Chaupannamahapurischariyam

SR No.: 001442
Original Sutra Author: Shilankacharya
Author: Amrutlal Bhojak, Dalsukh Malvania, Vasudev S Agarwal
Publisher: Prakrit Text Society Ahmedabad
Publication Year: 2006
Total Pages: 464
Language: Prakrit, English, Hindi
Classification: Book_Devnagari, Literature, & Story
File Size: 14 MB

Page 24

$6]
INTRODUCTION
(9
I
ount of Rşabha's all as, Lahore 1925
SILANKA'S CAUPPAŅŅAMAHĀPURISACARIYA AS A SOURCE FOR THE STUDY OF THE UNIVERSAL HISTORY
(SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS) $ 6. Introductory remarks. Up to this time SC aroused the interest of the scholars mainly because it was regarded as the possible source of HTr, which is the most important, most comprehensive and best known version of the Svetämbara UH or rather of the UH as such. As a consequence, the previous discussion was primarily concerned with the question of the relationship between SC and HTr : did Hemacandra use SC as his source or had he to depend on other works ? Peterson was the first European scholar who made reference to SC. On p. 38 of his 3rd Report Report on the Search for Sanskrit MSS in the Bombay Circle, 1884-86 ) he states that SC is "doubtless the origin of Hemachandra's better known Trishashtiśalakāpurushacharitra". But he does not seem to have examined tbe manuscript very carefully. Banarsi Das Jain holds the same view. He believes that the similarity between HTr and SC in the account of Rsabha's previous existences is sufficient evidence of the fact that HTr is dependent on SC (B. D. Jain, Jaina Jatakas, Lahore 1925, pp. IV f.). This view is shared by W. Schubring (Gottinger Gelehrter Anzeiger 1932, No. 7, p. 293 and Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 1939, column 180 f.). According to Schubring, SC is " very similar to” and the " predecessor of " HTT. SC is also mentioned by Jacobi (Das Sanatkumāracaritam, Munchen 1921. p. XIII) and by Winternitz ( A History of Indian Literature Vol. II, p. 506, note 1).
In 1939 a manuscript of SC was kindly made available to L. Alsdorf by Muni Punyavijaya. Alsdorf went through a considerable portion of the text and summarized his impressions as follows:
That SC is the source of Hemachandra is out of the question. Parts of SC are very condensed and even incomplete; from the point of view of the content it is far inferior to Hemacandra's work." (Or. Lit. Zeitung 1939, column 605, note 3 ). On account of a letter received from Alsdorf, Schubring rectified his earlier statement. He admits that SC can no longer be regarded as the source of Hemacandra. At the same time he thinks it possible that both works stem from the same prototype (G. G. A. 1942, Nos. 8-9, pp. 311 f.). Our examination of the entire text has confirmed Alsdorf's view. But in order to render his judgement more precise we have to make a few amendments: (1) That SC cannot be looked upon as the source of HTr is not only due to the abridged treatment of the subject matter. It is also borne out by the fact that - broadly speaking - one half of the material is presented in a version more or less different from that of HTr. It is for this reason that SC claims greater interest than was expected. To study a new version of the UH is of course inore instructive than to read the somewhat older source of this well-known text. Besides HTr and SVh we have now a third independent source for the study of the UH of the Svetāmbara tradition. -(2) The statement that Silänka's account is incomplete as compared with that of Hemacandra does not hold true for the whole work. Fairly often Silānka's treatment is equally exhaustive, fortunately not only in portions where both versions agree but also where they disagree.
In addition to the reasons advanced under (1) against the derivation of HTr from SC we would like to mention a general fact which renders such a theory a priori unlikely. As will be shown later on in greater detail ( 14 ), most works of the narrative literature of the Jains are based not on one but on several sources. The individual work does not represent a single uniform tradition but a cluster of traditions. It is true that we often refer in the singular to "the source " or to "the tradition" of a work, but such convenient expressions should not be taken at their face-value. The singular is justified only in those few cases where the whole text or a greater unit within the text can be derived from a single prototype.