DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.29591#0022
Charpentier, Uttaradhyayanasutra
into it; but the number 84000 is a traditional one in Indian liter-
ature, and, moreover, the Nandi gives the number 288 OOO pada’s
instead.
As for the Nandisntra it is said in the Commentary to be
the work of Devavacaka, i. e. Devarddhiganin himself; and as the
stliaviravaU affixed to it really ends with his teacher Dusagani,
this seems to confirm the statement1. The same is stated concern-
ing the Anuyogadvarasntra, which is of a somewhat related con-
tent but seems to differ from the Nandi in style. But Weber
1. c. p. 17 ff. has pointed out that this is scarcely possible, as
the Nandi contains quite a number of statements concerning the
canonical scriptures which do not at all coincide with their pre-
sent shape; and it would be very strange, if the chief redactor of
the canon himself should have given such a bewildering record of
the sacred texts which he had brought together. I shall only add
here that the list of Brahminical literature given in the Nandi (and
the - Anuyogadvara), of which I shall have to say something later
on, also seems to point to a time previous to the 5th or the be-
ginning of the 6th century A. D. After all, I think that the
authorship of Devarddhi is not very strongly established, and we
may regard him as redactor rather than the author of canonical works.
But there still remains another question of capital interest to
be discussed in connection with the redaction of the Siddhanta,
and that is the existence or non-existence of the drstivadci (ahga
12) at that time. Undeniable facts are that ahga 4 and the
Nandi give a detailed table of contents for the twelfth ahga,
in which the 14 puma's were included as the third great
subdivision2; that the ahga’s frequently speak of the duvdlasam-
garn ganipidagam, puma's or purvasruta and also assert that
the 12 updnga's, some of which are undoubtedly late, are cer-
tainly modelled upon the 12 existing ahga’s; and finally that
the old Commentaries supply some quotations from the puma's
which may really have existed during their time. On the other
hand we have the express statement of different authorities3 that
1 Cp. Weber Ind. Stud. XVII, 2 f.
2 Or, according to Hemacandra (Weber Ind. Stud. XVI, 347) as
the fourth, and in fact the last section, the fifth being only a culikd
’protuberance’ or ’supplement’.
3 Cp. Weber Ind. Stud. XVI, 212 ff., 348.
into it; but the number 84000 is a traditional one in Indian liter-
ature, and, moreover, the Nandi gives the number 288 OOO pada’s
instead.
As for the Nandisntra it is said in the Commentary to be
the work of Devavacaka, i. e. Devarddhiganin himself; and as the
stliaviravaU affixed to it really ends with his teacher Dusagani,
this seems to confirm the statement1. The same is stated concern-
ing the Anuyogadvarasntra, which is of a somewhat related con-
tent but seems to differ from the Nandi in style. But Weber
1. c. p. 17 ff. has pointed out that this is scarcely possible, as
the Nandi contains quite a number of statements concerning the
canonical scriptures which do not at all coincide with their pre-
sent shape; and it would be very strange, if the chief redactor of
the canon himself should have given such a bewildering record of
the sacred texts which he had brought together. I shall only add
here that the list of Brahminical literature given in the Nandi (and
the - Anuyogadvara), of which I shall have to say something later
on, also seems to point to a time previous to the 5th or the be-
ginning of the 6th century A. D. After all, I think that the
authorship of Devarddhi is not very strongly established, and we
may regard him as redactor rather than the author of canonical works.
But there still remains another question of capital interest to
be discussed in connection with the redaction of the Siddhanta,
and that is the existence or non-existence of the drstivadci (ahga
12) at that time. Undeniable facts are that ahga 4 and the
Nandi give a detailed table of contents for the twelfth ahga,
in which the 14 puma's were included as the third great
subdivision2; that the ahga’s frequently speak of the duvdlasam-
garn ganipidagam, puma's or purvasruta and also assert that
the 12 updnga's, some of which are undoubtedly late, are cer-
tainly modelled upon the 12 existing ahga’s; and finally that
the old Commentaries supply some quotations from the puma's
which may really have existed during their time. On the other
hand we have the express statement of different authorities3 that
1 Cp. Weber Ind. Stud. XVII, 2 f.
2 Or, according to Hemacandra (Weber Ind. Stud. XVI, 347) as
the fourth, and in fact the last section, the fifth being only a culikd
’protuberance’ or ’supplement’.
3 Cp. Weber Ind. Stud. XVI, 212 ff., 348.