Vairotyadevi Stava Tatha Upsargahara Stotrano Rachnakal

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text in English:

This article, "Vairotyadevi Stava Tatha Upsargahara Stotrano Rachnakal" by M.A. Dhaky, analyzes the dating of two Jain stotras (hymns): the 'Vairotyadevi Stava' and the 'Upsargahara Stotra'.

On the Vairotyadevi Stava:

The author begins by discussing the inclusion of "Arya Nandil/Rat" within the "Prabhava-Charitra" of Rajagachhiya Prabhachandracharya (dated 1278 CE). Muni Kalyanavijaya, in his critique of this charitra, suggests it should be called "Vairotya Charita" instead of "Arya Nandila Charita" because it contains little about Arya Nandil himself, except that he was a descendant of Arya Rakshit. The charitra claims that through Arya Nandil's teachings, the wife of the merchant's son, Padma, named Vairatya, died and was reborn as a serpent goddess, becoming the consort of the serpent king Dharanendra.

Dhaky considers this narrative to be imaginary and derived from popular legends associated with Nagpanchami, possibly created by Prabhachandracharya himself, though direct proof is lacking.

He then delves into dating Arya Nandil. Being called a "descendant of Arya Rakshit" places him after the 1st century CE. The "Sthaviravali" within the Nandi Sutra (450 CE) mentions "Annanali (Arya Adanandila)" in the lineage of Vachakas, setting his upper time limit. Dhaky speculates he might have lived in the 2nd or 3rd century CE, during the Kushan period, and suggests "Arya Anandila" (Arya Anandil) might be a more accurate appellation.

Further evidence for Arya Nandil's importance comes from the Dhavala commentary (816 CE) on the Shatkhandagama, which quotes "Mahavachaka Arya Nandi" twice. Dhaky argues that this Arya Nandi is likely the same as Arya Nandil or Aryaanandila from the Sachchhelaka or Ardha-Sachelaka tradition, a point he has discussed elsewhere in detail.

However, when examining the 'Vairotyadevi Stava,' attributed to Aryaanandila, published about fifty years prior, Dhaky finds reasons to doubt its attribution to the ancient Aryaanandila:

1. Deities Mentioned: The stava mentions Vairochya and Padmavati as consorts of Dharanendra. However, the Vyakhyaprajnapti (100-300 CE) and Sthananga Sutra (350-363 CE) list six (or four) consorts of serpent king Dharanendra, none of whom are Vairochya or Padmavati. This suggests a later, non-Agamic origin for this concept. The Tiloyapanasti (550 CE) also lacks these names in relation to Dharanendra.
2. Iconography: Available idols of Vairochya or Padmavati cannot be dated earlier than the 6th century CE. While devotional hymns might have existed earlier, the sculptures of Padmavati from Layan temples in Hole and Badami (2nd half of 6th century CE) and Kadamba copper inscriptions mentioning Padmavati temples (late 6th and early 7th centuries CE) point to a later period.
3. Description of Vairochya: The description in verse 3 of the stava aligns with later iconographic features rather than ancient ones, depicting her as a serpent goddess on a serpent, adorned with serpents, and with serpent-like features.
4. "Vidya" Designation: Calling Vairochya a "Vidya" (power/energy) contradicts the idea of her being a very ancient deity in the Jain worldview. Her name is not found among the numerous references to secular Yakshas and Yakshinis in Agamic contexts.
5. Protection from Evil: Verse 6 mentions the warding off of poisonous creatures, wild animals, and unseen malevolent beings. This suggests a composition from the medieval period rather than earlier.
6. Protection from Various Threats: Verses 18-28 list protections from serpents, demons, Yakinis, Shakinis, Dakinis, thieves, and others, indicating a composition later than the Bhaktamara Stotra of Mantunga Suri (6th-7th century CE).
7. Tantric Elements: Verses 8 and 9 are explicitly tantric in nature, using specific incantations. These verses alone suggest the stava cannot be dated earlier than the 8th-9th century CE. Furthermore, the acceptance of Padmavati in the Shvetambara tradition has no evidence before the 10th century CE, either in literature or sculpture.

Considering all these points, Dhaky concludes that the 'Vairotyadevi Stava' cannot be attributed to the Kushan-era Acharya Arya Nandi or Aryaanandila. It is likely a product of the period after the introduction of Tantra into Jainism. While Prabhava-Charitra is familiar with the stava, the source of its narrative remains to be discovered.

On the Upsargahara Stotra:

In contrast to the 'Vairotyadevi Stava,' the 'Upsargahara Stotra' (Uvasaggaharahathotta) is very famous and prevalent in both Shvetambara and Digambara traditions of Jainism. This stotra, composed of only five verses, is traditionally attributed by the Shvetambara tradition to Bhadra Bahu, who lived at the end of the Nand dynasty and the beginning of the Maurya era. However, Dhaky notes that there is no indication in the original stotra or its commentaries (by Parshvadeva Gani in the 12th century CE and Chandracharya in the 13th century CE) that Bhadra Bahu was the author.

Muni Chaturvijayji initially attributed the work to the aforementioned Bhadra Bahu but later suggested it might be by the Nirukti-author Bhadra Bahu (the second), who is considered a brother of Varahamihira in Jain narratives. Muni Punyavijaya also held this belief. However, Dhaky points out that there is no evidence to support the existence of a second Bhadra Bahu. The contradictory accounts in biographies and narratives placing this Bhadra Bahu in different eras (brother of Varahamihira during the Gupta period, and disciple of Arya Yashobhadra during the Maurya period) highlight the lack of historical accuracy. The only purpose seems to be to elevate Bhadra Bahu above Varahamihira.

Dhaky asserts that the identity of the Nirukti authors and the author of the Upsargahara Stotra are not indicated by any source. While Punyavijaya's assertion that the Niruktis were composed shortly after the Valabhi second recension of Jain Agamas (503/516 CE) might be partially correct (around 525 CE), it does not resolve the authorship and dating of the Upsargahara Stotra.

The original stotra in Maharashtri Prakrit is provided, along with its Sanskrit translation and Gujarati meaning. The stotra is described as being imbued with mantra, composed with the intention of removing snake poison, warding off the influence of planetary positions, curing epidemic diseases, and alleviating fevers.

Dhaky states that the author is clearly not from the Agamic period, and the style and language of the composition are unlikely to predate the early medieval period.

The key to dating is found in the first verse, which mentions "Pas (Parshva)" twice. The commentator interprets the first "Pas" as "Parshva Yaksha" (the one who removes obstacles) and the second "Pas" as "Jina Parshva" (who is free from karmic actions). Dhaky agrees with this interpretation, as in the Nirgrantha philosophy, Siddhatmas are omniscient but not creators, meaning Jina Parshva cannot remove obstacles, but the ruling deities (Shasanadevatas) can. Therefore, the prayer for removing obstacles is directed to their Shasanadevata, Parshva Yaksha.

However, the concept of Parshva Yaksha is considered later. The development of Yakshas and Yakshinis as protectors of Tirthankaras is not evident in literature or artistic creations before the late 9th century CE. There is no evidence for this before that period. The Samavayanaga Sutra does not mention Yakshas and Yakshinis in the 24th section, and they are not found in Agamic or other literature until the later periods.

Stylistically, the stotra bears some resemblance to the two-verse Virastuti by Padalipta Suri (the second) (circa 700-725 CE), known as "Gahajuhalena." While the Digambara tradition attributes this stotra to Mantunga Suri, its style differs from Mantunga Suri's Prakrit stotra, "Bhayahara." The "Upsargahara Stotra" appears to be a composition of a mantra-worshipping Chaityavasi ascetic, lacking poetic elements, and Mantunga's name is not present in the final verse.

Considering the style and subject matter, Dhaky concludes that the 'Upsargahara Stotra' can be placed at the earliest in the second half of the 9th century CE.

The article concludes with several footnotes that provide references and further details on the discussed points, including the dating of idols, the mention of names in various Agamas, and scholarly debates on the authorship of the stotras and related texts.