Dhurtakhyan

SR No.: 001861
Original Sutra Author: Haribhadrasuri
Author: Jinvijay
Publisher: Saraswati Pustak Bhandar Ahmedabad
Publication Year: 2002
Total Pages: 160
Language: Sanskrit, Prakrit, Gujarati
Classification: Book_Devnagari, Story, Literature, P000, & P030
File Size: 14 MB

Page 64

A ORITSOAL STUDY
In conclusion, Haribhadra refers to a series of legende, particularly the births of Purāņic personages (V. 114-18), and summarily denounces them as unnatural and unworthy of any credence. Some of them, viz., the births of Brahman (1. 53-7), Tilottainā (1. 58-84 ; 111. 27-37), Droņa (1. 60-61), Sanmukha (III, 53-86), and of Svedakundalin and Nara, i. e., Raktakundalin (I. 58–84) are already referred to in the earlier discussion; and we have noted the relevant sources above. Some particulars about the rest may be added here : There is a legend that (Pavana-?) Ganapati originated from the scurf of Pārvati's body.--Urvasi was so named, because she was born from the thigh.Nalakūbara and Maņigriva were excessively drunk and sporting in a nude condition in the river Ganges. When Nārada came there, the ladies clothed themselves; but these two remained naked. Nārada was offended, and cursed them to become trees for one hundred years. They were relieved by the contact of Krsna who pulled the mortar, to which he was tied by his mother, through the interspace between the pair of Arjuna trees in which they were transformed..Vasudeva and Devaki were in the prison of Kaṁsa, and it is there that Devaki conceived Balarāma. But in the seventh month, through the mediation of Māyā, the embryo was transferred to the body of Rohiņi who was staying at Gokula. This Balarāma of the Yādava race is considered to be an amou of Sesa.-Pārvati is the daughter of Himālaya and Mena.
The success of Haribhadra's performance depends primarily, if not entirely, on the intellectual integrity and fidelity with which he has presented the Purāņic legends that are being satirised. We can start prima facie that he would not dare to change the popular, mythological stories, at least their fundamentals, current in his locality and at his time; for, if he were to do so, he would be cutting the very ground under his feet, and his work would fall in the estimation of his contemporaries to whose gathering it has been already narrated at Citrakūta (V. 123).
On the whole, we have been fairly successful in tracing the counterparts of the legends, quoted by Haribhadra, to their sources available today. Haribhadra is not actually quoting in the very words of the original, but he is rewriting the legends in his words and mostly from memory. Naturally we will have to make ample concession for omissions and minor variations in expression and presentation. In some cases, Haribhadra's legends, when studied in comparison with those in the present-day texts, show differences in details. Their significance depends upon their position in the story and on their relative bearing for the purpose of denunciation. Some divergences are of minor significance: for instance, the names of the parents of Droņa (I. *6*); whether the Sage called the Boy or vice versa (II. *2*); whether Reņukā's chastity was respected by plants (III. *1*); whether Upasunda or Nisunda is the name (III. *3*); whether Vinatä laid two eggs or three (IV. *7*); whether Yudhisthira asked the boa seven questions or more (V. *8*); etc. Such differences do not affect the chief idea that is selected as the target for the satirical shaft. There are other differences of major significance : for instance,