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 39

24 ]
SC AS A SOURCE FOR THE STUDY OF THE UH
[ $ 20
SC
wording is to be compared, any versions of a particular story will be suitable which are to some extent identical or similar in their text. Below we mention a few such stories along with the works in which they occur. Digambara-versions are not included because they have too little in common with the corresponding Svetämbara-versions; the only exception is Jinasena's Harivamsapurana (JHp) which is closely related to the Svetambara-tradition (Alsdorf, Harivamsapurana, p. 118 ). Mere references to the stories quoted are not included. The first stories are more appropriate for a comparison of the contents, the last stories contain material for a textual comparison. Refer to SC/M pp. 62 ff., 77 f., 88 f., 58 ff.. 74 f. Read Daśavaikälika for "Das" and destruction of Dvåravatt and Krsna's death for "Dväravati". Triprstha SVh (2x) JC0/HTI
HTT Subhūma SVh JCü/HȚI DUtt
SCHTI Dväravati
DUtt DasCu/
HTr JHp Sagara SVh
DUtt
SC
HTT Sanatkumāra SVh
DUtt
SCHT Large-scale contamination is of course only possible if several parallel-versions exist side by side. The coexistence of such versions depends again on the toleration of diverging traditions. It is superfluous to add that in India different versions of a story or conception could easily be developed and transmitted, and that this growth of diverging traditions was only to a certain degree checked by ideological considerations. -- --. Although we are only dealing with contamination in Tain literature. we would like to mention the latest indological contribution to the study of the problem; it is found in Prahlada, Teil I-II, Mainz 1959, by Paul Hacker (see especially pp. 223 f.).
Contamination is only one example of the so-called transformations which have been discussed in 6 17 and on pp. 132 ff. of SC/M in more detail. The common element of these transformations is the fact that tbey reduplicate the stories (and enlarge the existing literary substance) through merely formal procedures (contamination, multiplication, assimilation, ideological correction, etc.). Such processes are not restricted to literature but recur in iconography, although it is not always possible to apply one and the same category to literary and iconographic facts (see $ $ 51-53 of the author's contribution on “Distinction in Indian Iconography" in Vol. XX of the Bulletin of the Deccan College Research Institute). A study of the transformations in literature and in art is of considerable interest. and it often lends importance to a matter which at first sight appears to be unoriginal and monotonous. It seems also appropriate to undertake a comparative study of the transformations (and organizing forces in general) which appear in the different provinces of Indian literature and art. To this belongs for example an examination of the different ways in which stories were evolved and transmitted in the narrative literature of the Hindus,' Jains, and Buddhists. One has ultimately to study, more intensely than before, all the formal differences between the literature, mythology, iconography, metaphysics, and social organization of the different communities (and also of the different periods and provinces ). It would for example be interesting to compare the different character of the AvatāraJina-, and Buddha-concepts and also the different ways in which they are represented in literature.
(2) The comparison suggested in (1) furnishes a sort of horizontal section. This could be supplemented by a vertical section, which can be established through a comparison of texts which represent different stages in the evolution of the UH (cf. 'c' in the list given in (1) of this paragraph). A study of the oldest parts of the UH would not only throw some light on the stratification of the works (i. e. on the various layers formed over a basic text), it would also supplement our present knowledge of the relevant portions of the UH, and it might eventually even help to establish a relative chronology. The enquiry would trace the evolution of the UH from the canonical texts (Ayara nga/Jiņacariya, Rāyapasenaijja/Jambuddivapannatti, Viyahapannatti, etc.) to the Āvasyaka