8 PAUMACARIU Svayambha's PC. This is acknowledged by the latter It should be also remembered that Ravişeņa was a staunch Digambara while Svayambhủ was a Yāpaniya. In this connection Premi emhasizes the fact that Svayambhū does not refer to Jinasena, the author of the Harivamsa (784 A.D.) though he mentions many non-Jain authors. He considers it likely that the Harivansa might have been composed later than PC. On this view Svayambhū can be assigned to the middle of the eighth century. But the value of argumentum ex silentio is mostly doubt- ful. So long as no fresh, decisive evidence is forthcoming to support this, Premi's suggestion remains just a likely inference.” The Yuddhakāņa of PC. is complete with the 77. Sandhi and the Uttarakānda begins with the andhi. But due to some confusion we find at the end of the 78. Sandhi also a statement saying that the Yuddhakāņda was completed on Monday the first day of the dark half of Jyeştha". Similarly at the end of the 92. Sandhi of RC. that completes the Yuddhakāņda, the date of com- pletion is given as Wednesday, the third day', Phālguna Nakşatra, Šiva Yoga. We are also informed that it took Svayambhū six years, three months and eleven days to compose the 92 Sandhis of RC. And then the date of beginning the Uttarakāņda is given" as Sunday the tenth day, Mūla Nakşatra and the eleventh moon'. It should be noted that the year is not given at any of these three places. Now from a stanza' at the beginning of the 100. Sandhi of RC. (written, according to our interpretation, by Svayambhū) we gather that Svayambhū wrote PC. and another work Suddhaya- cariu before RC. Further, as shall be shown in Section 4, RC. was Svayambhu's last work and therefore the Siri-pañcamikaha and the Svayambhūcchandas also were written before RC. Therefore the date given in PC. should precede both the dates given in RC. and there should be a gap of several years between the date in PC. and the first date in RC. There might have intervened a few months or more between the two dates in RC., for in the case of PC., we know that the composition was twice interrupted". A reference to Pillai's Ephemeris has given the following dates between 700 A.D. and 850 A.D., that can prove suitable within the limits of the above data. Of the numerous dates corresponding to Wednesday, the third day, Phālguna Nakşatra, and Sunday, the tenth day, Mñla Nakşatra, which are given respectively for the completion of the Yuddhakanda of RC. and the beginning of its Uttarakānda, only some five are such as have an interval of less than six years between them. The rest give a very high interval which does not appear reasonable. (1) Cf. the words: puņu arambhiya Rama-kaha, Arisu joeppiņu, PC. 1, 16. (2) The first half of the Prasasti stanza at the end of the 20. Sandhi (Appendix I. 13) is quite corrupt and obscure and yet on the strength of its first word dhuaraya Sankrityayan (1945. 23) thinks that Svayambhū flourished in 780- 794 A.D. during the reign of the Rāştrakūta king Dhruva Dhārāvarsa. But this is a mere guess. (3) Appendix I, 18. (4) Appendix I, 60. (7) Appendix 1, 65. (5) Appendix 1, 61. (8) See Section 5. (6) Appendix I, 62.
