________________
(xLvii) bhadra, Pādalipta-Sūri, author of Tarangavatī, Dhanapāla, the author of Bhavisatta-Kahā, not to speak of Hemacandra, who, of course, is a later writer. Prolificity appears to be the order of the day and, therefore, our Poet's aspiration to write the Gaüdavaho proper in continuation of the present one which might just be a prelude to what was to follow, is in keeping with his times. It is doubful whether he did the same. Even if he had, it has not come down to us, just like his other work, Mahumaha-Viaya, which, as he himself says that he had written, but which has failed to reach our hands. The loss of the one viz. Mahumaha-Viaya, which is a fact, is equally possible in the case of his other work which he promises to write' (1209), but which he, perhaps, could not continue, because of circumstances, mainly political, beyond his control.
His other contention that the Poet has already put the best part ( description of nature etc. ) in the present work, is not very convincing. For the prospective Gaüdavaho proper, he might have earmarked topics ( like those already mentioned above ) with a profuse padding of many, relevant, legendary episodes, culminating in the death of the Magadha king. Items like the description of nature etc. which might prove, according to the Poet, out of context there, are included in the earlier part viz. the prelude '.
Variation in the number of Gāthās contained in each of the four manuscripts can be no argument for holding the present Gaüdavaho as an abridgment. The copyists of MSS have 'their preferences and accordingly they pick and choose Gāthās as they like. Jacobi himself observes that “this or that copyist of the prevalent epitome might have put in, at their appropriate places, such verses from
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
