DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.29591#0058
54
Charpentier, Uttaradhyayanasutra
scanty account of himself in the prakisti (in seven verses) at the
end of his work1. According to this2 he belonged himself to
the Thccrapadragaccha, which again originated from the Kathakarnan-
vayci; this latter had sprung from the Candrakula, and the Ccm-
clrakula was a division of the Vairl sakha, which had sprung
from the Kotika gana3, founded by Susthita and Suprcitibuddhci,
two disciples of the pontiff Suhastin4 * 6. His teachers were Scirva-
deva and Abhciyadeva, who cannot, of course, have been the fa-
mous Abhciyadevasuri, the navangcivrttikrt, as the latter died samv.
1135 or 1139 (= 1079 or 1083 A. D.), and was consequently
somewhat younger than Santisuri. For it is reported in Dhar-
masagaraganin’s Gurvavalisutra, under Sarvadeva No. 36, that Santi-
suri, surnamed the vdclivetdla°, the author of a commentary on
the Uttaradhyayana, died samv. 1096 (= 1040 A. D.)G, whilst the
death of Abhciyadeva in samv. 1135 (kecit 1139) is reported to
have taken place in the time of Yasobhcidra and Nemicandrcu
who were separated from Sarvadeva by two generations of teachers,
viz. Devasuri and another Scirvadevasuri.
Santisuri further tells us that there existed at his time several
other commentaries (vrtti) on the Uttaradhyayana, but that, never-
theless, he undertook his task at the instigation of Gunasena. He
wrote his work in Anahilapataka, in a cdityci established by Scintya-
mcitya, who was an ornament (sekhara) of the Bhillamcila family.
In what year the work was brought to an end is not stated,
and so this is all we know of the origin of this the greatest of
the preserved commentaries on our text.
The Sisyahitd only seems to exist in a very few manuscripts7,
probably because it was little used, having been superseded by
1 In the Berlin-Ms. fol. 400 b; published by R. G. Bhandarkar
Report 1883/84, p. 440.
2 Cp. Bhandarkar 1. c. p. 129; Weber Catalog II, p. 827.
3 Cp. KS. Sthavirav. 13 (Jacobi KS. p. 81 f.); Biihler WZKM I, 170
ff.; Ill, 237; IV, 318 ff. &c.
4 Cp. SBE. XXII, p. 292.
0 An explanation of this epithet is not given.
6 Cp. Klatt IA. XI, 253.
7 I have seen only two Mss. of it, viz. the Berlin Mss. 703—706
(Weber Catalog II, p. 731 ff.) on palm-leaves, and a paper Ms. from
the Deccan College, written samv. 1667 (Bhandarkar Report 1883/84
no 258, p. 277).
Charpentier, Uttaradhyayanasutra
scanty account of himself in the prakisti (in seven verses) at the
end of his work1. According to this2 he belonged himself to
the Thccrapadragaccha, which again originated from the Kathakarnan-
vayci; this latter had sprung from the Candrakula, and the Ccm-
clrakula was a division of the Vairl sakha, which had sprung
from the Kotika gana3, founded by Susthita and Suprcitibuddhci,
two disciples of the pontiff Suhastin4 * 6. His teachers were Scirva-
deva and Abhciyadeva, who cannot, of course, have been the fa-
mous Abhciyadevasuri, the navangcivrttikrt, as the latter died samv.
1135 or 1139 (= 1079 or 1083 A. D.), and was consequently
somewhat younger than Santisuri. For it is reported in Dhar-
masagaraganin’s Gurvavalisutra, under Sarvadeva No. 36, that Santi-
suri, surnamed the vdclivetdla°, the author of a commentary on
the Uttaradhyayana, died samv. 1096 (= 1040 A. D.)G, whilst the
death of Abhciyadeva in samv. 1135 (kecit 1139) is reported to
have taken place in the time of Yasobhcidra and Nemicandrcu
who were separated from Sarvadeva by two generations of teachers,
viz. Devasuri and another Scirvadevasuri.
Santisuri further tells us that there existed at his time several
other commentaries (vrtti) on the Uttaradhyayana, but that, never-
theless, he undertook his task at the instigation of Gunasena. He
wrote his work in Anahilapataka, in a cdityci established by Scintya-
mcitya, who was an ornament (sekhara) of the Bhillamcila family.
In what year the work was brought to an end is not stated,
and so this is all we know of the origin of this the greatest of
the preserved commentaries on our text.
The Sisyahitd only seems to exist in a very few manuscripts7,
probably because it was little used, having been superseded by
1 In the Berlin-Ms. fol. 400 b; published by R. G. Bhandarkar
Report 1883/84, p. 440.
2 Cp. Bhandarkar 1. c. p. 129; Weber Catalog II, p. 827.
3 Cp. KS. Sthavirav. 13 (Jacobi KS. p. 81 f.); Biihler WZKM I, 170
ff.; Ill, 237; IV, 318 ff. &c.
4 Cp. SBE. XXII, p. 292.
0 An explanation of this epithet is not given.
6 Cp. Klatt IA. XI, 253.
7 I have seen only two Mss. of it, viz. the Berlin Mss. 703—706
(Weber Catalog II, p. 731 ff.) on palm-leaves, and a paper Ms. from
the Deccan College, written samv. 1667 (Bhandarkar Report 1883/84
no 258, p. 277).