Date Of Kundakundacharya

This article, "The Date of Kundakundācārya" by M. A. Dhaky, critically re-examines the traditional dating of the influential Jain philosopher and monastic leader Kundakundācārya.

The prevailing view among Digambara Jain scholars, influenced by A. N. Upadhye and Pt. Kailashchandra Shastri, places Kundakundācārya at the beginning of the Christian Era or in the third century Vikrama Era (approximately 146-243 AD). However, the author, Dhaky, argues for a significantly later date, suggesting the latter half of the eighth century AD.

Dhaky builds his case by meticulously analyzing both external evidence (historical records, inscriptions, and mentions by other scholars) and internal evidence (the content and linguistic style of Kundakundācārya's own works).

Key Arguments and Findings from External Evidence:

• Silence of Earlier Digambara and Svetāmbara Authors: Prominent Jain thinkers like Samantabhadra, Pūjyapāda Devanandi, and Akalankadeva (Digambara), and Mallavādi, Jinabhadra gani, Haribhadra Sūri (Svetāmbara), who were active from the 5th to the 8th centuries AD, do not mention Kundakundācārya or his influential works like Samaya-pāhuda. This silence is considered significant, especially since these authors were aware of each other's writings.
• Lack of Early Commentaries: The earliest known commentaries on Kundakundācārya's works appear from the late 9th to early 10th century AD, suggesting his works were not widely recognized or commented upon for several centuries after his supposed early date.
• Absence in Early Historical Accounts: Later Digambara authors like Ācārya Jinasena (784 AD) and the author of the Jayadhavala commentary (837 AD) pay tribute to other eminent Jain writers but omit any mention of Kundakundācārya.
• Inscriptional Evidence: The earliest inscriptions mentioning the anvaya (monastic lineage) of Kondakunda date to the late 8th century AD (797, 802, 808 AD). Inscriptions mentioning Kundakundācārya by name (Kondakundacārya) are even later, from the 11th century AD. The Mercara copper-plate charter, previously used to support an early date, is now considered a forgery.
• The Name "Padmanandi" and "Elācārya": While the appellation "Padmanandi" is common, there's no strong evidence of its repeated use for Kundakundācārya until much later. The identification of Kundakundācārya with "Elācārya," a status-cognomen, is supported by late inscriptions and texts, but this does not necessarily push his date back.
• The King "Sivakumāra": The mention of King Sivakumāra, for whom Kundakundācārya is said to have written Pravacana-sāra, is likely a reference to Ganga ruler Śivamāra II (late 8th century AD), further supporting a later dating.

Key Arguments and Findings from Internal Evidence:

• Linguistic Analysis: While some early Prakrit verses might be quoted in Kundakundācārya's works, his own compositions exhibit a more evolved linguistic style, employing later Ārya meters and a more modern compositional style than seen in earlier Jain canonical literature. The linguistic analysis suggesting Ardhamāgadhi is complicated by the likely inclusion of earlier quoted material and the borrowing of verses from Svetāmbara and Yāpaniya sources.
• Content and Conceptual Development:
  • The critique of monastic agriculture in the Linga-prābhṛta suggests a post-6th century AD context for such laxities in the Jain Church in Karnataka.
  • If Kundakundācārya wrote a commentary (Parikarma) on the Satkhandagama, he would have to be posterior to its likely date (early 6th century AD).
  • Kundakundācārya's refutation of certain practices described in Vattakera's Mūlācāra (dated to the 6th century AD) places him after Vattakera.
  • Kundakundācārya's philosophical ideas show significant advancements:
    • A strong leaning towards the niścaya-naya (absolutist standpoint), applied more extensively than by earlier philosophers like Siddhasena Divākara.
    • A redefinition of ātman (Self) as not being contaminated by karma, viewing apparent contamination as illusory, possibly influenced by Vedanta doctrines.
    • A novel interpretation of svasamaya and parasamaya.
    • The introduction of a third category of disposition, śuddha (pure), alongside śubha (auspicious) and aśubha (inauspicious).
    • Awareness of terms like syadvāda and saptabhangi, which are absent in Umāsvāti and Siddhasena but present in Samantabhadra (c. 550-625 AD).
    • Adoption and modification of concepts like antarātmā, bahirātmā, and paramātmā, possibly from Pūjyapāda Devanandi.
• Style of Writing: Kundakundācārya's own verses exhibit directness, acuity, subtlety, and precision, lacking archaic features or excessive verbal play. This style shares some qualities with Siddhasena Divākara and Vattakera, but his overall articulation is considered more advanced.

Conclusion:

Based on the convergence of external and internal evidence, Dhaky concludes that the prevailing early dating of Kundakundācārya is unsustainable. The significant silences in early literature, the late appearance of commentaries and inscriptions, and the advanced nature of his philosophical concepts and linguistic style strongly indicate that Kundakundācārya flourished much later, most plausibly in the latter half of the 8th century AD, possibly with his formative years in the third quarter of that century. This revised dating helps to resolve several scholarly enigmas and provides a more coherent historical understanding of his place in Jain tradition.