Bhagwat Rachna Kal Sambandh Me Jain Sahitya Ke Kuch Praman

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, "Bhagwat Rachna kal Sambandh me Jain Sahitya ke Kuch Praman" by Sagarmal Jain, in English:

This article, "Some Evidence from Jain Literature Regarding the Composition Period of the Bhagavat," by Sagarmal Jain, explores the dating of the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavat, by examining its mentions within Jain literature.

The Bhagavat Purana is a highly significant and revered text in Hindu tradition, primarily recounting the life of Krishna and his family, including the famous Rasa Lila with the Gopis. Due to this mention of Rasa Lila, scholars generally consider it later than the Mahabharata. However, there is considerable disagreement among scholars regarding its composition period. Traditional scholars attribute it to Ved Vyas, placing its creation three thousand years before Christ. Conversely, some Western-influenced scholars attribute it to Bopadeva, dating it to the 13th century CE, while others suggest the Rasa Lila portion was composed in the 16th century CE.

The author then presents evidence from Jain literature to shed light on this debate.

Key Evidence and Arguments:

• Nandi Sutra (5th Century CE): The Nandi Sutra, a Jain canon, discusses two types of Shruta (scriptural knowledge): Samyak Shruta (right knowledge) and Mithya Shruta (wrong knowledge). In the context of Mithya Shruta, the text lists various scriptures considered to be erroneous or misleading. Notably, the Bhagavat is mentioned in this list.

• The Dating Dilemma:

  • The Bhagavat's composition period is debated, with estimates ranging from pre-Christ to the 9th century CE, though a common understanding places it after the 5th century CE.
  • If the Nandi Sutra (dated to the 5th century CE) mentions the Bhagavat, it implies the Bhagavat existed by that time.
  • This creates a conflict: either the Bhagavat was composed before the 5th century CE, or the Nandi Sutra itself is later than the 5th century CE.
  • The author strongly refutes the latter possibility, stating that the Nandi Sutra's composition period is firmly established as the first half of the 5th century CE. Its author, Devavachaka, is considered the guru of Devardhigani, whose existence during the Vallabhi recension in 453 CE is a known fact. Therefore, the Nandi Sutra cannot be dated earlier than the first half of the 5th century CE.

• Textual Variants in the Nandi Sutra:

  • Upon deeper investigation, the author found two different readings of the Nandi Sutra's original text regarding the mention of the Bhagavat.
  • Acharya Malayagiri's Commentary (13th Century CE): The original text quoted in Malayagiri's commentary clearly mentions the Bhagavat.
  • Nandi Churni (7th Century CE): However, the original text of the Nandi Churni does not explicitly mention the Bhagavat.
  • Conclusion from Variants: This suggests that the mention of the Bhagavat in the original text of the Nandi Sutra is a later interpolation, introduced after the Nandi Churni. It is likely this interpolation occurred sometime after the 8th century CE and before the 13th century CE, as even Haribhadra Suri (8th century CE) does not mention the Bhagavat in his commentary on the Nandi Sutra's original text.

• Significance of Churni Texts: The author emphasizes that when discrepancies arise between the original text and its commentaries (vrittis, tikas, and churnis), the churni texts should be considered older and more authoritative for determining the original content. Therefore, the mention of the Bhagavat in Malayagiri's commentary is considered a later insertion and not part of the original scripture.

• Haribhadra Suri's Commentary (Early 8th Century CE): The original text of Haribhadra Suri's commentary on the Nandi Sutra is consistent with the Churni text and also does not mention the Bhagavat. This further supports the conclusion that the Bhagavat was not composed by the early 8th century CE. If it had been, the Churnikara (Jindasa, 7th century) and Acharya Haribhadra (8th century) would likely have included it in their lists.

• Critique of Other Arguments: The author briefly addresses and critiques arguments presented by Shri Shantanu Vihari Dwivedi, who attempted to prove the Bhagavat's composition by Vyasa five thousand years ago. Dwivedi's evidence, drawing from texts by Madhvacharya, Ramanujacharya, Hemadri, Shankaracharya, and Chitsukhaacharya, did not predate the 8th century CE. Similarly, an ancient manuscript presented by Dwivedi is dated to the 15th-16th century CE, or at most a century earlier. The author also dismisses the attribution of Shankaracharya to the 5th century BCE as unsupported by evidence. The mention of a Radha-Krishna idol from Pahadpur is also challenged, as while some artifacts from that site are from the 5th century CE, it's not guaranteed that all of them are. Furthermore, the Bhagavat itself only mentions Gopis, not Radha, indicating that the concept of Radha is later than the Bhagavat. Jain texts mention Krishna and Pradyumna, but the worship of Radha is not proven to be ancient through Jain sources.

Conclusion based on Jain Sources:

Based solely on Jain sources, the author concludes that the Bhagavat is a work composed after the 8th century CE and before the 13th century CE. The article invites scholars to use other literary and archaeological sources to further refine this dating.