Chapter 2.3 - Date of Haribhadrasūri

Traditionally it is believed that Haribhadrasūri [Haribhadra Suri] belonged to the 6th century A.D. He died in V.S. 585 (= 528 A.D.). However, we do not get the exact birth year of Haribhadrasūri. Ācārya Merutuṅga (V.S. 14th) wrote Vicāraśreṇi in 1360 V.S. (= 1249 A.D.). In this treatise^[1] he has mentioned 585 V.S., which is 1055 years after the nirv āṇa (liberation) of Lord Mah āvīra, as the death year of Haribhadrasūri. Considering Ācārya Merutuṅga’s views regarding death of Haribhadrasūri very authentic the following Jain monks had reproduced the same.

The List is:

Author — Name of his work
1. Pradhymnasūri (his date is unsettled yet) — Vicārasāraprakaraṇa^[2] ;
2. Kulamaṇdanasūri (1st half of V. S. 15th) — Vicārāmṛtasaṃgraha^[3] ;
3. Upādhyāya Dharmasāgara (1st half of V.S. 17th)–Tapāgaccha Gurvāvalī^[4] ;
4. Samayasundaragaṇi (V. S. 17th)–Gāthāsahastrī.^[5]

In one of the palm-leaf manuscript of Laghukṣetrasamāsavṛtti we find the following verses, which too, seem to support the fact that Haribhadrasūri belonged to V.S. 6th.

The verses are:

“laghukṣetrasamāsasya vṛttireṣā samāsataḥ|
racitā'budhabodhārthaṃ śrīharibhadrasūribhiḥ ||
pañcāśītika (580) varṣe vikramato vrajati śuklapañcamyām|
śukla (kra)sya śukravāre puṣyeśasyebha (?) nakṣatre ||”

Guṇaatnasūri, in his colophon (verse: 15) of Kriyāratnasamuccaya, refers to the second Mānadevasūri (who flourished in V.S. 6th) as a friend of Haribhadrasūri.

Munisundarasūri has expressed the same opinion in his Gurvāvalī. The lines are:

abhūdgurūḥśrīharibhadramitraṃ
śrīmānadevaḥpunarevasūriḥ|
yo māndyato vismṛtisūrimantraṃ
lebhe'mbikā''syāttapajñojjayante || 40 ||

Moreover, the Paṭṭāvalis of the Añ cala and Paurṇimā gacchas, too, say the same thing.

However, there are reasons to doubt this date. When we look at certain names of works and authors referred by Haribhadrasūri in his different works, it leads to conclude that he did not flourish in V.S. 6th. Therefore let us have a look at some instances where Haribhadrasūri has referred some well-known works as well as authors.

In certain verses of Śāstravārtasamuccaya ^[6] Haribhadrasūri had referred to Mīmāṃsāślokavārtika of Kumārila Bhaṭṭa who flourished in 620-680 A.D. In Haribhadrasūri’s composition Anekāntajayapatākā he frequently quotes Dharmakīrti who flourished in 600-650 A.D., Dharmapāla in 635 A.D., Śāntarakṣita in 705-762 A.D. and Bhartṛhari in 600-650 A.D. ^[7] Haribhadrasūri also quotes, in his vivaraṇa on the Nandīsūtra, the Nandīcūrṇi of Jinadāsagaṇimahattara who finished the cūrṇi in 677 A.D.After viewing all these references given by Haribhadrasūri [Haribhadra Suri] we may infer that he did not flourish in the V.S. 6th.

We further refer to Udyotanasūri’s Kuvalayamālā to get a better understanding of the time frame in which Haribhadrasūri stayed. The author of Kuvalayamala, Udyotanasūri, composed this work in V.S. 83. ^[8] And in this work he has referred to Haribhadrasūri as his preceptor in the study of canonical literature and logic.^[9] Moreover, in the Kuvalayamālā Udyotanasūri praised Samarāiccakahā of Haribhadrasūri.

The verse is:

“jo icchai bhavavirahaṃ bhavavirahaṃ ko na baṃdhae suyaṇo|
samayasayasatthagurūṇo samaramiyaṃka kahā jassa || ”

These aforementioned references of Kuvalayamālā confirm that Haribhadrasūri could not have flourished later than 835 V.S. Moreover, in praśasti ^[10] of Upamitibhavaprapañcakathā, its author, Siddharṣigaṇi, mentions Haribhadrasūri as his “dharmabodhakaro guruḥ”. If we take these words of Siddharṣigaṇi in its literal sense, they will suggest that Haribhadrasūri was his direct preceptor. However, in praśasti verse-7 of Upamitibhavaprapañcakathā it is stated that Garga Ṛṣi was the dikṣāguru of Siddharṣigaṇi. Therefore, it seems that Haribhadrasūri cannot be the direct preceptor of Siddharṣigaṇi. If Haribhadrasūri were the direct preceptor of Siddharṣigaṇi, Haribhadrasūri must have flourished in the 10th century A.D.^[11] instead of V.S. 6th. Before we fix Haribhadrasūri’s time frame to be the 10th century A. D., we must read the following verse of Upamitibhavaprapañcakathā carefully.

It says:

“anāgataṃ parijñāya caityavandanasaṃśrayā |
madarthaiva kṛ tā yena vṛttirlalitavistarā || 17 ||”

If Haribhadrasūri was Siddharṣigaṇi’s direct preceptor, then why did Siddharṣigaṇi use the phrase anāgata in his above quoted verse? Its usage proves the fact that Siddharṣigaṇi neither saw nor came into direct contact with Haribhadrasūri. Moreover, the pañjikā written by Municandrasūri on the treatise Lalitavistarā seems to support this view.

The following verse of the pañjikā says:

“yāṃ buddhvā kila siddhasādhurakhilavyākhyātacūḍāmaṇiḥ
sambuddhaḥ sugatapraṇītasamayābhyāsāccalaccetanaḥ|
yatkartuḥ svakṛtau punargurūtayā cakre namasyāmasau
ko hayenāṃ vivṛṇotu nāma vivṛtiṃsmṛtyai tathā'pyātmanaḥ || ”

Thus, Siddharṣigaṇi’s usage of the phrase “dharmabodhakaro guruḥ” for Haribhadrasūri implies that Haribhadrasūri, was the indirect preceptor^[12] of Siddharṣigaṇi.

It is Haribhadrasūri’s work, most probably; the Lalitavistarā has imparted to him the essence of dharma. This leads us to infer that there must be sufficient time-gap between Siddharṣigaṇi and his predecessor Haribhadrasūri.

After viewing names of various works and authors referred by Haribhadrasūri in his different works and also taking the composition date of Kuvalayamālā valid and its author Udyotanasūri’s indebtedness to Haribhadrasūri regarding the study of logic etc., we are inclined to endorse the view of Muni Jinavijaya who believes that Haribhadrasūri flourished from 757 to 827 V.S. (= 700 to 770 A.D.). Jacobi,^[13] H.R. Kapadia^[14] and also Muni Kalyanvijaya agree with Muni Jinavijaya’s conclusion regarding fixing the time period during which Haribhadrasūri lived.

Tradition says that Haribhadrasūri [Haribhadra Suri] passed away in Vīrasaṃvata 1055 i.e. 585V.S.= 529 A.D. But Muni Jinavijaya has assigned to him a period 700 A.D. to 770 A.D. that is accepted by most scholars. If we read the following verse, which tells that Haribhadrasūri passed away in 585 V.S. in another light, it fairly agrees with the period 700 A.D. to 770 A.D. as assigned by Muni Jinavijaya.

The verse is from Vicārasāraprakaraṇa of Pradhymnasūri.

“paṃcasae paṇasīe vikkamabhūvāu jhatti atthamio|
haribhaddasūrisūro dhammarao deu mukkhapahaṃ || 532 || ”

The word vikkama (Vikrama in Sanskrit) occurring in the above quoted verse is interpreted by H. A. Shah^[15] as referring to “Gupta”. And therefore the statement that Haribhadrasūri died in 585 V.S. means that he died in 585 Gupta Saṃvata^[16] (= Śaka 707 = V.S. 842 = 785 A.D.)^[17]

Though the conclusion of Muni Jinavijaya is considered most authentic, various other scholars have also expressed their views, regarding the time frame that Haribhadrasūri was alive, which somewhere differs slightly from that of Muni Jinavijaya.

They are:

1. K. V. Abhyankara says that Haribhadrasūri lived from 800 to 950 V.S. While writing an introduction on Haribhadrasūri’s Viṃśativiṃśikā, K.V.Abhyankara has said so.

2. Paṇḍita Mahendrakumar expressed his view in his introduction to the text Siddhāsiddhiviniścaya. According to him Haribhadrasūri lived from 720 A.D. to 810 A.D.

3. While fixing the date of Mallavādī in the introduction of Nyāyāvatāra P.L. Vaidya has suggested that the time Haribhadrasūri was alive, can-not be post 884 V.S.

4. Let us quote view of Jugalakishor Mukhtar. While discussing on the date of Haribhadrasūri, Mukhtar says:

“ācārya haribhadra ke samaya, saṃyatajīvana aura usake sāhityika kāryoṃ kī viśālatā ko dekhate hue unakī āyukā anumāna 100 varṣa ke lagabhaga lagāyā jā sakatā hai aura ve mallavādī ke samakālīna hone ke sātha-sātha “ ku valayamālā ” kī racanā ke kitane hī varṣa bāda taka jīvita raha sakate haiṃ|”^[18]

5. In his article Nemichandra shastri^[19] has discussed in great detail the issue of fixing the date of Haribhadrasūri. At the end of this discussion Nemichandra Shastri concludes by saying the following lines:

“uparyukta samasta vicāroṃ ke prakāśa meṃ hamārā apanā abhimata yaha hai ki jaba taka haribhadra ke upara śaṃkarācārya kā prabhāva siddha nahīṃ ho jātā hai taba taka ācārya haribhadrasūri kā samaya śaṃkarācārya ke bāda nahīṃ mānā jā sakatā| ataḥ munijinavijayajī ne haribhadrasūri kā samaya ī.san 770 mānā hai, vaha bhī pūṇartaḥ grāhaya nahīṃ hai| isa mata ke māna lene se udyotanasūri ke sātha unake gurū śiṣya ke sambandha kā nirvāha ho jātā hai, para mallavādī ke sātha sambandha ghaṭita nahīṃ ho pātā| ataeva ina kā samaya ī.san 730 se ī.san 830 taka māna lene para bhī udyotanasūri ke sātha gurū-śiṣya kā sambandha siddha hone ke sātha-sātha mallavādī ke sambandha kā bhī nirvāha ho jātā hai|”

I. Haribhadrasūri–Anterior or posterior to Śaṅkarācārya:

K.V.Abhyankar believes that the time of Haribhadrasūri is ranging from 800 to 950 V.S. and on the ground of this belief K.V.Abhayankar discusses as to whether Haribhadrasūri is anterior or posterior to Śaṅkarācārya. The exposition of the topics such as bhūtavaicitryasiddhi, bhūtacaitanyotpatti, kṣaṇikatvanirāsa, bāhyārthasiddhi and samavāyanirāsa are treated in Dhammasaṅgahaṇī (Verses: 65-67, 76, 77, 168, 310 and 225, 330) and also in Pañcāsaga by Haribhadrasūri. The exposition of such topics is an imitation of Śārīraka -bhāṣya of Śaṅkarācārya on Brahmasūtra. And this leads K.V. Abhayankar to infer that this bhāṣya was seen by Haribhadrasūri. Moreover, K.V.Abhayankar says that the colophon of Upamitibhavaprapañcakathā indicates that Haribhadrasūri is latter than Śaṅkarācārya. On the contrary if we were to accept the colophon of Kuvalayamālā, it must be admitted that Haribhadrasūri is anterior to Śaṅkarācārya.

The following lines by H. R. Kapadi ^[20] are in favor of assuming that Haribhadrasūri [Haribhadra Suri] was anterior to Śaṅkarācārya. The lines are:

“I may however note that a negative argument, too, has some force at times. And this is practically, the case here; for, it is rather strange that a towering personality and a great opponent of Jainism like Śaṅkarācārya remains unnoticed by Haribhadra. I am therefore inclined to share the opinion expressed by Jinavijaya, Prof. N.V. Vaidya and, Mr. P. K. Gode that Haribhadra is anterior to Śaṅkarācārya, and especially when it proves that traditional date of Śaṅkara 788-820 A.D. to be correct as suggested by N. V. Vaidya in his intro. (p. viii) to Samarāiccakaha (VI). N. D. Mehta, too, has assigned this date to Śaṅkarācārya. Vide his hiṃda tattvajñāna no itihāsa (uttarārdha), p. 209).”

“From the available works of Haribhadra, it appears that he has nowhere referred to Śaṅkara. It is too much to believe that the attack of Śaṅkara on saptabhaṅgī in his Śārīrakabhāṣya escaped the notice of Haribhadra, who, in AJP, has referred to and refuted all the misinterpretations about syādvāda–the misinterpretations made by different scholars who preceded him. This makes us infer that Śaṅkara was not a predecessor of Haribhadra,…”^[21]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

paṃcasaha paṇasīe vikkamakālāu jhatti atthamio|
haribhadrasūrisūro bhaviyāṇaṃ disau kallāṇaṃ ||

[2]:

“paṃcasaepaṇasīe vikkamabhūvāu jhatti atthamio|
haribhaddasūrisūro dhammarao deu mukkhapahaṃ || 532 || 
paṇapanna dasasaehiṃ harisūrī āsitattha puvvakavī|
terasa varisa saehiṃ ahiehi vi bappahaṭṭi pahū || 533 || ”

[3]:

The gāthās of Vicārasāraprakaraṇa resemble to that of Gāthāsahastrī. Some differences of words are found in verses of these two texts. But they convey one and the same thing.

[4]:

“śrīvīranirvāṇātsahasravarṣe pūrvaśrutavyavacchinnam |
śrīharibhadrasūrayastadanu pañcapañcāśatā varṣau divaṃ prāptaḥ |”

[5]:

śrīvīrāt pañcapañcāśadadhikasahasravarṣe vikramātpañcāśatyādhikapañcaśatavarṣe yākinīsūnuḥ śrīharibhadrasūriḥsvagarbhāk|

[6]:

See The Article haribhadrasūri kā samayanirṇaya written by Muni Jinavijaya, pp. 51 and 52.

[7]:

The Article haribhadrasūri kā samayanirṇaya written by Muni Jinavijaya, p.53.

[8]:

“... ahacoddasīe cittassa kiṇhapakkhammi|
nimmaviyā bohakarī bhavvāṇaṃ hou savvāṇaṃ || ”
“sagakāle bolīṇe varisāṇa saehiṃ sattahiṃ gaehiṃ|
egadiṇeṇūṇehiṃ esa samattā varaṇhammi || ”
   –430 Anuccheda

[9]:

so siddhanteṇagurūjutti–satthehi jassa haribhaddo|

[10]:

“ācārya haribhadro me dharmabodhakarogurūḥ|
prastāve bhākto hantasa evādye niveditaḥ || 15 || ”

[11]:

See, Upamitibhavaprapañcakathā, Introduction to Jacobi, p. 8. Here Jacobi has presented this view once and substantiated it by quoting internal evidences.

[12]:

“As a parallel example, may be mentioned that Māṇikyaśekharasūri in his Piṇḍaniryuktidīpikā speaks of Malayagirisūri as his guru, though he is not actually so. See Descriptive Catalogue of Jain Manuscript by H.R.Kapadia, Vol: XVII, Part-III, p. 488.

–Extracted from footnote: 1, P. XXVI, Intro, Vol I, AJP

[13]:

See intro to Samarāiccakahā by Prof. Jacobi.

[14]:

See p. XXVI, intro, Vol: I, AJP.

[15]:

In his Guj. Article (p. 41) he observes that the saṃvat which commenced in Śaka 241 is not gupta Saṃvat but it is Gupta Valabhī also known as valabhī.

[16]:

Ācārya Jinasena in his Harivaṃśapurāṇa says that Gupta Saṃvat began in Vira Samvat 727 (e.e. śaka Samvat 122 = V.S. 257 = 200 A.D.)

[17]:

P. XIII, intro., Vol: II, AJP.

[18]:

In on P. 553 of jaina sāhitya itihāsa para viśadprakāśa.

[19]:

P. 363, Titthayara (research journal, April, 1989, An Article “rājasthāna kā yuga-saṃsthāpaka kathā-kāvyanirmātā haribhadra” By Dr. Nemichandra Shastri.

[20]:

Fn 1, P. XV, intro., Vol: II, AJp.

[21]:

P. CIV, CV, Intro., Vol: II, AJp by Prof. H.R. Kapadia.