Samantbhadra Swamino Samay

This document is a scholarly article by M. A. Dhaky titled "Samantabhadra Swamino Samay" (The Time of Swami Samantabhadra). It aims to determine the historical period of the renowned Jain philosopher and poet, Swami Samantabhadra, whose precise time has been a subject of much debate among scholars, ranging from the 1st century BCE to the 8th century CE.

The article begins by acknowledging Samantabhadra as one of the most luminous figures in Indian philosophy, alongside Siddhasena Divakara. While Siddhasena's period is considered more certain, Samantabhadra's remains ambiguous. The author criticizes the wide disparity in estimated timelines and expresses the intention to offer a more precise determination.

Key points and arguments made in the article:

• Location and Literature: Samantabhadra is generally agreed to have been from South India, possibly within the Dravida Sangha. His surviving literature is in Sanskrit verse, primarily philosophical and devotional (stotras). Notable works include Svayambhustotra, Stutividya (Amaranam Jina-mnati-shataka), Yujyanushasana (Vira-jina-stotra), and Devāgamastotra (Āptamīmāṁsā). His approach is characterized by philosophical depth, adherence to naya (standpoints), logical rigor, and mastery of language, poetry, and rhetoric.
• Poetic and Philosophical Prowess: Samantabhadra was not just a poet but a formidable philosophical scholar and debater. His poetry often interwoven with complex philosophical concepts and logical arguments, making it challenging to appreciate fully without knowledge of Jain and other Indian philosophical schools. The author notes that even many Jain scholars struggle to grasp the depth of his works without medieval commentaries.
• Critique of Previous Scholarship: The author criticizes some Jain scholars (particularly from the Digambara tradition) for their approach to Samantabhadra's works. While acknowledging their devotion, he points out that their focus has often been limited to understanding the philosophical doctrines and logical arguments, with less attention paid to the literary aspects, the nuances of language, and the historical context. He suggests that some scholars tend to praise him excessively and unilaterally argue for his extreme antiquity without rigorous impartial research.
• Establishing the Upper Limit (Later Boundary): The article meticulously establishes that Samantabhadra must have lived before the 8th century CE. This is based on several references:
  • Jinasena: The author Jinasena, a disciple of Virasena, mentions Samantabhadra in his Adipurana (written after 837 CE).
  • Jinasena (Harivamsa Purana): Another Jinasena (disciple of Kirtisena), in his Harivamsa Purana (784 CE), lists Samantabhadra as the author of Jivasiddhi and Yujyanushasana.
  • Haribhadra Suri: Haribhadra Suri (c. 745-785 CE) mentions "the prominent debater Samantabhadra" in his works.
  • Akkalankadeva: The great Digambara logician Akkālankadeva, who wrote a commentary (Ashtashati Bhashya) on Samantabhadra's Aptamimamsa (Devāgamastotra), is estimated to have lived between 720-780 CE. This places Samantabhadra before the mid-8th century.
  • Devanandi: Devanandi mentions Samantabhadra by name in his Jainendra Shabdashastra. Devanandi's period is estimated to be between 635-680 CE, suggesting Samantabhadra lived before 650 CE.
  • Dharmakirti: The Buddhist philosopher Dharmakirti (c. 580-660 CE or 250-630 CE) seems to have refuted some of Samantabhadra's arguments concerning syadvada.
  • Kumarila Bhatta: If Kumarila Bhatta (c. 6th-7th century CE) refuted Samantabhadra's theories on omniscience, it implies Samantabhadra's works were available around 600 CE.
• Challenging Early Dating: The article critically examines and refutes attempts to date Samantabhadra very early (1st-2nd century CE):
  • Nāgārjuna: The claim that Samantabhadra was contemporary with or influenced by the Mahayana Buddhist philosopher Nāgārjuna (1st-2nd century CE) is dismissed due to lack of evidence for mutual influence.
  • Urapatta (Urapor): The theory connecting Samantabhadra to an ancient king in Urapatta (identified with Tiruchirapalli) based on a manuscript is found unsubstantiated and speculative.
  • Sabar: The argument that Samantabhadra predates Sabara (commentator on Mimamsa Sutras) is questioned, as Sabara's period is estimated much later than previously thought, possibly the late 4th century CE, especially considering the influence of Vijñānavāda (prominent in the 4th-5th centuries CE) in his work. If Samantabhadra refuted Sabara, he must be later than Sabara.
  • Bhartrihari: The argument that Samantabhadra refuted Bhartrihari (whose period is now placed in the early 5th century CE) is based on a quote from Haribhadra Suri, but the author argues that Haribhadra might have quoted someone else or the attribution is indirect.
  • Dignaga: The claim that Samantabhadra was unaware of Dignaga's (c. 480-560 CE) definition of proof is challenged. The author argues that Samantabhadra's Aptamimamsa shows awareness of Dignaga's concept of anyāpoha (exclusion), suggesting Samantabhadra lived after Dignaga.
  • Siddhasena Divakara: The argument that Siddhasena Divakara (5th century CE) was influenced by Samantabhadra is also questioned. The author suggests Samantabhadra's argumentative style and poetic craftsmanship are more advanced than Siddhasena's, implying Samantabhadra came later.
  • Biographical Accounts: The article analyzes biographical verses attributed to Samantabhadra that describe his conversion from various sects (Ājīvika, Buddhist, Parivrājaka, Shaiva) to Jainism. The mention of "Jaina" itself as a term appearing later than the Gupta period (4th-5th centuries CE) casts doubt on earlier datings. The mention of specific locations like Sindh suggests a period before its Islamic conquest in 721 CE, but this is not decisive. The description of himself as a mantrika and tantrika is also discussed, placing him in a period when such practices were gaining prominence (around the 6th century CE onwards), as they were generally discouraged in earlier Jain scriptures.
  • Literary Development: A significant part of the argument relies on the development of Sanskrit poetics and rhetoric (alamkaras and chitra-kavya). The author notes that the complex rhetorical devices, intricate yamakas (rhyme schemes), and pictorial poems used by Samantabhadra are not found in earlier Sanskrit literature. These elaborate stylistic elements became popular from the 6th-7th centuries CE onwards, seen in poets like Magha, Dandin, and Bharavi. Samantabhadra's complex use of these elements suggests a period after them, specifically placing him in the 6th-7th century CE.
  • Kundakundacharya and Dharasena: References in later texts to commentaries on Dharasena's works by Kundakundacharya and others, including Samantabhadra, are analyzed. Dharasena is placed no earlier than the late 5th century CE. The mention of Kannad commentaries by Shamakunda and Tumbuluracharya, along with the naming convention after villages, points to a period no earlier than the 7th century CE. Since Samantabhadra's commentary is listed after these, it reinforces his later placement.
  • Eight Mahapratīhāryas: Samantabhadra's mention of the eight mahapratīhāryas (auspicious symbols) in his Stutividya is significant. While the concept of tirthankara's thirty-four atisayas (special qualities) existed earlier, the eight mahapratīhāryas are first found in literary works from the 5th century CE onwards, with their detailed descriptions appearing in texts like Vimalasuri's Paumachariya (c. 473 CE) and South Indian Jain traditions from the 6th century CE. This also suggests a period after the 5th century CE for Samantabhadra.
  • Inventive Terminology: The author highlights Samantabhadra's use of many unusual and complex vocatives and epithets for the tirthankaras, which suggests a later period of linguistic innovation and embellishment, rather than extreme antiquity.
• Proposed Timeline: Based on the accumulated evidence, the author concludes that Samantabhadra most likely lived between 150-625 CE. More specifically, he seems to have come after Nāgārjuna, Śabar, Umasvati, Siddhasena Divakara, Bhartrihari, Vasubandhu, and Dignaga. He is placed after Bharavi and before or contemporary with Bhagajinasena, Swami Virasena, Haribhadra Suri, Akkālanagadeva, and possibly Kumarila Bhatta.

The article concludes by dismissing attempts to place Samantabhadra in the 2nd century CE as driven by sectarian bias and a misunderstanding of historical evidence. The author asserts that Samantabhadra's significance is not diminished by being placed three to four centuries later than some traditional estimates.