Nyaya Kumudchandra

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, "Nyaya Kumudchandra," focusing on the historical discussions presented by Sukhlal Sanghavi:

Overall Focus: The text is an excerpt from the preface of "Nyaya Kumudchandra," a Jain philosophical work. The author, Sukhlal Sanghavi, engages in a detailed historical discussion concerning the timelines of prominent Jain scholars, particularly Akalanka, Samantabhadra, and Prabhachandra, and their relationship with contemporary Buddhist philosophers like Dignaga and Dharmakirti. The author also touches upon the dating of the Vikram Samvat and Shak Samvat.

Key Historical Debates and Author's Views:

1. Akalanka's Time Period:

   • Sanghavi expresses agreement with Pandit Mahendrakumarji's suggestion that the "Shak Samvat" mentioned in relation to Akalanka's time might refer to the Indian Shak Samvat (78 CE) rather than the Vikram Samvat.
   • He finds support for this view in the Dhavala commentary and statements by Professor Hiralal and Pandit Jayachandra Vidyalankar.
   • Sanghavi believes Akalanka's period falls in the latter half of the 8th century and the first half of the 9th century Vikram era, aligning with the time of Yakinisunu Haribhadra.
   • He posits that Akalanka, Haribhadra, and Siddhasena Gani (commentator on Tattvartha) were contemporaries.
   • Further arguments, particularly regarding Samantabhadra, will reinforce this timeline.

2. The Vikram Samvat and Shak Samvat:

   • The text discusses the historical debate regarding the origin of the Shak Samvat. It references Al-Biruni's account of King Vikramaditya (possibly Shalivahana) defeating the "Shaka" (a foreign ruler or group) and establishing a new era in commemoration.
   • Al-Biruni notes a significant difference between the Vikram Samvat and the era started by the "Shaka" king, suggesting that the Vikramaditya associated with the Samvat might not be the same Vikramaditya who defeated the Shakas.
   • The author acknowledges that the "Vikramarka Shak" Samvat mentioned in texts like the Dhavala commentary likely refers to this "Shalivahana Shak" Samvat, named after Vikramaditya's victory.

3. Prabhachandra's Time Period:

   • Sanghavi dismisses the older belief of Prabhachandra belonging to the 9th century, referencing Pandit Kailashchandraji's refutation.
   • There are two prevailing views on Prabhachandra's timeline, hinging on the authenticity of inscriptions mentioning "Bhojadevarajye" and "Jayasimhadevarajye."
   • If these inscriptions are not by Prabhachandra, his later limit is 1020 CE. If they are, it's 1065 CE.
   • Sanghavi supports Pandit Mahendrakumarji's arguments for the authenticity of these inscriptions, concluding that Prabhachandra's period is most reasonably placed from the latter half of the 11th century to the first quarter of the 12th century Vikram era.

4. Samantabhadra's Time Period and Relationship with Akalanka:

   • Sanghavi reiterates his earlier assertion that Akalanka's commentary is the first on Samantabhadra's works, implying a close temporal proximity, if not a direct teacher-disciple relationship.
   • He believes this suggests Samantabhadra could have lived in the 7th century Vikram era.
   • Further, Sanghavi argues that Swami Samantabhadra is the commentator of Pujyapada's "Aptastotra," meaning he must be a successor. This view is supported by explicit mentions in Vidyananda's "Praptapariksha" and "Ashtasahasri."
   • He contends that a Jain scholar like Samantabhadra would not ignore the works of a contemporary like Dignaga, especially if his own important works were influenced by them, as evidenced by the detailed discussions in Ummasvati's commentary on Tattvartha.

5. Samantabhadra and Dharmakirti (Buddhist Philosopher):

   • Sanghavi presents a strong argument for Samantabhadra being a contemporary or near-contemporary of Dharmakirti.
   • Argument 1: Commentary Structure: Both Dharmakirti (in "Pramanavartika") and Samantabhadra (in "Aptamimamsa") structured their works as commentaries on auspicious verses by earlier figures (Buddha for Dharmakirti, Pujyapada for Samantabhadra). They aimed to establish their respective spiritual leaders (Buddha and Jina) as the ultimate authority (Pramana). Both used the "anyayogavyavaccheda" (exclusion of others) method.
   • Argument 2: Philosophical Similarities: Both emphasized the teachings of the Four Noble Truths (Dharmakirti) and the Syadvada/Anekanta (Samantabhadra) as means to establish the true nature of their respective leaders. Sanghavi notes the similarity in the approach of Samantabhadra and Siddhasena (in "Sammati") in discussing philosophical points through the lens of Anekanta, with Samantabhadra using the structured Syadvada-based Saptabhangi.
   • Argument 3: Refutation by Dharmakirti's Commentators: Sanghavi highlights that specific verses from Samantabhadra's "Aptamimamsa" (on "Dravyāparyāyayoraikyam" and "Sanghyā Sankhyā Visheshatcha") were refuted by Archata, a commentator of Dharmakirti from the 9th century. He suggests that these refutations might have originated from Dharmakirti himself. Further, Durvek Misra, an 11th-century commentator, clearly attributes these refuting verses to Archata.
   • The author concludes that Samantabhadra could not have been a contemporary of Dharmakirti, as Dharmakirti's disciples (like Archata and Karnagomi) responded to Samantabhadra's critical arguments against Buddhist positions.

6. Authenticity of Tattvartha Commentary:

   • Sanghavi dismisses doubts about Ummasvati being the author of the Tattvartha commentary, stating that such doubts are unfounded and hinder genuine historical research due to sectarian bias.

Conclusion and Appreciation: Sanghavi concludes by warmly appreciating Pandit Mahendrakumarji's research and efforts. He urges the Jain community, especially scholars and patrons, to study and support Pandit Mahendrakumarji's work. He also encourages Pandit Mahendrakumarji to focus his future philosophical discussions on the core tenets of Jainism, presenting them from a foundational perspective.

In essence, the excerpt is a rigorous academic attempt to establish the historical timelines of key Jain scholars by comparing their works, philosophical arguments, and refutations by later commentators, placing them within the broader intellectual landscape of ancient India, particularly in relation to Buddhist philosophy.