into account in any historical study. It is noteworthy in this connection that this anecdote is not found mentioned in any work datable before the fourteenth century A. D. To sum up.
(i) The contemporaniety of Sruta-kevalin Bhadrabāhu and Varāhamihira contemplated by Merutunga and Rājasekharasūri must be rejected as it goes squarely against the internal evidence of Varāhamira's own works.
(ii) It is possible, however, that the episode may have referance to a leter Bhadrabāhu who composed the niryuktis and was confounded with his earlier namesake because of the sameness of thier names.
(ii) An examination of the available Bhadrabahu-Samhita proves that it has nothing to do with any of the personages bearing the name Bhadrabāhu and that it is inferior to and later than Varahamihira's Brhat-Samhita to which it is indebted for many an idea and stanza. In fact, it is an unintelligent
AARNAAAA AveovaMAEAAAAAAAAAA