Sanskrit Sub Story and Subhasitas in Prakrit Paumappahasami Cariyam of Devasuri

Author(s): N M Kansara
Publisher: Z_Nirgranth_Aetihasik_Lekh_Samucchay_Part_1_002105.pdf and Nirgranth_Aetihasik_Lekh_Samucchay_Part_2
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/269049/1

Page #1

Sanskrit Sub-story and
Subhāsitas in the Prakrit Paümappahasāmi Cariyam of Siri Devasūri
N. M. Kansara
The Svetambara Jaina Acārya Devasūri, who studied under Devendrasūri, was a disciple of Dharmaghosasūri, whose preceptorial geneology went back to Bālacandrasūri of the Jälihara-gaccha, through Sarvānandasūri the author of the Pārsvanātha-carita, and Gunabhadrasūril. He flourished in the last quarter of the 12th century A. D., during the reign of the Caulukya monarch Bhimadeva Il of Gujarat?. In the year 1254 of the V. Era (A. D. 1197) he composed his Prakrit carita-kāvya entitled Paümappaha-sami-cariya in response to a request by a Jaina mendicant named Viddaya, while stationed in a vasati of Pajjunna Setthi, in the city named Vaddhamāna (modern Vadhvāns near Surendranagar in Saurashtra).
This work is in the form of a Prakrit biographical epic divided into four prastāvas. The First prastāva comprises 1735 gāthās, a Sanskrit sub-story in mixed prose and verse and entitled the 'antaramga-kathā,' followed by 37 găthās : The second prastāva consists of 721 gāthās; the third contains 2130, while the fourth carries 1384 gāthās followed by the author's encomium from gathās 1385 to 1403. The manuscripts close the work proper with the words. 'Iti śrīmat-Padmaprabha-caritam samāptam', and mention the total number of gathās to be 72324.
As would be surprising in the case of a Prakrit work, we find in the first prastāva, a sub-story in Sanskrit containing an autobiographical account of mahāmuni Arindama narrated by him in reply to a question by king Aparājitas who wanted to know the circumstances that led the Acārya to

Page #2

336
N. M. Kansara
Jambū-jyoti
take to the Jaina monastic order and got himself initiated to that end. This sub-story starts just after the gatha No. 1735 (p. 136) with which the story of prince Surasundara illustrating a case of bhāvanā comes to an end. It is called 'Anta-ranga-kathā' (pp. 136-162).
It thus narrates the sub-story comprising the autobiography of the Muni named Arindama : Having listened to the discourse of the Muni who propounded the importance of the excellent religious duties pertaining to charity etc., the king and others readily accepted it in toto. At the end of the discourse, king Aparājita respectfully requested him to oblige him by telling him as to why did he take to renunciation in young age. The Muni asked him to come next day, since the account was expected to take some more time than was then available. The king came back the next day in the morning and repeated the request. Muni Arindama then started his narration with the remark that the reason which led him to renounce worldly life was instrumental to a similar result in the case of all other's too, including himself, as also the king. There was a city named Asamvyavahāra, where lived innumerable people called Anädi-vanaspati. Their feudal lord was named Tīvra-mohodaya, and his minister who was an expert in worldly ways was known by the name Atyantabodha. Through these two, king Karma-parināma had promulgated an ordinance that people lived in such a way that it seemed they were sleeping or swooning or dead, being bereft of any activity whatsoever. Once a messenger named Niyoga arrived and informed the king about a city named Mañuja-gati, surrounded by a castle called Mānuşottara-naga encircled by a circular ditch in the form of oceans named Puşkaroda etc. There were in this city temples in the form of five Merus, a number of market places named Mahāvideha with rows of palaces named Bharata, Airāvata, Haimavata and others. And there were two suburbs named Jambūdvīpa and Dhātakikhanda. This was the very city in which were born all the 63 Salākā-purusas, comprising Cakravartis, Jinas, and others. And here then ruled the king Karma-parināma. He had a queen named Karma-parinati. Both of them were engrossed in enjoying the dramatic performances and playing the parts of various transmigratory beings on the stage of the world sporting the forms of gods, human beings, creatures of heil, birds, handsome, ugly, melodious, harsh, happy, and unhappy et cetera.

Page #3

Sanskrit Sub-story and Subhăşitas in the Prakrit....
337
Once their prince, named Mahāmoha, respectfully informed the king about the calamity that had befallen his kingdom. The calamity was that Prince Santosa, the son of king Cāritra had kidnapped innumerable citizens of his kingdom to his city named Sivapurī, with the assistance of his minister named Samyag-darśana and thus though accompanied by his whole army he was defeated. Thereupon the king ordered his army to uproot the Viveka fortress of king Caritra and throw the king into the ocean. At that moment the minister named Mithyādarśana requested him to delegate Prince Mahamoha in his company to capture Prince Santosa alive and bring him there. Lokasthiti, the sister of the king also supported the plan of the minister. The king, therefore, agreed and sent a messenger named Tanniyoga to fetch as many of the citizens as were led away by Prince Santosa. On the other hand, the Prince and the minister of king Karma-parināma camped on the bank of the river named Pramattată in the forest named Cittavrtti. Tanniyoga was accompanied by Tivra-mohodaya who showed him numerous palaces in which were innumerable apartments in which were housed countless citizens. Then Tīvramohodaya asked the minister how he should attract the citizens. The minister suggested that they have a beloved named Bhavitavyatā, having numerous forms, and having full control over all of them, who should be consulted as to which of the citizens should be transported. At this, Bhavitavyatā was summoned and consulted in the matter. She advised that she would despatch Sāṁsāri-jīva and others like him. Then, she operated from the Saṁvyavahāra city and wandered in the Sadhārana-vanaspati street along with Tivra-mohodaya and Anantābodha attracting the citizens and despatched them to innumerable births of innumerable species. Now, the beloved of Bhavitavyatā, called Saṁsārijīva, wandered from birth to birth in these innumerable species of plants and enjoyed or suffered so much that it would be beyond human calculations. When he was at last tired of all this, his wife Bhavitavyatā told him, by way of consoling, that he would have a better luck in due course and then led him in the species of cow, and he was born as a bull. He was yoked to a cart to carry heavy burdens. In due course he broke up and sank in pain. His owner, the caravan-leader Kämadeva took pity on him, and two munis uttered the Panca-paramesthi mantra in his ear; this was as per the prediction of Bhavitavatyä. Bhavitavatyā reminded him that this was the excellent mantra she had predicted about. The bull listened to the Munis

Page #4

338
N. M. Kansara
Jambu-jyoti
and gladly accepted the mantra. Consequently, after death, the bull was reborn as a son named Vardhanakunjara of king Vairasimha and queen Nandādevī. In this new embodiment he happened to make friends with two reliable twin brothers named Punyodaya and Dhūmadhvaja. Vardhanauñjara maștered 72 arts and crafts. In view of his progress in education and other good qualities, king Vairasimha consulted an astrologer who also was an expert palmist, with regard to the prince's suitability for inheriting the responsibility of kingship after himself. The astronomer warned that, despite all the education and good qualities, the prince was getting perverted due to the influence of his bad companion named Vaišvānara. The king was rather dejected, but the palmist assured him that the prince will part company with this companion when he is married to princess Kșānti, the daughter of king śubhapariņāma and queen Nisprakampatā ruling in the city named Citta-saundarya. Then, the king proposed to depute the astrologer to king Subhaparināma with an offer of his daughter's marriage with his prince, but the astrologer asked him to wait for proper time and not to hurry. And, prince Vardhanakunjara used to quarrel and fight due to instigation from his bad companion. Once, when the king was about to mount an attack on a troublesome feudatory Kālasena, the prince took initiative himself and captured the feudatory alive, who was presented before the king and the latter released him after imposing heavy fine on him, From that day, the prince regarded Vaiśvānara as his well-wisher and a favourite friend.
Once the prince went to a forest named Svadeha with his twin friends and there he saw a man standing on an anthill named Uccaya and with a noose and about to commit suicide. The man bound his head in the noose and released himself from the branch, in the presence of the prince. But the prince cut off the noose and saved him. Even then the man tried to attempt suicide once again. When asked for the reason for his rashness and desperation, the man related the following account about his misfortune.
The man, whose name was Sparśana, said : 'I had a very dear and close friend named Jantu who always conducted himself in a manner totally to my liking. Once, deceived by a man named Susamaya, he began to look upon Sparśana as a dangerous person and, being instigated by Susamaya, he would resort to picking up my hair, making me sleep on bare ground,

Page #5

Sanskrit Sub-story and Subhasitas in the Prakrit....
339
moving in hot sunshine etc. I thought he has deserted me, but due to affection for him I continued to follow him. In due course he scolded and deserted me and went away to the city named Nirvrti. Now, since I cannot bear separation from this friend any longer, I want to die.'
Prince Vardhanakunjara consoled him and promised that he would make friendship with him. At that moment Sparśana entered the body of the prince by his mystic power. Vaiśvānara disliked this new friendship, while Punyodaya recommended it. The prince returned to his palace and treated his new friend with lavish luxuries. After a few days a messenger brought the news that a princess of the king of the Kalinga country was seeking his permission to come to marry the prince out of her own choice, impressed as she was by the qualities of the prince. The prince asked him about the distance at which the country was situated from his place. When the messenger told that it was at a distance of 2000 yojanas, the prince challenged him to prove the statement. At this juncture it was decided to measure the distance, and one who proved wrong should be punished. The messenger told him that it was not necessary to measure the distance afresh since the milestones were already been erected on the way. The prince took it as his insult and was enraged. But king Vairasimha intervened. Even then the prince could not be pacified and in his rage he killed both the king and the messenger. There was considerable unrest in the city when this mishap was known by the citizens. When queen Nandādevi tried to ward him away, the prince tried to kill her too under the instigation of Vaiśvānara, and she was beheaded. All the feudatories and inmates of the royal household were aghast at this and they overpowered the prince and threw him in a dark room and locked it from outside. At night when the citizens and the queens with their paraphernalia were resting after performing the obsequies and profuse lamenting after the royal couple, the prince conspired with his sinful friend, broke open the doors, came out, and threw fire in every house of the city and left with a bow and arrow in his hands. After some time he reached a village named Kusasthala, and being thirsty he went to the bank of a lake just outside the village. There he saw a beautiful Cândāla woman taking bath. At this moment his friend Sparsa inspired him to enjoy her touch, and the prince entered into the water and started embracing her. She too got interested in him and coöperated. But, by misfortune, her husband who was a king of the mlecchas,

Page #6

340
N. M. Kansara
arrived there to join his beloved in her water-sport, and on seeing her in such a situation challenged the prince and his friends. In the end all of them died in a battle. The prince and his friends were thus consigned to the sixth hell, where he suffered for a very long time. After that their souls wandered from birth to birth in the species like fish, serpent, lion, falcon etc. At last, when his sins were exhausted, he was born as prince Mahāpadma, the son of king Ghanaratha and his queen Prabhavati in the city of Vārāṇasī. There he made friendship with Sägaraka, the son of Ragakesari, and was educated in a number of arts and crafts. Then, prince Vicaksana, the son of king Subhodaya and queen Nijacărută, too, happened to be his friend. This latter prince was married to a princess named Buddhi, the daughter of king Kalmaṣakṣaya and queen Sundarată, by way of her own choice. Her father was much worried and sent his son Vimarsa to inquire about her well being. And, Vimarśa stayed for long with his sister. In due course Buddhi gave birth to a son who was named Prakarsa.

Jambu-jyoti
Then once both Mahāpadma and Vicakṣaṇa went to a forest named Vadanakotara. There they saw a beautiful young maiden. Mahāpadma was spellbound, but Vicaksana led him away. Seeing them go away, her maidservant cried that her mistress was dying for want of a resort and a master. Having heard this, Mahāpadma returned and Vicakṣaṇa followed him due to his insistence. On seeing them the maiden regained consciousness and welcomed them. They asked for her identity, and the maid-servant replied that she is the famous Rasanã and she herself was named Lalită. Mahāpadma was happy at this and took the maiden along with her maidservant to his residence, while Vicaksana pretended that both these ladies were alone in the forest. The prince presented her to king Subhodaya. The king consulted his family and then asked Vicakṣaṇa to test her nature. The latter suggested that his brother-in-law Vimarśa should do it, and he was allowed a period of a year to accomplish the task. When Vimarśa started to go, his nephew Prakarsa, too, was sent with him due to the latter's insistence to go with his maternal uncle. Both of them went to Campa, Śrävasti, Vinată, Rajagrha, etc., and roamed for six months but could not find her purity; hence they entered the city named Rajasa-citta, which they found almost empty. They enquired of a soldier named Mithyabhimana why it was empty. He replied that since you are born in the island you should pursue this matter. They replied that since they were just travellers he should not be

Page #7

Sanskrit Sub-story and Subhāṣitas in the Prakrit....
offended. Then he disclosd the reason as follows: "This city is ruled by the king named Ragakesarī. Once he ordered his minister Viṣayābhilāṣa to manage in such a way that the whole world would accept his orders, and would never think of any other master. The minister promised to accomplish it within a few days, and ordered his five sons named Sparśana, Rasanā, Ghrāna, Cakṣu and Śrotra to conquer the world. They implemented his orders in a few days. But after some days the officers of the king got a report that the wicked Santosa had defeated the king's servants and kidnapped some people to the great city named Mukti. The king was all rage and started for war and marched so long as a messenger named Visaya-vyāsanga met him and informed that king Mahāmoha has already started from the Karma-pariņāma country with a great army for punishing Santoṣa. Hence, the king Rāgakesari should immediately join the forces. At this point the king thought that he has already started, and now the country of Moharāja, too, has been caught in similar situation. Thus, Ragakesarī, too, mounted, along with Viṣayabhilaṣa and started for the battle. This is why the city is empty.'
341
Then, Vimarsa asked as to the whereabouts of the army. Mithyābhimana took them to be spies and replied that the king was in Tamasacitta with his army. They took leave of him and went further. While going, Vimarsa told Prakarsa that they have found at least some purity of Rasana. For full information they should enquire with Viṣayābhilāṣa. Gradually, they arrived at the Tamasacitta city. When they were entering it, they saw there a smokecomplexioned guard surrounded by a few persons named Dainya, Ākranda, Rodana, and others. When they asked as to who was the king, the guard replied that the ruler was named Dveṣagajendra, a younger brother of Rāgakesarī. He also has mounted an attack on Santosa, and at that moment his army was camping on the bank of the river Pramattata in a great forest named Cittavṛtti, and has attacked the enemy. Then they reached the said forest and saw the river on the bank at which the army of Moharāja was making much noise. Their eyes then fell upon a big pandal named Cittavikṣepa. And, in it they saw king Mahamoha, surrounded by feudal chieftains, sitting on the throne named Viparyaya, possessing very fearful limbs called Avidyā, repeatedly stroking his mustache full of tufts of hair in the form of bad obstinacy, looking at the three worlds through his two eyes in the form of Rajas and Tamas, having a dark-coloured body comparable

Page #8

Jambū-jyoti
to a multitude of Tamāla trees, given to self-possessiveness, and victor of the gods and demons. Having seen him even Vimarśa and Prakarsa were purturbed and stood at a distance and did not enter the hall. Then Prakarṣa asked Vimarśa to describe to him the nature of each of the feudal chieftains. Vimarśa then pointed out to the highly plump queen named Mahāmūḍhatā, to the chief minister Mithyadarśana sitting close to the king on the seat of wrong apprehensions and authorised for all actions to be implemented. capable of shouldering the responsibility of inventing all the heretic and controversial tenets, raising the series of hail-storms of controversies, and observing the whole world through his cruel and crooked eyes, to Rāgakesari sitting on a throne called Pranaya to the right of the king, possessing the triple form of desire, affection, and love-at-first-sight, master of the city of Rajasa-citta, and having an extremely red complexion. Then, he informed him about his prince named Lobha and princess named Māyā, both of whom absent in the hall, since they might have gone out for conquering the world. Next he drew attention to Dvesagajendra sitting to the left of the king, to his two absent princes named Vaiśvānara and Śailaraja, to the rear body. guard Makaradhvaja, to the minister Visayäbhiläsa the father of Rasanā, to the minister's servants named Hasya, Arati, Bhaya, Jugupsă, etc., to the feudal chiefs named Jñänavaraṇa, Darśanavaraṇa, Antarāya, Avidya, Ayus, et cetera. At last, he advised Prakarsa to quickly leave the place, go to Vicakṣaṇa, and report to him all that they have seen.'
342
N. M. Kansara
The narration in prose here comes to an end, but the story continues as the metrical account consisting of 119 verses, as follows. Both Vimarsa and Prakarsa reported to Vicaksana. He ordered that Rasana should be appointed as a queen and put in charge of speaking truth, with the provision of restraining her from lust, so that she will not back out from her promise. Thus, prince Mahāpadma who was informed about the purity of Rasanā, could not know the true nature of things, and pleased her by enabling her to enjoy wine, meat, etc., and took only her to be the essence of this worthless, terrible, transmigratory world. He would not be satisfied with ample luxuries bestowed by the king, and was under the control of Lobha, the son of Ragakesarī. Lobha inspired greediness in him, and Māyā entered into him. Both of them instigated the prince to kill or capture his father and snatch the kingdom from him. Thereafter, Lobha advised the prince to kill all the sons, lest they may snatch power from him in future like him.

Page #9

Sanskrit Sub-story and Subhāşitas in the Prakrit....
343
But a far-sighted minister Taitali informed the queen Manoramā about all this, and took away a new-born son and replaced him by his own daughter named Mantrapriyā just after his birth to his place since both the queen and minister's wife gave birth to their children on the same day. Having known that the newly born child was a daughter, the king did not kill her, and his son named Padma began to grow as the son of the minister and gradually mastered all the arts and crafts in due course. The queen Rasană used to fondle her son secretly, but when asked by the king Mahāpadma she spoke the truth to him, Now, once the father king Megharatha broke loose from the captivity and rushed to kill his son, and in the fight both of them killed one another, and roamed in the cycle of transmigration. Then, the Samsāri-jīva was born as a daughter named Laksmīvati of Dhanya in the city of Viśālā. But just after her marriage, she became, by ill-luck, a widow. In view of her consideration about blame and character, she studied numerous works about the Jaina tenets, and consequently the enemies like Krodha and Lobha etc., left her and she became steadfast in Samyakrva, controlled her senses, ever enthusiastic for listening to Jainistic tenets and performing religious vows. If she continues in this way she will, after death, go to the city of Nirvrti or Anuttara-vimana,
When this report was given to king Moharāja, he stroke his moustache and challenged his feudal chieftains to come forward to capture the widow and make her obedient to him. All of them remained quiet, but there arose a mystic woman named Vitatha and took up the gauntlet, and she was entrusted with the task. She went to Laksmīvati and entered her body. As a result, Laksmīvati was totally changed in nature, and started leaking political secrets, criticising the conduct, dress, language, environment, etc, of various countries irrelevantly and indulging in gossip. And she forgot the study of the scriptures and all knowledge that she had acquired. Once she talked about an impossible scandal pertaining to king Visvasena, and it spread among people. Ultimately it reached the ears of the king who traced its source to her, and the enraged king punished her by cutting off her ears and lips, and excommunicated her. While roaming in a forest, she was bitten by a snake and she died, and was born as a being in the Fourth Hell. Then, this same Samsāri-jiva was born as a prince named Narasundara, the son of king Rājasimha. In young age he studied arts and having listened to religious discourse of a well-wishing preceptor, became detached and

Page #10

344
N. M. Kansara
Jambū-jyoti
got initiated in Jaina monastical order. He studied all the Jaina scriptures, and this pleased the preceptor who conferred on him in due course the title of an 'ācārya'. He followed proper conduct, engaged himself in doing good to people, and defeated the debaters. Then, with all his army of religious merit, he went out of his fortress to fight out with king Moharāja to the finish. There was a fierce battle and ultimately the king was vanquished, and he accepted the life of restraint. The army of king Caritra was afraid and ran away to a mountain fortress named Viveka. The Samsāri-jīva of Moharāja, on the other hand, got lazy in vows of restraint, meditation and vow of silence and neglected religious duties, thinking himself to be a learned man, an authority, a topmost poet, and took pride in having a multitude of disciples, and gradually slipped into luxurious way of living; when the disciples were sitting for listening to his discourse, he would indulge in sleep without worrying about his responsibilities. And, after some time, he lost all his knowledge of the scriptures. After death, he again subjected himself to roaming in the cycle of transmigration getting born in various species of insects, birds, and animals.
King Aparājita was highly astonished by this account of the Sarisarijiva, and was curious about his whereabouts and fate at the moment. At this the Muni replied that he himself was the same samsari-jīva. When the king asked him how he reached this state, he informed him that his soul was in due course born as Prince Arindama, the son of the Vidyādhara, king Bhānu in the city of Gaganavallabha. He mastered all lores and arts and out of curiosity went to Mahavideha country where he happened to listen to a story of Tirtharikara at the feet of Bhadrankara. When he came to recall his past births, he undertook a vow and, due to inspiration from his beloved Bhavitavyatā mounted an attack under the leadership of king Caritradharma, and routed Moharāja. Finally, the Muni revealed that all this is his own autobiographical account. And, he assured the king of his bright future on the path of Kevala-jñana. And the king ruled for long time and prospered. Here the Sanskrit metrical narration also ends.
It is clear from the above story that the poet-author of the PPC has composed this allegorical sub-story in Sanskrit to invest it with an aura of a noble narrative related by an equally noble soul in a matching refined language, perhaps keeping in mind the ancient custom of Sanskrit-Prakrit

Page #11

Sanskrit Sub-story and Subhasitas in the Prakrit....
345
dramas wherein noble character speaks in Sanskrit. Further, he may have resorted to showing off his bilingual poetic skill inasmuch as such a feat was prestigious and popular among the poets and known among the rhetoricians as the Manipravāla style, which is adopted also by our poet's predecessors like Vardhamăna-sūri and Sri-candrasuri. In fact almost all the classical Sanskrit dramas are originally composed in this style, since different characters use different languages like Sanskrit and various Prakrits. Rājasekhara has prescribed the mastery of various languages and skill in depiction of various sentiments as essential for a supreme poet (kavirāja)s, and all the classical poets naturally strived to exhibit their poetic competence to reach up to this standard, long before Rajasekhara and subsequent to him. This was because both Sanskrit and Prakrit existed side by side and both generally were popular and understood by people at large and specifically the élite. The Manipravāla style comprises in composing parts of the text of a work in different languages, here Sanskrit and Prakrit, much in the same way as a goldsmith or a jeweller would string together a necklace of coral (pravāla) by interspersing it with gems (mani), to enhance its beauty and charm.
The sub-story presents an allegorical narrative which is a very brief resume of the story, much in the style, of the famous Upamiti-bhavaprapanca-kathā of Siddharşi (A. D. 906), in which the author's intention is that the reader should compare himself with the hero Samsäri-jiva (transmigratory soul), and thus as it were be warned of the dangers lurking in transinigration. The idea is to present the vices, virtues, and neutral principles of life in typical characters, which the reader may use as a standard of comparison (upamiti) to judge his own life. The Jaina understanding of life and of the universe of transmigration is presented here and the aim is to teach the way to release (moksa) or bliss (nirvana). It is shown further that the vices produce unhappiness and the virtues the happiness even in transmigration, besides being respectively obstacles and aids to escape from it. The idea of an allegory arises from the personification of the vices, virtues and so on as characters in the story, as for instance, here the Samsāri-jīva himself is such an allegorical character, being typical of all such souls?.
Now about the Subhasitas. Devasūri has inserted about 24 Subhāsitas, out of which some have been authored by others and merely quoted by him.

Page #12

346
N. M. Kansara
Jambu-jyoti
The Subhasitas utilised in the PPC are the following ones :
1. Pariksya satkulam vidyām sīlam sauryaṁ surūptām /
vidhir-dadāti nipunam kanyām-iva daridratām //1.410. p. 32.8
This is quoted (utkam ca) in support of the point that good people are generally very poor. (It also occurs in the Sarrigadhara-paddhati (405).)
2. Aksi-paksma kadā luptam chindyante'tha siroruhāḥ /
vardhamanātmanām eva prasanginyo vipattayah // 1.672, p. 53.
This confirms the idea that only great men normally are subject to calamities.
3. Yadi bhavati dhanena dhani kşititala-nihitena bhoga-rahitena/ vasmád vayam api dhaninah tisthati nah kancano Meruh //
1.1038, p. 81.
This verse shows the uselessness of merely accumulating wealth and not using for even one's own comforts. It occurs in the Pañcatantram (1.192).
4. Rajyam vă vanavāso vă dhanam vā nidhanam tathā /
jānāhi janakādhinam sarvasatputra-cestitam //1.1038, p. 82.
This verse is quoted in connection with the excommunication of Prince Samarasimha by his father king Purusacandra, for the former's generous
nature.
5. Sakhyā buddhyā na yat sadhyam sahasa sahasena ca / tat syād vacanamātrena kāryam punyavātam dhruvam//
1.1053, p. 83.
This is quoted with reference to the incident of verbal help rendered by prince Samarasimha to alchemists to accomplish their task of transforming metals like copper into gold.
6. Räjye sāram vasudhā vasudhayām puram pure saudham /
saudhe talpam talpe varānganā'nanga-sarvasvam //1.1136, p. 89.
This is quoted in support of the proposal of princess Rayanamañjarī to marry with the prince Samarasimha. It occurs in the Kavyalamkāra of Rudrata (7.97) and has been quoted by Mammata also in his Kāyyaprakasa (10,37) as an illustration of the sāra figure of speech.

Page #13

Sanskrit Sub-story and Subhāṣitas in the Prakrit....
7. Sattvānāṁ caritam citram vicitrā karmaṇāṁ gatiḥ / nārī-puruṣa-toyānāṁ śruyate c-antaram mahat //
1.1155(1154?) p. 90.
This verse has not been quoted as somebody else's verse, as it is not introduced by the words 'uktam ca', but rather as verse (siloga) uttered by a bard.
8. Bhava-sudhir-manuṣyasya vijñeyā sarva-vastuşu /
anyatha" lingyate käntä bhāven duhitā 'nyathā //1.1284, p.100.
This is quoted by way of emphasising the importance of attitude and different results accruing from the same action performed with different attitudes.
9. Yat sarva-viṣayā-kānkṣodbhavaṁ sukhaṁ prāpyate sarāgeṇa / tad-ananta-koti-gunitaṁ mudhaiva labhate vītarāgaḥ //
1.9(1784 ?) p. 162.
This is quoted to support the superiority of detachment to attachment in point of obtaining the amount of happiness, here or hereafter.
10. Rātrau jānur divā bhānuḥ kṛśānuḥ sandhyayor dvayoḥ /
loke nītam iti sītaṁ jānubhānukṛśānubhiḥ //2.327, p. 190.
347
This verse is quoted in the context of describing the condition of Padmaprabha after he left home and lived like a poor man. It occurs in the Bhojaprabandha (233), with the reading 'Pasya śītam mayā nitam' in the third quarter.
11. Punar-api sahaniyo duḥkha-pātas tavāyaṁ na hi bhavati vināśaḥ karmaṇāṁ sañcitānām/ Iti saha ganayitvā yad yadāyati samyak sad-asad iti viveko 'nyatra bhūyaḥ kutas te //
2.665, pp. 216-217.
This verse is quoted to emphasise that one who shoulders the responsibility of kingship has to incur many sins and has to suffer accordingly.
12. Yadicched vipulām prītim tṛīņi tatra na kārayet / vivādam artha-samrambhaṁ parokṣe dāra-darśanam //

3.62, p. 226.

Page #14

348
N. M. Kansara
This is quoted in the context of an incident of a quarrel that arose among friends.
13. Na viśvase grāma-kūṭasya jivi(? va)to 'pi mṛtasya vā /
eka-gṛdhrāparādhena sarve gṛdhrāḥ nipātitāḥ //3.80, p. 227.
Jambu-jyoti
This is quoted as the essence of an animal-folklore of vultures, narrated in connection with not putting one's trust in statements that are contrary to the tenets of religious duties, the folklore runs from Gāthās 3.70-79. 14. Patitam vismṛtam nastaṁ sthitam sthäpitam-āhitam / adattam nādadīta svaṁ parakiyam kvacit sudhiḥ //
3.745, p. 279. This verse is cited in connection with the remark expressing repentance for entertaining greediness for the lost wealth.
15. Kallolad api budbudad api calad-vidyud-vilāsād api
jimutad api marutad api tarat-tārkṣyorddhva-pakṣād api Citram citram ayam calā tribhuvane kim śrir-na te semukhi naivam kim khala-sangatir na na nanu śtrī-jātir asyai namaḥ // 3.1049, p. 303.
This verse is quoted in connection with a statement that even gods, who know all the arts amd crafts, fail to know even the least about the conduct or character of woman-folk.
16. Ślok-ārddhen-aiva tad vakṣye yad-uktam grantha-kotibhiḥ / tṛṣṇă ca samparityaktā präptam ca paramam padam //
3.1596, p. 346.

This verse is cited for stressing the supreme importance of uprooting the creeper of avidity. It is modelled on, and hence reminiscent of, the famous verse of Śankarācārya the second half of which runs as 'Brahma satyam jagan-mithya jivo brahm-aiva naparaḥ'.
17 Sampräpyam mokṣa-saukhyam
yatibhir-asilata-vasa-tulyais tapobhir matvaivam viśva-vettä nami-vinamibhuja-danda-nistrimsa-yastau/ Sanke sankranta-murtis-carati gurutapo yaḥ svayam mokṣa-hetum

Page #15

Sanskrit Sub-story and Subhāṣitas in the Prakrit....
349
pratyūhq-vyūha-nāśam disatu (sa) bhagavān adimas- tirtha-nāthah // 3.1756-57 (3.1756?), p. 358.
This verse is a prayer and it is introduced with the words "Tathā hi'. It seems to be the composition by the author himself, resorting to Sanskrit in view of the noble occasion and purpose.
18. Bhuyo yojana-bhima-durgama-tamam nirgamya yah prāntaram
pratyaksi-kurute jagat-traya-patim viśva-priyaṁ bhāvukah / Śrīman-Nabhi-narendra-gotra-tilakaṁ devam dhruvam vīksite moksas tena tu (sar-)vyatītpa (? tya) rabhasa samsara
kaksäntaram // 3.1758-59 (1757?), p. 358.
This is also a prayer in continuation with the previous verse, and clearly authored by the poet himself.
19. Huyate na tapyate na diyate vä na kiñcana/
aho amülya-krīteyam samya-mātrena nirvrtih // 4.491, p. 426. This verse is quoted in support of the statement that siddhi’ is obtained only by equanimity (samabhāva), even without performing meditation, charity, yoga, or austerity. 20. Upadhyayad daśācaryā ācāryāņām śatam pitā /
sahasram tu pitur-mātā gauravenātiricyate // 4.491, p. 429.
This is quoted to justify the honour given to his mother by a son. This verse occurs in the Manusmrti (2.145) with a slight variation, namely 'upādhyāyān' and 'pitrn'.
21. Bījina eva hi bijam kşetram bhavatiha tadvatām eva /
durlalitam ahinăthe nirnayam enam svayam cakre // 4.547, p. 430. This verse is but almost a Sanskrit version of a previous similar gātha in which the author says: 'Loë pasiddham eyam biyam nanu hoï biyavartassa / khittam tu khettiyassa itha vi ittham viciņteha // (4.542).
22. Śreyo visam upabhoktum ksamam bhave kriditum hutāśena /
samsārabandhana-gatair na tu pramādah kşamah kartum //
23. Tasyām-eva hi jätau naram upahanyäd visam hutāšo vā /
asevitah pramado hanyāj janmāntara-batāni // 4.731-732, p. 445.

Page #16

350
N. M. Kansara
Jambu-jyoti
These two verses are quoted in support of the statement to the effect that one should not be unwary in one's efforts on the path of liberation.
24. Dāne tapasi saurye ca vijñāne vinaye naye /
vismayo na hi kartavyo bahu-ratnā vasundhară // 4.787, p. 449.
This is quoted to emphasize that even though one may be possessed of fortitude, bravery, cleverness, and good characteristics, one should not be unduly proud of it. This verse occurs in the Sārngadhara-paddhati (1477).
25. Yat paraloka-viruddhaṁ yal-lajjākaram-ihaiva jana-madhye / antyāvasthāyam-api tad-akaraniyam na karaniyam //
4.1021, p. 468.
This is quoted in connection with a mental reservation on the part of a prince when a käpalika asks him to kill a maiden.
26. Apāya-sata-labdha-sya prānebhyo'pi gariyasah /
Gatir-ekaiva vitta-sya dānam-anyā vipattayah //
27. Grāsadd-ardham-api grāsam-arthibhyah kim na diyate / icchanurūpo vibhavaḥ kadā kasya bhavisyati //
4.1059-1060, p. 471. These two verses are quoted in support of the Jaina vow of Atithisamvibhāga or sharing the food with a guest or supplicant mendicant. Out of these two verses, the first is a composition of the famous Bhartshari' with a slight variation, namely, 'Ayäsa-' at the start of the quarter, while the second verse occurs in the Pañcatantra (2.73).
28. Vayam balye dimbhāms-tarunimani yünah parinatāv
apīcchāmo vrddhan parinaya-vidhau nah sthitir iyam / Tvayā 'rabdham janma ksapayitum amārgena vidhină na me gotre putri kvacid api sati-lañchanam abhūt //
This is quoted in connection with the incident of a maiden who has retained the memory of her beloved of the previous birth and consequently does not take interest in any young man in this birth; it is meant to denigrate the ideal of marital fidelity and promote the practice of free-love. This verse occurs in the Särngadhara-paddhati (3761), with slight variation, namely, -balan' for 'dimbhān' in the first quarter, and 'anenaikapatinā' for 'amārgena vidhina' in the third quarter.

Page #17

Sanskrit Sub-story and Subhāșitas in the Prakrit....
351
29. Asraddheyam na vaktavyam pratyakşam yadi drsyate /
tathā vānara-sangītam tathā tarati sa śilā // 4.1193, p. 481.
This is quoted to emphasize that one should not talk about impossible matters to elders, even though one might have seen them with their own eyes. This verse has been preserved in the Subhāṣita-ratna-bhändāgāra (p. 162, no. 416) with some variations, namely,'Asambhavyam'at the beginning of the first quarter, 'api foryadi'in the second quarter, and silā tarati pāniyam'and'gitam gāyati vānarah' with the exchange of the third and the fourth quarters.
30. Jivantyām api yady upaiti dayito manye kalarkas tadā
tasmin snigdha-jane viyogini katham prānān nidadhyām aham / Mrtyus-cen na hi tat-samāgama-sukham tasyāpi mrtyur-dhruvam kastam tad-viraho vikalpa-bahulam dolāyate me manah //
4.1211, p. 483.
This is quoted by way of a reflection by Anangasenā when her companions try to lure her to a life of a free-lancer.
31. Hasati hasati svaminy-uccai rudaty-atiroditi
krta-parikaran svedodvāri pradhāvati dhāvati / Guna-samuditam dosopetam pranindati nindati dhana-lava-parikrītam jantum pranrtyati nrtyati //
4.1275, p. 488. This is quoted to condemn those who have made their selves subservient to their masters for the sake of a few bucks.
32. Arādhya bhūpatim-aväpya tato dhanāni
bhoksyāmahe kila vayam satataṁ sukhāni / Ity āśayā bata vimohita-mānasänän kālah prayāti maranāvadhir-eva pumsām // 4.1277, p. 488.
This is quoted in connection with the reflection of a son who finds his father suffering even after serving a king for a long time. This verse occurs in the Subhasitāvali (3258) of Vallabhadeva, with some variations, namely, bhuñjāmahe' for 'bhoksyāmahe'and vayam iha'for ‘kila vayam' in the second quarter, and 'jagama' for 'prayāti' in the last one.
33. Kartum na prakarām sphuran-nava-nava-praudhartha-drstim maya
no tattvāni nivestum atra bhagavat-siddhānta-siddhāni vä/

Page #18

352
N. M. Kansara
Jambū-jyoti
Naiva khyāpayituṁ vyadhāyi caritaṁ rītim vidarbhodbhavāṁ bhaktim kintu punaḥ punar na gaditaṁ śrī-padma-lakṣmaprabhoh // 4.1399, p. 498.
This verse is meant to express the author's intention behind undertaking the composition of this Carita-mahākāvya, and is a part of the Prasasti composed in Prakrit Gäthās.
34. Tarkan adhitya devendra-guroḥ siddhāntam-āditaḥ / Śrī-Haribhadrasūribhyas-caritaṁ nirmame mayā // 4.1401.
This verse is also a sort of acknowledgement about his teachers by the author, and forms a part of the Prakrit Prasasti, which is not composed separately, but rather as a part of the Fourth Prastāva, from Gāthās 1378 to the last one, i.e. 1403. It is noteworthy that this fashion of incorporating Sanskrit Subhāṣitas was popular with our author's predecessors like Vardhamānasūri and Candrasūri also1o. And, further, it is noteworthy that the poet seems to have given the colophones, marking the intervening substories, in Sanskrit, as for instance 'Iti dana-dharme Hamsapāla-kathānakam' (p. 35), 'Iti tapasi Rohiṇīkathā samāptā' (p. 99), 'Ity-antaranga-kathā samāptā' (p. 162), 'Iti śrī-Padmaprabha-caritaṁ samāptaṁ' (p. 499), etc. At the end of the work, the final Prasasti by the Samgha and the scribe is also in Sanskrit.
Annotations:
1. Siri Devasuri's Paumappahasāmi Cariyam (PPC), L.D. Institute of Indology, Ahmedabad 1995 (L.D. Series 116), Ed. Rupendrakumar-Pagariya, Prastāvanā (Hindi), p. 25.

Śrī-Haribhadrasūribhyaś-caritaṁ nirmame mayā // Bālacando... (4.1385) ... Gunabhaddasūri guruno... (4.1386) ... Savväṇamdaguru... (4.1387) cariyam siri-Pāsāsāmissa... (4.1388)..siri-Dhammaghosapahune.. (4.1389)... Tappayapayaṭṭhiehim kaihim siri-Devasūri-nāmehiṁ / Paumappahassa pahuṇo cariyam raiyam kayacchariyam // 4.1391; 4.1401 Tarkan adhitya Devendraguroḥ
siddhantam aditaḥ/
2. Ibid., 4.1393: ...veri-Bhima-bhimassa / Cālukka-vamsa-munino niravajje rajjasamayammi//
3. Ibid., 4.1392: Veya-sara-sūra-paramiya (1254) varise niva-Vikkamassa varisão/ 4.1394 Siri-Vaddhamaṇa-nayare thiena Pajjunna-seṭṭhi-vasahihë/ Siri

Page #19
Sanskrit Sub-story and Subhasitas in the Prakrit.... 353 Paumappaha-cariyam padipunnam inam mae vihiyam //; Colophon - Krtir iyam sri-jalihara-gaccha-mamdana-sri-dharmmaghosasuri-sisyasridevasurinam iti bhadram/ Srih // 4. (PPC), the editor's Prastavana in Hindi; ibid., p. 499. 5. PPC, p. 136:Atha dharma-desana-paryanta-prastave sadaram Aparajitamaharajas tan mahamunim apraksit .. 6. Rajasekhara - Kavya-mimamsa, Ed. Kedarnath Sharma Sarasvat, Bihar Rashtra Bhasha Parishad, Patna 1954, p. 48 : Yas tu tatra tatra bhasa-visese tesu tesu prabandhesu tasmins-tasmins-ca rase svatantrah sa kavirajah/ 7. A. K. Warder, Indian Kavya Literature, Vol. V, Motilal Banarasidass, Delhi 1988, pp. 713-714 8. The page numbers of PPC here and hereafter refer to the above-noted 'Siri Devasuri's Paumappahasami Cariyam' Ed. Rupendrakumara Pagariya, Ahmedabad 1995. 9. D. D. Kosambi, Bhart/hari-subhasita-samgraha, Singhi Jaina Series, No. 400 Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Mumbai 1948. 10. Vardhamanasuri's Jugai-jinimda-cariyam, Ed. Pt. Rupendrakumar Pagariya, L. D. series Ahmedabad 1987, pp. 2, 35, 52, 58, 59, 65, 71, 72, etc.; also Sri-candrasuri's Siri Munimda-suvvaya-caryam, Ed. Pt. Rupenrakumar Pagariya, L. D. series Ahmedabad 1989, pp. 173, 174, 175, 323, 324, 331, 332, etc. ODO