Jainism in Buddhist Literature

SR No.: 011023
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Bhagchandra Jain Bhaskar
Publisher: Alok Prakashan
Publication Year: 1972
Total Pages: 326
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 12 MB

Page 59

( 40 )
Kasayapahuḍa on the basis of the third Pejadosaprabhṛta (Vastu-adhikara) of Jñänapravadapūrva in the first century B. C. The rudiments of Jaina philosophy are found in these works which form the basis of all later works on Digambara Jainism by such Acaryas as Kundakunda, Umāsväti, Samantabhadra. The Canon considered as lost by Digambaras is preserved by Svetambara tradition, as has already been stated, However in the absence of the original Canon, the Digambaras recognize the works of Puspadanta, Bhutavli, Gunadharācārya, Kundakunda, Svami Kartikeya, Umäsvāti, Vaṭṭakera and Sivarya as Canonical works.
cian.
Acarya Sumati is mentioned in the Buddhist philosophical literature. Santarakṣita refers to him in the course of Pratyakṣa and Parokṣa Pariksa in the Tattvasangraha.114 We do not know about his definite literary contribution115 but the above references are a testimony to his recognition as a Jaina logiAs regards his date, he is mentioned in the copper-plate inscription of Karkasuvarnavarga116 as the pupil of Mallavadi, an Acarya of the Mulasangha-sena-amnaya. The same inscription refers to Aparajita as a pupil of Sumati. This inscription belongs to Saka sarvat 743. Mallavadi referred to Dinnaga (5th century A. D. ) without mentioning Dharmakirti's name in his Nayacakra. He, therefore, flourished after Dinnaga and before Dharmakirti (7th century A, D.). Bhattacārya concludes his date as being near about 720 A. D 117
Patrakesari also is mentioned in the Tattvasangraha. Santarakṣita quotes the famous Karika118 composed by Patrasvamin, who was also called Patrakesari119. He is also referred to by several other writers 120 as the author of the Trilakṣaṇakadar. thanam which was written in order to refute Dinnaga's theory or Trilakṣaṇahetu. It may be noted here that Patrasvamin is not the naine of Vidyananda as Pathak121 and Vidyabhusana123 suggest, but he is undoubtedly a separate person.15 Srampavelagola Prasasti124 mentions his name and some other inscriptions125 refer to him after Sumati. Patrasvāmin must have, therefore, lived after Dinnaga and before Santarakṣita. He, therefore appears to have belonged to the last part of the
123