Its authors

In order to create a chronology of the Dharmaparīkṣā tradition I have used a diverse set of sources. My first resort was the secondary literature specifically on the Dharmaparīkṣā that initially brought my attention to the multiplicity of the narrative. Mironow (1903: 4) mentions as authors Hariṣeṇa and Vṛttavilāsa next to Amitagati, and Upadhye (1942: 592-593) includes a list of ten authors in total, based on the then still unfinished Jinaratnakośa (1944) by Velankar. The same list is repeated in the introduction to the edition of Amitagati's Dharmaparīkṣā by Śāstri (1978: 15), while the edition of Hariṣeṇa's Dhammaparikkhā by Bhāskar (1990: ii-iii) lists a total of seventeen Dharmaparīkṣās. I have compiled my own list of authors based on manuscript catalogues and the database by NAMAMI, and used as well Johrāpurkar (1958) and Caudharī (1998).⁸³ My preliminary selection of texts that could belong to the textual tradition under discussion is based upon their title, namely if this title is 'Dharmaparīkṣā' or a translation thereof. Additionally, I have found three anonymous works titled Manovegakathā, Manovegapavanavegakathānaka and Manovegapavanavegacaupāī.⁸⁴ At this point, it is important to mention that Indian literary works sometimes share the same title while not sharing the same content. ⁸⁵As such, there are some Dharmaparīkṣās that do not tell the story of Manovega and Pavanavega, and thus do not belong to the currently discussed tradition. Nevertheless, for reasons of completeness I am listing here all of the names of authors who wrote a Dharmaparīkṣā:⁸⁶

83 The list of catalogues I have used can be found in the bibliography of this thesis.

84 Attested respectively in the Jaina Granthāvalī and the Dela Upāśraya Bhaṇḍār (Velankar 1944, p. 301), and in Jaisalmer (Jambūvijaya et al. 2000, p. 93).

85The Dharmasaṃgraha, for example, is both a famous work ascribed to the Buddhist author, Nāgārjuna that glosses Buddhist technical terms, and a work by the Jain author, Mānavijaya describing the duties of Jain laity and ascetics (Winternitz 1933, pp. 347, 594).

86 I have chosen to list these authors in alphabetical order instead of chronological order, which might seem more informative. This is firstly because we do not know the date of each author and secondly because not all works belong to 'the tradition'. Therefore, a chronological order would not be very informative of the relation between these works.

For the authors whose Dharmaparīkṣās are excluded from the tradition under discussion, or for which it is unclear if they belong to it, I add extra information – if that is available – in the footnotes.

I have marked the authors that are not mentioned in Upadhye (1942) with one star (*). Except for Pārśvakīrti, Manohardās, and Devavijaya, these are also not mentioned by Bhāskar (1990). The authors marked with two stars (**) are mentioned by Bhāskar (1990) or Caudhurī (1998) but I did not find them in the manuscript catalogues.

Amitagati, Daśarath Nigantvā*,⁸⁷ Devasena*,⁸⁸ Devavijaya*,⁸⁹ Devendrakirti**,⁹⁰ Hariṣeṇa, Jinadāsa*, Jinamaṇḍaṇa,⁹¹ Lakṣmaṇaprasādativarri*, Mānavijaya,⁹² Manohara Lāla*,⁹³ Manohardās*, Manovega*,⁹⁴ Nayasena*^,**,⁹⁵ Nayavijaya*,⁹⁶ Padmasāgara, Pannalāl Caudharī*, Pārśvakīrti*,⁹⁷ Rāmacandra, Sahasoma ji*, Saubhāgyasāgara, Śrutakīrti*, Sumatikīrti*, unknown*, Vādisingh**,⁹⁸ Viśālakīrti**,⁹⁹ Vṛttavilāsa, and Yaśovijaya.¹⁰⁰

87 Composed in 1718 CE in Sanskrit with Hindi prose (ṭīkā) (Kāslīvāl 1962: 355). The content of this work is unclear.

88 Written in Kannada script (Velankar 1944).

89 See Mānavijaya (fn. 86).

90 Composed in Marathi and dated to the seventeenth century by Bhāskar (1990: iii).

91Written at the end of the fifteenth century (Caudhuri 1998: 278). Jinamaṇḍana supposedly also wrote a Śraddhā-guṇa-vivaraṇa (Williams 1963: 15). Based upon my reading of a manuscript of the text, I think this Dharmaparīkṣā is a kind of sermon. It seems to contain stories and quotes from Prakrit works and from the Mahābhārata and Bhāgavata(purāṇa).

92 Bhāskar (1990, p. iii) and the catalogue of Kobā Tīrth refer to two separate Dharmaparīkṣā texts by Mānavijaya and Devavijaya, and I have collected both manuscripts tagged Devavijaya and Mānavijaya. However, these manuscripts contain the same text and are, in my reading, composed by Mānavijaya, since the praśasti contains 'gadya-baṃdhāt kathā ceyaṃ vṛta-baṃdhākṛtā mayā su-manāvijayākhyena śuddhī-kāryā-supaṃditai.' ('The story that was written in prose, is now composed by me, the honourable Mānavijaya, in verse; [the story] which purifies the wise men.') (ms. Koba n. 16167, v. 365). This is why I refer here to one text using two names separated by a forward slash.

This work does not provide its date of composition.

93 See Kāslīvāl (1967: 716).

94 This is the name of the main character of the narrative and thus most unlikely the name of an author.

95According to Bhāskar this work was written in Sanskrit-Kannada in 1125 CE (1990: iii). If this is a correct attestation and if this work included indeed the story of Manovega and Pavanavega, then it is possible that Vṛttavilāsa knew or used this work to make his own composition.

96 This might be a wrong attestation by the catalogue-compiler, because Nayavijaya was the predecessor of Yaśovijaya.

97 Reference to Pārśvakīrti as the author of a Dharmaparīkṣā is found in (Bhāskar 1990, p. iii; Velankar 1944, p.

190; Śāstrī 1998). The edition of Amitagati's Dharmaparīkṣā (Śāstrī 1998: (353-371) includes an unedited Dharmaparīkṣākathā that is said to be composed by Pārśvakīrti (the header reads pārśvakīrtiviracitā). However, the text included in the edition appears to be the text by Rāmacandra. Firstly, the text itself reads: iti śrī-rāmacandreṇa muninā guṇa-śālinā| khyātā dharmaparīkṣā sā kṛtā kṛtar iyaṃ tataḥ// (Śāstrī 1998, p. 378). 'In this way the virtuous muni Śrī Rāmacandra has composed this literary work, the famous Dharmaparīkṣā.' The sentence referring to Pārśvakīrti comes only after the seemingly closing sentence of the text: iti dharmaparīkṣākathā samāptāḥ //cha// śubhaṃ bhavatu lekhaka-pāṭhakayoḥ/ graṃ 200/ śrī-sarasvatyai namaḥ/ śrī-deśīyagaṇāgra-gaṇya-sakala-saṃyama-guṇāmbhodhi-śrī-pārśvakīrti-muni-rājasya dharmaparīkṣā-granthasya śubham astu/ kalyāṇam astu/

(Śāstrī 1998, p. 378). Moreover, manuscripts of the Dharmaparīkṣākathā ascribed to Rāmacandra (BORI 1270 of 1891–95; BORI 1268 of 1886–92; Hemacandra Jain Jñāṇ Bhaṇḍāra Pāṭaṇ 1762) contain the same text and do not include the last sentence referring to Pārśvakīrti, who would be the muni in whose possession the manuscript (grantha) was (so for whom it was copied).

98 Attested by Caudhuri (1998: 275) who states that it is described in the Jain monastery (math) of Varanga (Karnataka).

99 According to Bhāskar (1990: iii) written in Sanskrit Śaka Saṃvat 1729.

100 Seventeenth Century (see Dundas 2007).

I have not been able to find a manuscript or a conclusive description of all these texts, so that for some authors it is at present not clear to me if their Dharmaparīkṣā contains the narrative of Manovega and Pavanavega. On the contrary, I am certain that the texts by Jinamaṇḍana, Mānavijaya, and Yaśovijaya have different content. The authors who have certainly written a Dharmaparīkṣā within the tradition I am discussing are included in the following table:

Author Time of

Composition Language Affiliation Place

Hariṣeṇa 1044 VS

(988 CE)¹⁰¹ Apabhraṃśa Digambara Citrakuṭa/

Acalapura¹⁰²

Amitagati 1070 VS

(1014 CE)¹⁰³ Sanskrit Digambara Mālava¹⁰⁴ Vṛttavilāsa ca. 1360 CE¹⁰⁵ Kannada Digambara Karnāṭaka¹⁰⁶ Jinadāsa 15th century Old Hindi Digambara¹⁰⁷

Śrutakīrti ca. 1552 VS

(1495 CE) Apabhraṃśa Digambara Jerahaṭ¹⁰⁸ Saubhāgyasāgara 1571 VS

(1515 CE)¹⁰⁹ Sanskrit Śvetāmbara

101 See Upadhye (1942: 596).

102 Hariṣeṇa came from Citrakuṭa but composed the text in Acalapura (cittaüḍu and acalaüraha in the text: Sandhi XI, Kaḍavaka 26).

103 Amitagati, Dharmaparīkṣā, praśasti v.20:

saṃvatsarāṇāṃ vigate sahasre sasaptatau vikrama-pārthivasya, idaṃ niṣiddhānya-mataṃ samāptaṃ jinendra-dharmāmṛta-yukta-śāstram. 20

104Amitagati wrote during the reign of the Paramāra dynasty in the Mālava region (see Chapter 2). In the Pañcasaṃgraha, Amitagati accounts that he wrote the work in Masūtikāpurā (present-day Masīd Bilaudā) (Jainagrantha-praśasti-saṃgraha 1954, p. 70).

105 Upadhye and Rice ascribe Vṛttavilāsa to circa 1160 CE (Upadhye 1942, p. 592; Rice 1921: 37). Venkatasubbiah argues that he lived around 1345 CE (Venkatasubbiah 1931, p. 520). Rao follows Venkatasubbiah and writes that Vṛttavilāsa must have lived circa 1360 CE (1982, p. 3). I follow the argument of Rao and Venkatasubbiah (see also Chapter 4).

106 Rao writes that, according to Devacandra’s Rājāvalli Katte, Vṛttavilāsa lived during the reign of the Hoysāla king Ballala (1982: 4).

107 See Kāslīvāl (1967: 31-32).

108 Biographical information about the author Śrutakīrti is taken from the praśasti of the Harivamśapurāṇa by the same author (see Jain 1952, 1949). Jerahaṭ should probably be located near Damoh in Madhya Pradesh (See the discussion by Hira Lal Jain: 2002: 86–91).

109 See Caudharī 1998: 275; Velaṅkar 1944: 190.

Sumatikīrti 1625 VS

(1568/1569 CE)¹¹⁰ Braj Bhāṣā Digambara Haṃsoṭ¹¹¹ Padmasāgara 1645 VS

(1588/1589 CE)¹¹² Sanskrit Śvetāmbara Velākūlapura Rāmacandra 17th century¹¹³ Sanskrit Digambara

Manohardās 1705 VS

(1649 CE) Braj Bhāṣā Digambara Dhāmpur¹¹⁴

Daśaratha Nigotiā 1718 VS

(1661 CE) Rājasthāni¹¹⁵

Nemavijaya 1821 VS

(1764/1765 CE)¹¹⁶ Gujarati Śvetāmbara

This chronological table testifies to the popularity of the Dharmaparīkṣā narrative throughout several centuries, as it was told or written and retold or rewritten from the tenth century until at least the seventeenth century. The oldest version was written in Apabhramśa by Hariṣeṇa, who himself claims that he has based his Dharmaparīkṣā on a composition in gāthās by Jayarāma.¹¹⁷ A manuscript of this text has not yet been found and Hariṣeṇa's account is the only mention of it.¹¹⁸ The most widespread version was written in Sanskrit by Amitagati, whose composition seems to have served as the basis for later versions (Manohardās explicitly refers to Amitagati's text as his source). By the early modern period (ca. 1500–1800), Dharmaparīkṣā texts were being composed in vernacular literary languages, as is indicated by the texts of Sumatīkirti and Manohardās

110 Because the Vikrama Saṃvat calendar and the Gregorian calendar do not start at the same time, it is impossible to translate the date into an exact corresponding date of the Gregorian calendar when only the year of composition is given. This issue is even more complex from the fact that there are two variants of the Vikrama Saṃvat calendar (pūrṇimānta and amānta) with different monthly schemes and thus starting at different times.

It is for that reason that I give two possible dates of the Gregorian calendar, when I do not refer to a secondary source.

111 See Johrāpurkar 1958: 198.

112 Padmasāgara, Dharmaparīkṣā, v. 1483:

tadrājye vijayiny ananyamatayaḥ śrīvācakāgresarā, dyotante bhuvi dharmmasāgaramahopādhyāyaśuddhā dhiyā, teṣāṃ śiṣyakaṇena pañcayugaṣaṭcandrāṅkite vatsare (1645), velākūlapure sthitena racito grantho’yam ānandataḥ. 1483

113 Bhāskar 1990: iii. This dating is presumptive as the text itself does not seem to render any date.

114 See Kāslīvāl 1950, prastāvnā, p. 20.

115 See Kāslīvāl 1967: 311.

116 Nemavijaya, Dharmaparīkṣā Rās, Khaṇḍa IX Ḍhāla 7, v. 8:

saṃvat āḍhāra ekavīsamāṃ vaiśāka sudda paḷa, tithi pāṃcama guru vāsare gāyā guṇa meṃ saḷ ka°.

117 jā jayarāmeṃ āsi viraïya gāha-pabaṃdhi, sāhammi dhammaparikkha sāpaddhaḍiya baṃdhi. (Kāslīvāl 1950, p. 109).

The edition (Hariṣeṇa 1990) renders jā jagarāmeṃ āsi viraïya gāha-pavaṃdhiṃ, sāhami dhammaparikkha sā paddhaḍiyāvaṃdhiṃ. Manuscripts 478, 483, and 491 from the Jaina Vidyā Saṃsthān, and manuscript 617 (1875–

1876) from BORI all render jayarāma instead of jagarāma. As such, Kāslīvāl’s rendering seems more correct.

118 From his comparison of Hariṣeṇa's and Amitagati's text, Upadhye (1942) hypothesises that a Prakrit text, possibly by Jayarāma, served as the independent basis for both versions.

in Braj, Nemavijaya in Gujarati, and Daśaratha Nigotiā in Rājasthāni. Jinadāsa's Dharmaparīkṣā Rās seems to be a forerunner of this trend. This shows, on the one hand, the rise in literary importance of these languages among the Jains, and on the other hand, the importance of the Dharmaparīkṣā to be translated in vernacular languages. In the same period, we see that Sanskrit continues to be used as a literary language (in the new versions of Saubhāgyasāgara, Padmasāgara, and Rāmacandra).