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 31

16 )
SC AS A SOURCE FOR THE STUDY OF THE UH
[ $ 16
Theoretically we can explain the difference between an earlier and a later version of a work in three ways. First we can assume that the changes were introduced by the later author. This is unlikely for two reasons : on the one hand because the so-called innovations of the later authors can generally be traced back to some older version; on the other hand because the transition between the different forms in which an incident is related is often not gradual (which it should if the later writers were responsible ). On the contrary, we meet in many cases with two or three well-defined versions of an incident which, as it were, coexist, some authors preferring one type and some preferring the other. - Secondly we can explain the differences by intermediate versions or a common archetype or both. The greater the number of such hypothetical links the smaller the degree of originality with which the individual author must be credited. Thirdly we can assume that the authors contaminated different versions. The advantages of this third explanation are obvious. In view of the fact that the authors followed their sources closely and that we cannot reckon with an unlimited number of lost texts nor with a permanent influx of oral traditions, we have to admit that the third method of explanation, which can do without much hypothetical matter, is preferable to the second. But denying intermediate links altogether is as dangerous as including too many of them. We would therefore not state categorically that JC/HȚI is the direct source of Dutt, or that HTr//JCā/HȚi on the one hand and HTC/SC/Dutt on the other are direct descendants of the respective prototypes.
It seems indispensable to develop some exact method of examining the interrelation of our texts, i. e. a method explaining the distinctive features of the texts with the help of the positive evidence contained in parallel versions. Nobody will deny that even in the later stages of the evolution of the texts poctical imagination' ant oral tradition' played an important part, but the effect of these forces should also not be overestimated (see also $ 20, 1).
S 15. The Satrunjayamāhātmya. In his essay on this work, A. Weber had assigned to it a date as early as 598 A. D. G. Buhler brought down the date to the 13th or 14th century (Indian Antiquary VI, p. 154, note ), and this correction met with Weber's approval. In a few cases we have compared the $ with HTr. The Sumukha-story is related in almost identical form in both works (SC/M p. 79). The same is true of the Munisuvrata-carita itself (in HTr, the Sumukha-story forms part of the Munisuvrata-carita ); but here the version of $ offers a few additional features (SC/M p. 79 ). Cases of verbal identity between $ and HTr, extending over relatively large portions of the texts, are also not infrequent (Alsdorf, Harivamsapurāņa p. 81; SC/M p. 79). On the other hand we find in the Rāmāyana-version of the Pauracariya and not that of HTI (I owe this information to the kindness of Dr. Hamnm). In many cases the text of the is extremely short. To sum up : S is neither particularly old nor particularly original ; it is neither a representative of some independent Svetāmbaratradition nor in its entirety very closely related to any of the Svetämbara-versions under discussion,
$ 16. Verbal agreement between the Svetāmbara-versions. All versions of the UH agree bere and there verbatim. This is particularly true of certain phrases which occupy a sort of key position in a story: they are changed rarely if ever. Even stories which are very vaguely related may occasionally agree verbatim (SC/M p. 67 and 69 ). Nor are striking textual parallels missing in lyric and gnornic portions (SC/M p. 74, 1. 35 f.). Perfect identity of a relatively large portion of the texts is however very rare and will nowhere extend over more than a few dozen granthas. Rare also are those cases where the Svetambara- and Digambara-versions are so closely related that some idea of the common archetype can be formed (Or. Lit. Zeitung 1939, column 608 ff.). In the following survey we shall first examine the parallels between the Prakrit works (1-3) and afterward the parallels between HTr on the one hand and the individual Prakrit works on the other (4-7).