Date Of Vidyananda Literary And Epigraphical Evidence

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text focusing on the dating of Vidyānanda:

Core Argument:

The author, M.A. Dhaky, challenges the prevailing early dating of the prominent Jain epistemologist Vidyānanda, which placed him between the late 8th and early 9th centuries CE. Through an analysis of literary and epigraphical evidence, particularly a re-engraved inscription from Gāvarvād (Karnataka) dated to around the mid-12th century CE, Dhaky argues for a significantly later date for Vidyānanda, placing him in the period of 900-950 CE.

Key Points and Evidence:

• Previous Datings and Their Issues:
  • Early scholars generally placed Vidyānanda in the late 8th to early 9th century CE.
  • K.B. Pathak tentatively dated him to around 816 CE without substantial evidence.
  • Darbarilal Kothiya attempted to fix the date between 775-840 CE, partly based on the observation that Vidyānanda did not refute Vācaspati Miśra (a mid-9th century commentator).
• Literary Evidence Contradicting Earlier Datings:
  • Nathmal Tatiya pointed out that Vidyānanda's Satyaśāsana-parikṣā quotes a verse from the Bhāmatī-ṭīkā on the Nyāya-vārttika of Udyotakara, and also explicitly refers to Vācaspati Miśra. This implies Vidyānanda must have lived after 850 CE.
  • Dhaky notes that the writing style, phrasing, word choice, and approach in Vidyānanda's works exhibit characteristics of medievalism, further questioning the earlier medieval period dating.
  • Vidyānanda's mention of Sūreśvara Miśra (disciple of Shankaracharya, traditionally dated 780-812 CE) also suggests a date after Shankaracharya's era.
• The Crucial Gāvarvād Inscription (mid-12th century CE):
  • This inscription provides the most significant evidence. It mentions a Digambara Jain divine, Tribhuvanacandra, and his lineage.
  • Crucially, the inscription states that Gangā Permādi (Satyavākya Permānadi alias Mārasimha II, active c. 962-974 CE) founded a Jain temple at Annigere in memory of his father, Ganga Būtuga II.
  • This temple was handed over to Guņakirtti, a disciple of Mānikyanandi.
  • Mānikyanandi is mentioned in the inscription as a "confrère," possibly senior, of Vidyānanda.
• Implications of the Gāvarvād Inscription:
  • If Mānikyanandi's disciple Guņakirtti was contemporary with Gangā Permādi (c. 962-974 CE), and assuming Guņakirtti was of a reasonable age and his guru Mānikyanandi was either deceased or advanced in age by then, then Mānikyanandi must have been active earlier.
  • This places Mānikyanandi, and by extension his confrère Vidyānanda, broadly between 900-950 CE. This is a significant shift of 100-125 years later than previously surmised.
• Distinguishing Vidyānanda from Pātrakesari:
  • The inscription's use of epithets like "mahāvādi" for Vidyānanda and "tārkikārka" for Mānikyanandi, along with their mention as confrères, confirms they are the illustrious epistemologists and not other individuals with similar names.
  • Dhaky clarifies the confusion with Pātrakesari, an earlier Digambara epistemologist from the 7th century CE, and states that Jinasena's Adi-purana (c. 830-839 CE) referred to Pātrakesari, not Vidyānanda.
  • The Gāvarvād inscription also corrects the notion that Mānikyanandi was a disciple of Vidyānanda; they were confrères.
• Reliability of the Gāvarvād Inscription:
  • The inscription appears unambiguous and genuine, and the claim of succession by Tribhuvanacandra from these figures does not seem spurious. If it were a fabricated lineage, other prominent scholars like Samantabhadra or Akalankadēva would likely have been included.

Conclusion:

Based on the critical re-evaluation of literary evidence (specifically the reference to Vācaspati Miśra) and the compelling epigraphical evidence from the Gāvarvād inscription, M.A. Dhaky firmly establishes that Vidyānanda was active between 900 and 950 CE, significantly revising earlier scholarly consensus. This evidence also clarifies the relationship between Vidyānanda and Mānikyanandi as confrères, not master and disciple, and distinguishes Vidyānanda from the earlier Pātrakesari.