________________
स्यात् । किं त्वपूर्वमेव कस्यचिद्भावे प्रागविधमानं भवत् तत् कार्यम् । तत्र विषयेन्द्रियमनस्काराणामितरेतरोपादानाहितरूपभेदानां सन्निधौ विशिष्टस्वेतरक्षणभावे प्रत्येकं तद्भावाभावानुविधानादनेकक्रियोपयोगो न विरुध्यते । यत एकक्रियायामपि तस्य तद्भावाभावितैव निबन्धनं सा चानेकक्रियायामपि समाना" इति ।
[स्याद्वादरत्नाकर पृ० ७६४] The author of the Syādvādaratnākara uses the epithet bhatta' for Udbhaya. Thus he calls him Bhatodbhaça. The passages reproduced here from the Syadvādaratpakara give us some idea of the nature of Tattvavịtti, Udbhaủa's commentary on the Lokāyatasūtra.
On Cakradhara's showing, Jayanta refers to the views of (ārvāka Udbhara, Ard Jayatta being the author belonging to 9th century A. D. this Udbhaủa should not be placed after that date. And to our surprise we find that well known rhetorician Udbhata is assigned to the period 779-813 A. D. on the basis of the statement of Rājatarangini to the effect that Udbhata was a sabhapati of King Jayāpida .(8th Cent. A. D.) of Kashmira. Thus the date and place of these two Udbbațas are one and the same. This naturally suggests the identity of these two Udbhatas..
2. BHĀVIVIKTA To our utmost surprise Bhavivikta turns out to be a cārvāka. He is not a Naiyāyika as we thought him to be on the basis of his words quoted in the Tattvasangraha.1 Cakradhara describes him as a cirantana. cārvāka. He seems to have written a commentary on the Lokayatasutra. And the quotations occurring in the Tattvasangraha are most probably from this commentary. Cakradhara says that Udbhata and Bhāvivikta differ widely in their explanation of aphorisms of the Lokāyatasūtra. A glaring insiance cited by Cakradhara is that of the interpretations offered by them of the sūtra 'bhūtebhyas caitanyam'. Bhavivikta interprets bhūtebhyah' in the sense of 'emerged from physical elements' whereas Udbhața interprets it in the sense of 'for (i. e. upakāraka of) physical elements'. This is an important and interesting piece of information divulged to us by Cakradhara.
3. PUŞKARĀKŞA Cakradhara refers to one Puşkarakṣa as the author of a commentary (vrtti) on the Bādarāyaṇasūtra. We are told that he was a parivrajaka. In his commentary he proved the pramanya of the Pancar atro, etc. Let us study his commentary on the sülra "vijñānādibhave vā tada pratişedhaḥ' (Brahmasutra 1.1.44]. It runs as follows "Tatryferych sicercatori Paramegi ar अप्रमाणं भवति । तदेतत् त्रिविधमपि पञ्चरात्रादिषु नास्ति । 'विज्ञानादिभावे वा' 1. Refer to foot-note 2 on p. 197
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
