Ritthnemichariyam Part 2

SR No.: 001427
Original Sutra Author: Swayambhudev
Author: Ramnish Tomar, Dalsukh Malvania, H C Bhayani
Publisher: Prakrit Text Society Ahmedabad
Publication Year: 1993
Total Pages: 220
Language: Prakrit, Apabhransh
Classification: Book_Devnagari & Story
File Size: 9 MB

Page 13

(6) Several other illustrative citations, but all anonymous, in the Apabhramsa section of the Svayambhūcchandas, have clear, reference to some character or incident in the Rāma narrative. Since as many as ten of the anonymous illustrations of the Sc. could be identified from Svayambhū’s Paumacariya it was but natural to assume that the rest of such illustrations were from one or another work of Svayambhũ himself. But there were several snags in such a solution. Sc. VI 50.1 ( reference to Rāvana and Nila), 52.1 (ref. to Añgada and Rāvaņa ) and 68.1 (ref. to Vāli's son i. e. Argada ) doubtless pertain to the theme of Rāmāyana, they have been cited anonymously, and yet they are not identifiable from Svayambhū’s Paumacariya. Similarly Sc. VI 35.1 (ref. to Bhārata, Karna and Arjuna ), 44.1 (ref. to Arjuna and Drona ) 75.1 (ref. to Hari i, e. Krsna and Mathurā ), 78.1 (ref. to Dhanañjaya i. e. Arjuna ), 122.1 ( ref. to Krpa, Karņa, Kaliñgarāja, Jayadratha and Krsna ), 124.1 (ref. to Sätyaki, Hanumat-banner and the sakața-vyűha); VIII 1. 1. (ref. to Dhstarāştra and Duḥśāsana), 5.1 (ref. to Kurupati i. e. Duryodhana and the Vyāsa lake ), and 10.1 (ref. to Karna), eventhough anonymous and pertaining to the narrative of the Pāņdavas and Krsna, are not identifiable from Svayambhũ's Ritthaņemicariya. Moreover Sc. VIII 14.1 although given anonymously, cannot be from the pen of Svayambhū, who was a devout Jain, whereas the stanza in question refers to the story of the Vāmana incarnation and the demon-king Bali'7, so well-known in Brahmanical mythology.
These facts go to establish that only a part of the anonymous citations in the Sc. derive from Svayambhū's works. The other part was taken from an author or authors whose names are omitted by the manuscript of Sc. due to a defective transmission tradition. That in the matter of indicating sources of its citations Sc. does not always preserve the original state of affairs faithfully is proved beyond doubt in at least three cases. As already mentioned, though Sc. VI 54.I is reproduced from Svayambhū’s Paumaccariya (77. 1. 1. ), the manuscript ascribes it to Caturmukha. Similarly though Sc. I 74.1 and 74.2 are respectively the same as Paumacariu 73. 3. 5-8 and