Lost of Sanskrit Drama Puspadusitaka and Story of Nandayanti in Jain Tradition

Author(s): H C Bhayani
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/032749/1

Page #1
SHETH SHRI KASTURBHAI LALBHAI BIRTH CENTENARY MEMORIAL LECTURES THE LOST SANSKRIT, DRAMA PUSPADUSITAKA AND THE STORY OF NANDAYANTI IN THE JAIN TRADION Dr. H. C. BHAYANI OM 12 L. D. INSTITUTE OF INDOLOGY: 1994

Page #2
Puspudusitaka, a lost Sanskrit drama of the Prakarana-type, has been discussed and appreciated by several leading critics, classical and modern. Because of the meagreness of the available information, several key-points in its plot and motivations behind some actions remained obscure, forcing modern scholars to make speculations. The story of Sagaradatta and Nandayanti, preserved in Jain narrative literature, based as it is on the same plot, but which so for escaped attention of scholars, is shown to be helpful in solving several problems and clarifying a number of issues. Incidentally the value of Jain sources for filling up gaps in the history of Classical literature is stressed by pointing out some similar instances.

Page #3
PREFACE Several basic contributions of the Late Sheth Shri Kasturbhai Lalbhai to the numerous aspects of the present day cuitural life of Gujarat are wellknow. Especially he made pioneering efforts for establishing various eductional and academic Institutions in Ahmedabad. among which the L. D. Institute of Indology established in 1956 has won international recognition as a leading research Institution. The currrent Year is the Birth Centenary Year of Sheth Shri Kasturbhai Lalbhai and to honour his memory we have planned to arrange a number of mernorial lectures by some leading scholars and eminent literateurs. The present lecture is the first in the series. We are thankful to Dr. H. C. Bhayani for readily accepting our invitation. Ahmedabad 15th February 1994 UJAMSHI KAPADIA Co-ordinator

Page #4
_

Page #5
THE STORY OF NANDAYANTI IN THE JAIN TRADITION AND THE LOST SANSKRIT DRAMA PUSPADUSITAKA The silopalesamala, containing a total of 114 Gatha verses, is a Jainistic didactic - religious tract in Prakrit, preaching the virtues of observing chastity (Sila). It was written by Jayakirti probably in the ninth century A. C. It gives a list of 23 men and 20 women of legend who were instructive instances of chaste or unchaste conduct. In the catalogue of chaste women, Gatha no. 56 lists the names of Silavati, Nandayanti, Manorama and Rohini as famous Mahasatis. Somatilaka-suri alias Vidyatilaka-suri wrote a Sanskrit commentary on the Silopadesamala, called Silatarangini, wherein he has given the stories of all the persons named in the former. The story of Nandayanti (pp. 434 to 441) is summarised below. ; In Potanapura, ruled over by King Naravikrama, lived the merchant Sagarapota. His son Samudradatta was married to Nandayanti, the daughter of the merchant Nagadatta of Soparapura. Once Samudradatta expressed to his father his desire to visit other countries and earn wealth through his own endeavour. Getting the latter's approval Samudradatta made preparations for a sea-voyage, and loaded his ship with merchandise. On the point of departure he conveyed to his friend Sahadeva, how he felt sorry that although he took leave of all the relatives, he could not meet Nandayanti because she was in menses. Sahadeva assured him he would take care of the last stage of preparations. *Samudradatta secretly returned at night from the sea beech and proceeded towards his residence, driven by love for his [3]

Page #6
dear wife. He reached the door of the residence which was being guarded by the door-keeper Surapala. Samudradatta gave him his jewelled ring as a gift and told him not to tell anybody about his present visit. Reaching his own appartment he saw through latticed window Nandayanti sleeplessly and restlessly wallowing in her bed. Hoping to get some relief from the grief of separation from her husband, she got up, went to the flower - garden attached to the house and lay down on a stone-slab cool under moonlight. But failing to get any relief and feeling aggrieved because Samudradatta did not care to see her before departure, she desperately took off her upper garment, tied it on the branch of a tree and was on the point of hanging herself, when Samudradatta, who was watching her behaviour throughout rushed and resecued her. Overpowered with love he enjoyed her and left. Reaching sea-shore he immediately started on his voyage. A period of three months lapsed thereafter, when signs of Nandayanti's pregnancy showed up. Her father-in-law suspected her of unchastity, which he felt to be a blot on his illustruous family. He commissioned a man called Niskaruna, who took Nandayanti to woods and abandoned her. Shocked by this quite unextacted cruel treatment, Nandayanti made several attempts to commit suicide in various ways, but every time she was saved by Divinity on account of the power of her chastity. Niskaruna, who watched her behaviour from hiding returned and reported to Sagarapota, vouching about Nandayanti's chastity. In the meanwhile Nandayanti wandering alone and miserably in the woods was seen by King Padma of Bhrgukaccha, who was out on a hunting expedition. He welcomed Nandayanti with brotherly spirit, and took her with him to his capital, [4]

Page #7
where she was put in charge of the almshouse, daily distributing food to the needy. Prior to Nandayanti's accusation and banishment, Sagarapota had despatched Surapala, the doorkeeper, on a mission to Nandayanti's father Nagadatta at Soparapura. He returned after long, and enquired about Nandayanti for whom he had brought presents form her father. When Sagarapota told him about her illicit pregnancy and subsequent banishment, Surapala reported how Samudradatta had secretly visited her at night previous to his departure on the voyage. He showed to Sagarapota the fingerring that Samudradatta had given him at that time, binding him with an oath not to say anything to anybody about that visit. Now becoming convinced about Nandayanti's chastity, and innocence Sagarapota felt deep remorse for treating her unjustly, and to expiate for this sin he left on pilgrimage. At that juncture Samudradatta returned from a successful voyage. Learning about Nandayanti's fate during his absence, he immediately left in search of her, disguising himself and taking a few servants with him. As they wandered over towns, cities, settlements and woodlands, they exhausted their provisions, and the servants left him. Continuing alone his search for Nandayanti for a long time, Samudradatta, wan and exhausted, reached Bhrgupura. He * went to the almshouse where Nandayanti habitually distributed food. Both happily recognized each other. The king welcomed Samudradatta and arranged for his medical treatment. Shortly Sagarapota and Surapala also arrived there. All were united happily. Another version of the story of Nandayanti is found in [5]

Page #8
Subhasila's Bharatesvara-bahubalivrtti (1453 A. C.) (folios 149 b to 151 a). There also it is used to illustrate the virtues of chastity. It is however to be noted that the name of Nandayanti is absent from the list of Mahasatis given in the original anonymous Bharahesarabahubali-sajjhaya, on which Subhasila's work under reference is a commentary. Subhasila expressly says that he is giving some additional biographies of the Mahasatis not included in the Sajjhaya list (See his remark on p. 142 a, last line). This version is, howver, just a prose recast, somewhat abridged, of the verse-text of Somatilaka. Subhasila has affected some changes on his own, it seems. Samudradatta plans to go on the voyage clandestinely against his father's wishes. He secretly returns before his departure to find out how Nandayanti feels and behaves after he has left, and with that purpose he spies on her. The doorkeeper is omitted altogether. After rescuing and sexually enjoying Nandayanti, Samudradatta leaves immediately, forbidding her not to tell anybody about his secret visit to her. The incidents of Nandayanti's divine rescues in the wood from attempted suicides are absent. When Samudradatta reaches Bhrgupura and sees and recognizes Nandayanti he first tries to ascertain whether the latter had remained chaste during her banishment, and for that purpose he carries out a plan to tempt her to violate her chastity. Finding that she remains firm he reveals himself and accepts her. These are patently secondary modifications which have spoiled human interest and narrative logic of the original and made the version considerably inferior. [6]

Page #9
The Puspadusitaka A Prakarana type of Sanskrit Rupaka called Puspadusitaka (or in some source, Puspabhusitaka) has been critically noticed or cited by some leading authorities on Poetics and Dramaurgy : Dhanika, Kuntaka, Abhinavagupta, Sagaranandin, Ramacandra - Gunacandra, Visvanatha. This shows that, that drama was highly prized by the critics. Unfortunately the work is lost to us. The following information we can derive about it form the Avaloka, the Vakroktijivita (VJ.), the Abhinavabharati, the Natakalaksanaratnakosa (NLR.) and the Natyadarpana (ND.). The Puspadustitaka (= Pd.) was a Prakarana type of Rupaka in Sanskrit. There are two main varieties of Prakarana : Suddha, with Kulaja Nayika; Samkirna, with Varangana as the Nayika. But according to Abhinavagupta the characterization of the Kulangana would be such that she comes to be wrongly considered for sometime as Mandakula, as in Pd. The Nayaka of Pd. is a merchant. PD. has six Acts. VJ. informs us about some connected incidents in each of the successive Acts, but as it has been done by Kuntaka with specific aims, the outline cannot give us a complete idea of the plot. Some details, available from the above-noted other sources, can supplement a bit, but there remain a few obscure, key-points, some tantalizing gaps, to clarify and fill up which modern scholars have had to resort to surmises. We can piece together the outline of the plot of Pd. with the help of the Nandayanti - Katha as follows: Sagaradatta was the head of a merchant-guild. His son Samudradatta, once decides to go on a long voyage for [7]

Page #10
trading. He leaves his residence and reaches sea-coast in the evening from where the ship is to sale the next day morning. Before leaving he could not properly take leave of this dear wife Nandayanti, the daughter of the merchant Vijayadatta of Mathura (?), at the moment of his departure, because she was in her menstureal period (?). This was the first occasion after his marriage when he was being separated from her for long. On the sea-coast where he is to spend the night he finds unbearabe the pangs of separation and the deep remorse of failing to see his beloved at the last moment. Samudradatta's such a mental state is expressed in the First Act of Pd: (VJ.). As suggested by Warder it is quite likely that the following verse cited anonymously by Anandavardhana (DA. under III 4; III 33) and Kuntaka (VJ. I, V. 49) for the poetic beauty of the expression tribhaga occurring in its last line (the verse is also included in the anthololgies Sarngadhara-paddhati (no. 3464) and Subhasitavali (no. 1335) as by Brahmayasas or Yasahsvamin). It was probaby spoken by the remorseful Samudradatta : I think the situation can be identified as Samudradtta recalling his vivid impression of Nandayanti at the moment of his departure from his residence : व्रीडा-योगान् नत-वदनया संनिधाने गुरुणां बद्धोत्कम्प-स्तन-कलशया मन्युमन्तर् नियम्य / तिष्ठेत्युक्तं किमिव न तया यत् समुत्सृज्य बाष्पं APLUTHTYafatit - afruft - afd-75 - FHT: 11 'With her face bowed through bashfulness in the presence of the elders, with here breast-peachers trembling, holding in her anger, shedding a tear with her third of an eye, which captivating like a frightened doe's, was fixed on me, did she not as if say'stay' ?' (Warder's translation slightly modified). Anandavardhana has cited this verse at one place to illustrate [8]

Page #11
suggestiveness of a part of a word (viz. tribhaga), in the case of the Asamlaksya-krama Dhvani, and at another place to illustrate suggestiveness of gesture. Kuntaka has cited it to illustrate the beauty of epithets. His remarks : "The epithet here, viz. 'lovely like that of a deer in fright' adds a unique charm to the 'one-third of her gleaming eye' by stressing its similarity with the eye of a deer in fright, especially when the girl was looking more beautiful then ever in her embarassment due to the presence of eldtrs" (Krishnamoorthy's translation). In that state of mind Samudradatta decides to pay a secret visit to Nandayanti, leaves the coast at mid-night and reaches his residential house. Fired by deep passion for Nandayanti, trembling with emotion, and joyless, as he reaches noiselessly like a thief the entrance - gate, he stumbles aginst the body of the doorkeeper Kuvalaya who starts to kick up a row. To ward of imminent detection and loss of face, Samudradatta silences Kuvalaya with the bribe of the finger-ring inscribed with his name. Then he proceeds to the bed - room and watches (possibly through the latticed window) Nandayanti, who deeply distressed at Samudradatta's unconcern for her at the time of departure gets up and goes to the house-garden. Samudradatta follows her unwatched. Nandayanti feels the grief of separation unbearable. She says in utter despondence (NLR. P. 300) : a To H STEM - orich - H ITGUT - 56 - PROTI 'What is the use now of this wretched body sullied as it is with the blot of misforune'. This is cited as an instance of Vinyasa (i.e. dejection) Anga of Bhanika type of Rupaka. Becoming desperate she resolves to commit suicide. Her eyes sight the Karnikara tree and she says (NLR. P. 300): [9]

Page #12
एसो अवरो अज्जउत्त-हिअअ-सरिसो कण्णिआर - पादवोत्थि / 'Here is the Karnikara tree like the second heart of my husband'. (The Karnikara flowers have attractive golden colour, but are without fragrance). This passage also is cited similarly in NLR. to illustrate the Upanyasa (i.e. utterance about a future course of action) Anga of Bhanika. As Nandayanti attempts to commit sucicide by hanging, Samudradatta rushes and rescues her. He has sexual union with her. Thereafter in reply to Nandayanti's question Samudradatta tells her about the two constellations seen in the sky at that time of early dawn (NLR. p. 170; ND. 105 with some variants): दृश्येते तद्धि यावेतौ चारू चंद्रमसं प्रति / प्रार्ने कल्याण-नामानावुभौ तिष्य-पुनर्वसू / (V. L. pat at aftepia ata ars-174-951; Cura 11). 'The two beautiful constellations which are seen near the moon at this early dawn bear the auspicious names of Tisya and Punarvasu'. This incident of indentification of the constellations to Nandayanti plays a key role in the ultimate development in the drama. It is recalled by Samudradatta in the Sixth Act to establish his paternality of the child. ND. has cited this passage to illustrate the Nirnaya (i. e. stating a past experience to resolve doubt) Anga of the Nirvahana Sandhi. Being informed by the Sabara chief that the natal constellation of the child is Visakha, Samadradatta calculates that Visakha is the tenth constellation from the Pusya and Punarvasu constellations which marked the time of Nandayanti's conception. NLR. has cited this passage to illustrate the Natyalaksana called Anuktasiddhi (i. e. [10]

Page #13
conveying of the full import by uttering initially a few words). It remarks : The sexual union, that takes place after the menstrual period is over, at the time of the appearance of the constellations bearing the names in masculinc gender, indicated without the actual use of words, the probable birth of a male issue. This remark brings out the significance of the adjective kalyana-namanau in the cited verse. Raghavan has noted that this verse is also quoted in Jinendrabuddhi's Nyasa to illustrate the use of the form prahne. Soon thereafter Samudradatta returns to the coast and leaves on his voyage. This Second Act is referred to by the title Grha-vrksa-vatika (NLR. pp. 170, 288, 300). The following dialogue is cited in NLR. (p. 288) as taking place in that Act between the maid Rajanika and the heroine Nandayanti, as an illustration of the Avahittha (i. e. concealment of what has become known) Anga of (strangely enough) the Silpaka type of Rupaka : Tafah (ufasi) - funt, fan ota i Tagun (37997f) - GT, og fifa il 'Rajanika (with entry) - Noble lady, what can be this? Nandayanti (aside) - Girl, nothing really.' This dialogue takes place possibly after Samudradatta has left in the early morning. Nandayanti conceives, and when after the signs of pregnancy become evident, her father-in-law Sagaradatta, knowing nothing about her last secrect meeting with Samadradatta, belives her to have been guilty of committing unchastity during the absence of her husband, and arranges, without telling her, to be banished to a forest, where she is [11]

Page #14
abandoned. These incidents are covered by the Third Act. When the servant Kuvalaya, who was sent to Mathura on some mission immediately after Samudradatta's departure, returns at that juncture and comes to know about banishment of the pregnant Nandayanti under the accusation of unchastity, he reveals the fact of Samudradatta's secret visit at midnight prior to the day of his departure on voyage. He shows to Sagaradatta the inscribed finger-ring presented at that time to him by Samudradatta. Sagaradatta is now relieved of the mental stress of family infamy due to supposed misconduct of his daughter-in-law. He is convinced that the latter was free form any blemish on her character, her pregnancy being the natural consequence of her union with Samudradatta. He, however, feels deep remorse for the cruel and unjust punishment he meted out to the innocent Nandayanti, which is expressed in the following verse (VJ. under IV 5.6): GEURI YM-114-fari, afa-yi fasretallat i ममापि सामान्यसमुद्यतोऽनुतापस् तु पापस्य भवेत् स शुद्धिः // That finger-ring inscribed with my son's name clearly establishes purity of my daughter-in-law's character. The contrition swelling up in my mind for my sinful conduct may perhaps purify me too'. Then he asks Kuvalaya why the latter did not tell him this previously (951, fonta de 941 11754). The Text of Kuvalaya's reply is, as it stands, hopelessly corrupt. It is as follows. (VJ. p. 253): तदोपणिकमन्ते राम पणि यात त हिंएव्व पविसंति / दिग्धाच्छादितं च मए स अंएव्व पेख्खि छन्वाहनसंपदं : [12]

Page #15
पुतन वेदइस्सदि / I suggest the following restoration : तदा पुणो इत्थं तस्स मए पइण्णादं / तुम्हं एवं पविसंतं मुहाच्छादिदं (or देहाच्छादिदं) इदं जं मए स एव्व पेक्खिदं तमहं ण संपदं कस्स णिवेदइस्सं ति / At that time, however, I bound myself with the following oath before him: "I will not tell at present anybody what I have personally seen myself : You, entering in this manner, with the face (or the body) covered all over.". Kuntaka has cited this episode to illustrate, an incident in a work, which has besides having its own individual beauty, a beauty of organic unity which connects it harmoniously with the conclusion and provides scope for a relation of mutual necessity or help between the two'. (Knishnamoorthy's translation). His remarks are : 'Now this incident of the ring becomes very helpful in resolving the complication arising in the Fourth Act where after his return from Mathura tha same servant breaks this news of Samudradatta to .......... Sagaradatta' (Krishnamoorthy's translation). Sagaradatta despatches search parties, but failing to get any information of Nandayanti's whereabouts, he sets out on a pilgrimage to expiate for what he felt to be his heinous sin. These incidents are covered by the Fourth Act. Thereafter, Kuvalaya who also had gone in search of Nandayanti finds her in a forest staying at the house of a band-leader of Sabaras. He reports to her Samudradatta's return from his succfessful voyage and about his well-being. This forms a part of the Fifth Act of PD., which is called Lamakayana (NLR. pp. 97, 267). The first of these two referneces is to illustrate the Sandhyantara called Ruj, which [13]

Page #16
involves pain due to a blow etc. There is no clue to make out which situation is referred to here. The second reference is to illustrate Dharma-srngara, which relates to the Srngara that involves pious acts like observance of vows performed with a view to earn merit and obtain one's welfare. Nandayanti's giving feast to Brahmanas is said there to have that purpose. Raghavan has rightly suggested that the following passage quoted in ND. (p. 94) as from the Fifth Act of PD. to illustrate the Apavada Anga of the Vimarsa Sandhi which involves expressing fault of one's own or of others and, relates to Nandyanti's course of regular acts of propitiation that she was going through during her period of exile : ब्राह्मण : मार्जिता हि बाह्मणस्य मुख-मधुर: कालपाशः / Tenha - हत: पत्रो हतो भ्राता हतो मार्जितया पिता / तथाप्येनां स्व-गोत्री निन्दामिव पिबामि च // Brahmana - To a Brahman marjita (rich dish of spiced sweet curds) is really a sweet noose of death. For My son was killed, my borther was killed, my father was killed by marjita. Yet I drink this. destroyer of my clari, like blame.' (Warder's translation). Receiving report form Kuvalaya about the whereabouts of Nandayanti, Samudradatta plans to go to the tribal settlement to meet Nandayanti. Some rumours spread by Asokadatta and others about Nandayanti's character had come to Samudradatta's ears. So with his mind clouded and torn by [14]

Page #17
doubts, Samudradatta was preparing to commit suicide. The following verse expresses his desperate state (NLR. P. 291, ND. p. 102). : भर्ता तवाहमिति कष्ट-दशा-विरुद्धं, पुत्रस् तवैष कुत इत्यनुदारतैषा / शस्त्रं पुरः पतति किं करवाणि कष्टं, व्यक्तं विरौमि यदि साभ्युपद्यते माम् // 'To say that I am your husband - supporter contradicts your present grievous state. To ask from whom you have got this son is patently uncharitable. The weapon held in front is ready to fall. O misery, what am I to do ? | would cry full-herartedly if that brings her to me'. In this state of mind Samudradatta leaves for the Sabara settlement to ascertain facts about Nandayanti. This possibly concludes the Fifth Act. Thereafter Samudradatta reaches the tribal settlement, meets the band-leader, sees Nandayanti, when he has the following dialogue with the Senapati. It is quoted in (ND. p. 110-111) to illustrate theNirvahana-Sandhyangas: Sandhi, Nirodha, Grathana, Paribhasana, Dyuti, Prasada, Ananda, Samaya and Pariguhana. ND. has cited the passage to illustrate the Yukti (i. e. statement of rupture of relationship) Anga of the Vimarsa Sandhi. NRL. has cited it to illustate the Tarka (i. e. decision of some matter dependent upon reflection). स. “स्वप्नोऽयम्", से. “न हि", स. “विभ्रमो नु मनसः", से. “शान्तम्'', स. “तदेषाऽत्र का", से. “जाया ते", स. “कथमक-बाल-तनया", से. "पुत्रस् तवायम्', स. “मृषा", से. “आलम्बायन एष वेत्ति नियतं संबन्धमेतद्गतम्". स. “केनैतद् घटितं विसन्धि", से. “विधिना", स. (सुतरूपं दृष्ट्वा) “सर्वं समायुज्यते" // Samudradatta : Is this a dream? [15]

Page #18
General : No. S. : Is it mental derangement ? (Conjunction) G. : Don't say such a thing. S.: Then who is she, here ? (Investigation) G. : Your wife ? (Knotting) S. : How then does she have a young baby in her lap ? (Censure) G. : That is your son. S.: It is false. (Romoval of the Adverse) G. : Alambayana here surely knows the connection of what has happened. (Propitiating service) S.: By whom has this been clumsily effected ? (Delight) G.: By fate. (Disappearance of Grief) S. : Everything is fitted together ? (Marvelling) (Warder's) tramslation). Alambayana was possibly the person who brought Nandayanti to the residence of the Senapati. Samudradatta asks the Genereal, 'What is the birth - constellation of the baby?' The General replies, 'Visakha". Then Samudradatta recalls that on the night of his union with Nandayanti he had pointed out to her in the sky the constellations Pusya and Punarvasu. The Constellation Visakha comes ten months after them. This provided certain proof for his paternity of the baby. There ensues a happy renunion of Samudradatta, Nandayanti and Sagaradatta. This Sixth Act is called Nandayanti-Samhara. [16]

Page #19
The Puspadusitaka in the critical tradition Indian literary theorists and critics favoured PD. to typically illustrate various characteristics of the Suddha variety of Prakarana, wherein the Nayika and Nayaka are not Uttama-prakrti but are Manda-gotra i.e. not of royal descent but such as a merchant, an army-chief, a Brahmin etc. The Nayika is either a Kulaja or a Varangana only as against the Samkirina variety of Prakarana. Abhinavagupta dismisses the objections that because in PD. the father-in-law suspects her daughter-in-law of lapse of character during the absence of her husband, the heroine stays for sometime at the abode of a Sabara-senapati, and the hero entertains some doubts about the heroine's behaviour-these are shortcomings in the charactirzration approprate in a Prakarana, in view of the fact that the suspicions were baseless and are cleared in the end (Abhinavabharati, II, pp. 431-432). The same points are touched upon in the ND. (pp. 117-120). The latter stresses another point also. In the Prakarana, as for example in PD., because of suffering there is limited scope for Srngara and Hasya, hence Kaisiki Vrtti is sparingly used. Kuntaka has praised PD. for 'an organic unity which strikingly underlies the various incidents described in different parts of the work leading to the ultimate end intended, each bound to the other by a relation of mutual assistance' (Krishnamoorthy, p. 545) and for its plot constructed so as to have delightful junctures; each of the parts being organically related to each other, the succeeding one following logically from the preceding one (Krishnamoorthy, p. 566). ND. and NRL have made frequent use of PD. to illustrate Natya-laksanas, Sandyangas etc. All this shows how important and well-known PD. was as a dramatic work. [17]

Page #20
There is one more observation in ND. (p.57) regarding the roles of Fate and human endeavour in our life. Its purport is that the types of dramas like PD. and the Mrcchakatika wherein the final result depends upon chance, do contribute to the psychological refinement of the spectators and hence should be certainly welcomed, because after all Fate presupposes human actions. Explaining Bharata's rule that in the Prakarana the heroine should be Mandakula, Abhinavagupta says that actually a Kulangana is to be shown as if she has some blemish and hence from a low family. Keeping this in view Nandayanti in PD. is shown as suspected by Samudradatta of lapse of character on hearing the remarks of Asokadatta and others, but it does not constitute a defect because, it acoounts for Nandyanti's banishment and staying with a stranger and is crucial for the Nirvahana Sandhi. Its figuring in the Mukhasandhi is basic as it implies possibility of liaison. But Abhinavagupta denounces those critics who criticized Brahmayasas for depicting blamable characters (like Nandayanti, Samudradatta and Sagaradatta) in PD. He observes that by such criticism it is not the dramatist, but the critics themselves who have sullied their reputation (Abh. II, pp. 431-432). Stressing the importance of PD. modern schlars also like Krishanamachariar (pp. 582-583), Raghavan (pp. (23-36), Warder (III, pp. 115-120) and others have critically discussed various available referecnces to PD. in Sanskrit critical literature and attempted to reconstruct a connected picture on which I have heavily relied here. Raghavan's following observations regarding the unique position PD. occupied in Sanskrit dramatic literature are quite apt : [18]

Page #21
'The Puspadusitaka is as serious a loss in the field as the Devicandragupta. Citations from it are, in respect of extent, next only to those from the latter. The oblivion into which its author fell is undeserved, for when an example of a Prakarana with a theme of pure domestic love and a virtuous heroine is to be cited, authorities cited regularly the Puspadusitaka rather than the Malatimadhava'. (pp. 23-24). 'If the Devicandragupta departs from the Mrcchakatika with a daring fratricide and a widow remarriage, the Puspadusitaka, with equal boldness, breaks new ground with the scandal of unchastity on circumstantial misunderstanding, which is not less intense because it is so common. If the true ideal of a Prakarana is to see the joy and tragedy and the triumph of character among the common folk, we may confidently say that some at least of the Sanskrit dramatists had a true comprehension of this medium and gave us dramas which could take high rank among productions in this branch of literature' (pp. 35-36). Relationship between the Nandayanti and the Puspadusitaka The story of Nandayanti as we find in the Silataramgini, helps us to clarify some obscure points and fill up some gaps, to do which scholars were forced to resort to unaided speculations: We can now altogether reject the idea of the PD. plot having been derived form the story of Muladeva and Samudradatta found in Dandin's Avantisundari. Raghavan and following him Warder were evidently misled by Samudradatta's name-sake in Dandin's story. Why Samadradatta could not meet Nandayanti before his departure, console her and take her leave, and why he returned and spent the night with her secretly, which intri [19]

Page #22
gued these scholars, is also made convincingly clear by the Nandayanti-katha. Raghavan's very sound critical sense, however, is evident from the serious doubt he expressed regarding the hypothesis that the plot of PD. was derived form the story of Samudradatta and Muladeva occurring in Dandin's Avantisundari-katha (Raghavan has referred to the Avantisundari-kathasara, IV, 77-91). He has observed: 'Two general refernces in Abhinavagupta bear on the source of the play, which is, by itself, an interesting question. Abhinavagupta says that the story of Samudradatta is an example of what a Prakarana author takes from the literary production of an earlier author and handles with some innovations. In Dandin's Avantisundari, there is a story of Samudradatta bound up with the character Muladeva, but we cannot, in the present state of our knowledge of the Puspadusitaka, say whether it was based on this version or comprised all the incidents mentioned here. On a fundamental point, the Dandin version says that the tragedy in Samudradatta's relations with Nandayanti was due to his rivalry with the clever. and all powerful Muadeva, that Samudradatta had courted Muladeva's enmity by making love to a courtesan of his and Muladeva had sworn to carry off Samudradatta's wife and marry her; consequently, Samudradatta had married secretly, but Muladeva had contrived to contact her in secret by an underground passage, declared her his wife before the King and got Samudradatta banished on the charge of stealing his wife. The unfortunate lady was determined to commit suicide in the Ganges when a man, who turned out to be her own husband, rescued her'. S. K. De also assumes that the plot of PD. involved secret marriage of Samudradatta and Nandayanti and Sagaradatta's opposition to that marriage : 'A Prakarana in six acts, it (PD.) had for its theme the love-story of a merchant [20]

Page #23
Samudradatta and Nandayanti, which involved their secret marriage, opposition from Samudradatta's father Sagaradatta, her pregnacy, suspicion of her chastity, and the final reunion of the lovers by means of a ring of recognition and by the identification of the constellation under which their child was born.' ("History of Sanskrit Literature', p. 302). AB. (p. 431) and ND. (p; 119-120) (Somesvara is dependent upon ND. for this) clearly state that the plot of PD. was derived form a Kavya work of some earlier poet which figured Samudradatta and Nandayanti as the hero and the heroine. Brahmayasas, however, had made some modifications in the plot of the story to suit delineation of Rasa. The close similarity between the plots of PD., and Nandayanti in most respects is self-evident. Jayakirti and Somatilaka also may have used in all probability the same source, as was used by Brahmayas'as. The differences that we find in some incidents and details between the PD. and Silataramgini versions may be due to changes made in their source by Brahmayasas for dramatic purposes and by Somatilaka to make N. a model sati-story. We know that Subhasila made further changes in Somatilaka's version on which he relied. Two speculative suggestions 1. Alambayana and Lamakayana As observed earlier NRL. twice refrs to a Lamakayananka, (pp. 97, 267), which because of the mention of Nandayanti in the second reference is definitely from PD. From the citation given in ND. (p.94) Raghavan has pointed out that the same incident is mentioned by Sarvananda in his commentary on the Amarakosa which specifies that it is from [21]

Page #24
the Fifth Act of PD. He has rightly concluded that it is the same as the Lamakayananka. Now the problem is who was this Lamakayana and what or in which way his role was so important as to give that character's name to the Act ? Raghavan's remark and Warder's statement that Lamakayana brings Nandayanti, in the forest, news of Samudradatta, looses support in view of the correct reading kurvalaya instead in that passage (Krisnamoorthy's edtion) which makes it certain that it was doorkeeper Kuvalaya who performed that task. From the citation given on ND. p. 110, we know that one Alambayana knew with certainty, that the son borne to Nandayanti was by her husband. It may be that this Alambayana was first to meet Nandayanti when she was abandoned in the forest and he arranged for her shelter at the Sabarasenapati's abode. Secondly the person whom Nandayanti had feasted is called simply Brahmana. Therefore the question arises what was the role of Lamakayana, over and above those of the Brahmana and Alambayana in the Fifth Act? I may hazard a suggestion - it is obviously speculative. That is simply a scribal corruption of 311616TT. In the early Nagari script, in an old MS. with slightly damaged writing, the slightly damaged 371 can be read as GT, nas and an as dit. In that case the name of the Fifth Act would be 31aphic, which would be in keeping with what little we know. The reading A CAPRIC could be just result of scribal confusion. 2. Significance of the title Puspadusitaka. Kuntaka under 4,24 mentions the Puspadusitaka also along with the Abhijnana-sakuntala, Mudraraksasa, Maya-puspaka and others as a drama which has a title that is not just referential but has suggestive beauty. But from the few slight fragments, critical comments and the bare outline that we have, the title Puspadusitaka remains unexplained. Now we know that the sight of the constellations Tisya i.e. [22]

Page #25
Pusya and Punarvasu (Act. II) play a key role in determining the fatherhood of Nandayanti's baby (Act VI). Secondly for Puspadusitaka we have also once Puspabhusitaka (Sahityadarpana, VI, 226). Can it be that the actual title was Pusyabhusitaka, meaning 'adorned' i. e. auspiciously associated with the Pusya constellation ? Confusion in the MSS. between on and on is usual, and combined with longo one becomes easily prone to read 904. To get some support for this suggestion, it may be noted that NLR. (p. 169-170), defining the Natya-laksana called Anuktasiddhi ("suggestion of full significance without verbal expression'), illustrates it with the verse spoken by Samudradatta which identifies to Nandayanti the constellations Pusya and Punarvasu in the sky. Sagaranandin remarks that here, without actually saying, it has been conveyed that if the sexual union takes place at the time of the appearance of the constellations bearing the masculine name, there is quite a chance of a male issue being born. Significantly the Constellations are qualified by Samudradatta as kalyana-namanau. The points, however, that seem to go against my suggestion are that all the sources read puspa and not pusya, and all the sources execept one read dusitaka. [23]

Page #26
The Abhijnana-sakuntala and the Puspadusitaka It may be noted that the plot of of PD. has several significant parallels with the plot of Kalidasa's Sakuntala. (1) The pregnant wife's rejection (or banishment); (2) her finding refuge in a hermitage (or a Sabara settlement in a forest), where a male child is delivered; (3) the part played by the fingerring with the hero's name inscribed thereon in removing the suspicion about the heroine's character; (4) in the plot development, a situation devised in a previous Act playing very significant dramatic role in a later Act (Dusyanta told the Vidusaka that he was joking about his attraction for the Asrama girl. Thereafter he sent him away. This serves an improtant dramatic purpose. Vidusaka could not be helpful in Fifth Act in establilng the real fact about Sakuntala's relation with Dusyanta. Similarly Nandayanti is accused and banished during the absence of the servant Kuvalaya, who having returned thereafter gives eyewitness account of Samudradatta having secretly visited Nandayanti and presents Samudradatta's inscribed fingerring as irrefutable evidence. Earlier he could not inform Nandayanti's father-in-law as he was found by oath by Samudradatta not to tell immediately anybody about his visit.) Similar motifs found in other stories The motif of false accusation (or suspicion) of unchastity suffered by a married noble woman of chaste character and her subsequent unjust and cruel banishment to wilderness is very frequently used in Indian tales of all times. In the Jain Tradition, when the tetrad of Dana, Sila, Tapas and Bhavana came into focus within Jain ethics, we have an abundant crop of literary works relating Sila-kathas. The above-noted motif is found in the biographies of Sita, Anjana, Nandayanti, Kalavati and Sudarsana, narrated in numerous narratives in Sanskrit, Prakrit, Apabhramsa and Old Gujarati Jain [24]

Page #27
literatures. In the case of Sita the accusation comes from the people. In the case of Anjana and Kalavati, the husband becomes suspicious. The stories of Anjana and Nandayanti commonly share the motif of the husband secretly visiting the wife prior to departing on a long journey, spending a night with her, whose consequent pregnacy becomes the cause of her abandonment in woods by the in-laws convinced of her unchastily. Sita and Kalavati (and Sakuntala) find refuge in a hermit's Asrama', and in the early version of the Nandayanti, in a Sabara settlement. Anjana and Nandayanti of the later versions are rescued by some benign relative or stranger. The Kalavati and the later versions of the Nandayanti are influenced by the biography of Damayanti (Davadanti) as it is found in the Jain Iradition (miraculaous rescue through divine help from suicide attempts, calamities etc., shelter given by a relative, the duties at the alms-house eventually serving as an instrument of reunion etc.). Concluing Remarks Countless valuable works, veritable brilliant gems, of Sanskrit, Prakrit and Apabhramsa literature have become, due to numerous factors, consigned to oblivion. In the case of some, traces are left in the form of abridgements, summaries, citations, references etc., which may help us in providing some idea of their contents, character and worth. The number of lost Sanskrit dramatic works only, about which we know something from the works on poetics and dramaturgy like AB., VJ., Srngaraprakasa, ND., NRL. etc. runs into scores. Jain literature, due to its centuries-old tradition 1. In the story of Mrgavati found in the Jain tradition, Mrgavati abducted by a Bharvnda bird and then abandoned in a forest, similarly finds shelter in a hermitage. [25]

Page #28
of preservation of written texts proves an invaluable help (like the Tibetan and Chinese translations of lost Indian Classical texts) more or less in the task of reconstruction and recovery of lost works. From this point of view we can point out for example the importance of the Vasudevahindi for formig a more reliable view of the content and character of Gunadhya's Brhatkatha, or for tracing the sources of some Krsna-carita episodes; the later available versions of the original tales of Nanda, Vararuci and Sudravatsa; the significant parallels between certain lost versions of the Pancatantra' and the Book of Sindbad; the present story of Nandayanti and PD. These are only a few typical instancesa. The vast Prakrit narrative literature calls for vigorous efforts to scrutinize it for this purpose. In the Appendix I have drawn attention to another case of a lost imaportant Sanskrit drama for getting a better idea of the plot of which we get significant clues from a tale preserved in regional versions. On the Source of the Lost Sanskrit Drama Anangasena - Harinandi 1. Anangasena - Harinandi is a lost Prakarana - type of Rupaka of the Samkirna variety i. e. wherein there are two Nayikas: Kulaja and Vesya (Ganika). Its author was Suktivasakumara. Our only source of imformation about it is the Natyadarpana (p. 95). On the basis of that information the account of that drama with some observations, given by V. Raghavan in his The Social Play in Sanskrit (Second impression, pp. 20-22) Treprodce below: 'The Anangasena - Harinandi is one such, of which a single glimpse is given to us by the authors of the Natyadarpana (p. 95). We are glad we know the name of its author as Suktivasa - kumara, but anything of him beyond this we do not know. The occasion for the citation in the Natyadarpana is the illustration of the Sandhyanga called Chadana, which, [26]

Page #29
according to a second interpretation, is said to be the putting up with an unbearable thing for the sake of an ulterior higher purpose. The play from which the Natyadarpana draws the illustration for this is expressly mentioned as a Prakarana, the Act from which the actual quotation is made being the ninth. The illustration, istead of quoting any particular verse or prose passage, gives the gist of a part of the plot: as the name of the play implies, Harinandi is the hero and Anangasena, figuring in the title, is evidently, as the "sena" ending of the name denotes, the courtezan, having as prominent a role in the play as the heroine herself; that the actual heroine is different is confirmed also by the words of the Natyadarpana which mentions her as Madhavi. A third important character of the play is a Prince, Candraketu by name. The Prince gives Madhavi a pair of earornaments which she sends to the hero. The hero, Harinandi, gives it to the mother of a Brahman named Puspalaka for the purpose of securing the latter's liberation form the imprisonment imposed on him by the King. This Brahman, Puspalaka, is probably the Vidusaka, or if we are to take it that there is no Vidusaka in the play because this Brahman is not so designated, we may take Puspalaka as an intimate friend of the hero, functioning in much the same capacity as the Vidusaka. As fate would have it, Harinandi's effort to save his Brahman friend landed them in greater trouble; the earornaments being those of the palace, having been sent originally by the Prince, the poor Brahman is proclaimed a thief who had stolen ornaments form the palace; and, condemend by the King to death, he was about to be taken to the gallows, At this juncture Puspalaka's mother rushed to Harinandi with the adverse news, upon which, to save his Brahman friend, Harinandi himself accepted the guilt of theft on his own part and bore the calumny. [27]

Page #30
The drift of the story would suggest rivalry between Prince Candraketu, the Prati-Nayaka, and Harinandi. Even the solitary citation shows sufficient originality on the part of the author and also variety of incidents. The noble character of Harinandi comes out prominently, as also the loyalty of his Brahman friend, who endures, for his friend's sake, victimization from the palace.' 2. The twenty eighth chapter of Bhoja's Srngaraprakasa treats the topic of sending of love - messengers as a part of the treatment of Purvanuraga, the first variety of Vipralambha Srngara. Messengers are classified on the basis of various types of their characteristics. Functionally distinguished messengers include Gardner, Vidusaka, Vita, Pithamarda etc. As an instance of Pithamarda, serving as a love - messenger, Bhoja mentions Dantaka, who is said to serve Sudravatsa in a work called Kamasena - vipralambha . Raghavan's note on this is as follows (Srngaraprakasa, p. 826.) : "The examination of the Kathasaritsagara, the Brhat-kathamanjari and the Kathakosa have (sic) not produced any fruits in the matter of indentifying at least some version of a story with the heroine called Kamasena and a hero called Sudravatsa (?) with a Pithamarda-aid named Dantaka". Now, we come across several casual literary allusions from the beginnig of the eleventh century onwards, to an Apabhraisa romantic tale, which relates to the adventures of a prince called Suddaya, i. e. Sudraka. Moreover, we have several literary compositions in Old Gujarati and Rajasthani, which present different versions of that tale. There is also a Sanskrit recast of the earliest known Gujarati version. The tale continues to live to the present day in folk-literary traditions of Gujarat and Rajasthan. I have collected early references to this story from Vira's Janbusamicariya (1020 A.C.), Nayanandin's Sudamsana - [28]

Page #31
cariya ( 1044 A.C) and Sayala-vihi-vihana-kavva and Abdala Rahamana's Samdesarasaka (13th Cint. A.C.). The earliest available version of the story is the Sadayavatsavira - prabandha by Bhima (c. 1400 A.C.) in Old Gujarati. The following is a brief outline of the story according to Bhima. Sudayavatsa (S.) was the son of king Prabhuvatsa and queen Mahalaksmi, ruling at Ujjayini. He was a gambling addict. Once he rescued a pregnant Brahmin girl from the clutches of the Royal elephant which had gone mad, by killing it. The King appointed him as heir-apparent in apprecation of this act of bravery. But the minister of the King, fearing to lose the favour of the prince because he had earlier restrained him from spending liberally at the time of his marriage with Savalimga, the princess of Pratisthana, succeeded in turning the King against S., whom the latter ordered to leave the kingdom. Savalimga accompanied S. in exile. Passing through a dreary tract, S. procured water for the thirsty Savalimga by offering his blood in exchange. But this turned out to be just a test devised by Harisiddhi, the presiding divinity, of Ujjayini. Mightily pleased with his fortitude, she gifted him with miraculous dice and cowries and a steel knife, which made him invincible in gambling games and battles. Resuming their journey, they came to a temple of Siva where Lilavati, the daughter of King Dharavira ruling at Dhara, was practising penance to obtain S. as her husband. S. accepted her. The marriage was celebrated. S. stayed at Dhara for a few days. Then he left for Pratisthana to deposit Savalimga at her father's house. He promised to take Lilavati with him on the return journey. While passing through a dense forest, S. met a band of five thieves in a den. In a challenge game of gambling they lost [29]

Page #32
against him. S. declined their offer of magic gifts. So the thieves clandestinely inserted in his shield a jewelled bodice worth a million, and promised to go to his help when remembered in a critical situation. S. and Savalimga left that place. Proceeding further they came across a deserted city, where the presiding deity of the buried treasures of King Nanda of yore appeared before S. and offered him the treasures. But unwilling to take possession of the treasures without offering ceremonial worship, S. moved on and reached the precincts of Pratisthana. He left Savalimga in charge of a bard there, and proceeded towards Pratisthana to procure funds through gambling. As he entered the city gate he chanced to see a fellow with his hands, nose and ears maimed. He took this to be an evil omen, but that Thumtha introduced himself as the prince of Simhala. He had lost all his money at gambling during his visit to Pratisthana and having failed to pay dues, he was maimed by the gamblers. S. accepted him as his trusted companion. The pair arrived at the temple of the Sun-God, where a dispute raged between the royal courtesan Kamasena and a city merchant. Kamasena was demanding five hundred gold coins from the merchant's son Somadatta as her charge for cohabiting with her in her dream ! The disputing parties appointed S. as the arbiter. He resolved the dispute by offering to the courtesan's mother the mirror-image of the demanded amount. The amount wa piled in front of a mirror. Kamasena, receiving report of the arrival of an attractive noble young man, came to the temple. She was love-striken at the first sight. She gave a dance performance at the temple with such passion that she collapsed with exhaustion. The royal physician diagnosed her ailment as love-affliction. Kamasena invited S. to stay with her. When S. sought Thumtha's advice in this matter, the latter warned him about the viles of prostitutes. But Kamasena won over Thumtha by [30]

Page #33
offering him the services of her younger sister. So they accepted Kamasena's hospitality which solved S. 's boarding problem. Next day, S, went to the gambling house and won huge sums from expert gamblers. He presented a part of the win to Kamasena, distributed another part in charity to all and sundry, and with the rest he purchased costliest garments, costmetics etc. for Savalimga. On the fifth day, S. prepared to leave Kamasena's residence, to keep his promise to Savalimga. Kamasena, madly in love with him, tried to detain him by pulling his shield. The jewelled bodice that was smuggled in the shield-cover by the thieves dropped down. Kamasena kept it as a parting gift. Shortly, wearing it she left to attend upon the King. On her way, she was seen by the city mayor, who, indentifying her bodice as one which was stolen from his house some time back, lodged a complaint with the King. On being questioned by the latter, Kamasena did not reveal the identity of the person who had gifted her the bodice. She was ordered to be executed. Her mother traced S. at the gambling house and told him about the developments. S. rushed to Kamasena's help as she was being taken to the execution ground, freed her and put to rout the city guards. Hearing about this Somadatta reached there. S. requested him to take his message to Savalimga. Somadatta secured from the King S. 's release by pledging himself as the hostage. S. visited Savalimga, who on failure of S. 's return by the promised fifth day, was on the point of immolating hereself on a burning pyre. S. presented her with clothes and cosmetics. Next morning he returned to the execution ground. S. boasted of having committed many thefts. The King discovered S. 's identity by examining a sword bearing the latter's signature. The sword was procured from the courtesan. But to test S's prowess the King sent an army to attack S. A band of fiftytwo crack heroes mounted an attack. The five thieves informed by Narada rushed to S. 's help and overpowered the [31]

Page #34
attackers. The King acknowledged his defeat. He warmly welcomed his son-in-law and daughter. The story continues further but that last section is not relevant for our purpose here. Comparing AH. and SP, we find the following close parallels : Harinandin = Sadayavatsa Madhavi - Savalimga Anangasena = Kamasena Candraketu = The chief of the robber-band.. Puspalaka falsely becomes victim of the charge of stealing ear-ornments and ordered to be executed. To save Puspalaka Harinandin takes charge of theft upon himself. Kamasena falsely becomes victim of the charge of stealing a jewelled bodice and is ordred to be executed. To save Kamasena S. takes the charge upon himself. It will be seen that these similarities of charcters, incidents and situations are quite significant. The differenes between AN. and SP. can be accounted for as changes affected in his source by the dramatist. The Puspadusitaka Prakarana is a comparable case. It is likely that the story figured in some later version of Gunadhyas Brhatkatha. The Kamasena-vipralambha referred to by Bhoja obviously used the same source. Bibliography Abhinavabharati of Abhinavagupta (c. 1000 A.C), Baroda. Akhyanakamanikosa of Nemicandra-suri (about 1070 A.C.) with Vitti of Amradeva-suri ( 1133 A.C.). 1962. Varanasi. Bharatesvara-Bahubali-vrtti of Subhas'ilar -gani (1453 A.C.) Ed. Pradyumanavijaya -gani. Part I, 1984; part II, 1989. . [32] 32)

Page #35
Ahmedabad (Part-11, folios 149b-150b). The Brhatkatha, the Vashudevenindi and the Sources of Two Puranic Krsnacarita Episodes", Indological Studies. H.C. Bhayani, 1993 (pp. 257-261). Dasarupaka of Dhananjaya (10 cent. A.6) with Dhanika's Avaloka (10th Cent. A.C.), Ed. T. Venkatacharya. 1969. Adyar, Madras. Dhvanyaloka of Anandavardhana (C. 1000 A.C.). (= DA.) 'Eine neue Version der verlorenen Brhatkatha des Gunadhya'. Atti del XIX congresso internazionale degli Orientalsti. 1938. Rome (pp. 344-349). History of Classifical Sanskrit Literature. K. Krishnamachariar. 1974. Reprint. Delhi (pp. 582-583). History of Sanskrti literature (Prose, Poetry and Drama). S.K. De. 1947, Calcutta (pp. 301-302). Indian Kavya Literature. A.K. Warder. vol. III, 1977. Delhi. (pp. 115-120). Kavyaprakasa-samketa Kavyadarsa (= Kayaprakasa - vrtti of ShiteSomesvara. Ed. R. C. Parikh, 1959. Udaipur. (pp. 214). Nandabatrisi. Ed. H. C. Bhayani, K. Sheth, 1989, Jodhpur. Natakalaksanaratnakosa of Sagaranandin (end of the 11 Cent.). Ed. B. L. Shukla. 1972, Varanasi. Natyadarpana of Ramacandra and Gunacandra ( 12th Century). Ed. G. K. Shrigondekar and L. B. Gandhi, 1929, Baroda. 1977, Dharvad. Sahityadarpana of Visvanatha (14th Cent. A. C.). Ed. P. V. . Kane. 1951 edition. Silatarangini (1337 A. C.) with Silopadesamala (end of the 9th Cent.), pub. Hiralal Hamsaraj, 1909, Jamnagar. (folios 434 to 441). Silopadesamala (Text, its Gujarati Translation and only the [33]

Page #36
Gujarati Translation of silatarangini. (Published by Vidyashala, 1900, Ahmedabad (pp. 324-329). Silopadesamala-balavabodha : Text of Silopadesamala, its Translation and the Translation of Silataramgini, both in Old Gujarati by Merusuandara-gani (1469 A. C.). Ed. H.C. Bhayani, R. M. Shah, Gitabahen. 1980, Ahmedabad. (Silopadesmala, Gatha 56; Balavabodha, pp. 131-133). The Social play in Sanskrit by V. Raghavan. Second Impression 1966, Bangalore. (pp. 23-36). Subhasitavali of Vallabhadeva ( 15th cent. A.C.) Ed. P. Peterson and Durgaprad, 1986, Bombay. Sudamsana-cariya by Devendra-suri, Ed. Umamgavijaya-gani. Valad. 1932. (Kalavatikathanaka; w. 515-773). Gujarati Translation : 'Rajkumari Sudarsana yane Samnivihar,' by Kesarvijay-gani. 1921. Bombay (pp. 229-260). 'The Sudravatsa Katha. Indological Studies. H. C. Bhayani. 1993. Ahmedabad (pp. 235-256) (= Bulletin d'Etudes Indiennes, no. 6, 1988, pp. 69-91). Upadesapada of Haribhadra-suri (8th Cent. A. C.), Gujarati Translation by Hemsagar-suri, 1972, Bombay. Uvasesapaya of Haribhadara-suri (8th Cent. A.C.). Ed.. Pratapvijayagani. I, 1923, II. 1925. Baroda. Vakroktijivita of Kuntaka ( 10th Cent.), Ed. K. Krishnamoorty. Vasudevahindi, J. C. Jain, 1977. Ahmedabad (pp. 28-155). Vasudevahindi - Madhyamakhanda by Dharmasenagani. Ed. H. C. Bhayani, R. M. Shah. 1987. Ahmedabad (Introduction, pp. 63-76). [34]

Page #37
Dr. HARIVALLABH C. BHAYANI 1912 Birth 26-5-1917, Mahuva (Sauratra) 1941 M.A. Sanskrit and Prakrit 1945 to 1965 Research Scholar-cum-Professor : Bharativa Vidya Bhavan, Bombay 1951 Ph.D. Thesis on Svayambhu's Paumacariu prepared under the guidance of Muni Jinavijayaji 1965 to 1975 Professor at School of Languages, Gujarat University 1975 Honarary Professor, L. D. Institute of Indology LIST OF SOME PUBLISHED WORKS Lilavati-sara 1983; Samkhitta-taramgavai-kaha 1979; Vasudevahimdi-Madhyama-Khanda (with R. Shah) Part I 1988; Paumacariya, Part I, II, III 1953, 1961; Apabhraisa Language and Literature 1990; Madanamohana 1955; Tran Pracin Gurjar Kavyo 1955; Ratnacuda-rasa 1977; Nandabatrisi (with K. Sheth) 1990; Krsnabalacaritra 1993; Bhasa Vyakaran (with Bholabhai Patel) 1992; Sodh ane Svadhyay 1961; Indological Studies-I 1993; Muktakmanjari 1989, 1991; Apabhramsa Vyakaran 1961, 1971, 1993; Studies in Desya Prakrit 1990; Gujarati Bhasani Kerlik Aitihasik Samasyao 1976; Gujarati Bhasanum Aitihasik Vyakaran 1988; Bhavanvibhavan-I, IL 1991, 1992; Lokkathanam Mul an: Kul 1990; Madhyakalin Gujarau Kathakos 1991.

Page #38
Rs. 10-00 Krishna Printery Harjibhai Patel 966, Naranpura Old Village; Ahmedabad-380 013. g : 484393