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 70

A CRITICAL STUDY
39
though quite in agreement with a Purāņic tradition, is contradictory to the explicit statement of Haribhadra (III. 55) who follows a slightly different tradition'.
On account of its being a part of the commentary, the opening and concluding portions of the Sanskrit Dhūrtākhyāna do not give it an appearance of & self-sufficient unit. More than once, it comes to our help in clearly under standing the Prākrit text of Haribhadra.
The Dhūrtākhyāna in Old-Gujarāti, included in this edition, mentions at its close that it was written (lişitam) or copied by Pt. Lakşmikīrti, the pupil of Ratnasundaragani of the Jinamānikya-śākhā of the Kharatara-gaccha at Udaipura in Sarivat 1758 (-57 = 1701 A, D.), Kārtika Sukla, 12, Saturday. The word lişitam should ordinarily mean 'copied'; so this proof is not enough to infer that Lakşmikirti is the author of this Gujarati work. In fact, we do och know the name of its author; and all that we can say about him is this much he flourished carlier than 1701 A. D.; he had realised that the Dhūrtākhyāna was an effective attack against the Purāņic religion and the Purānas; and he wrote the tales, from the Dhūrtākhyāna of Haribhadra, in the loka-bhāṣā, that they might be intelligible to laymen (bāldvabodha-rūpāḥ kathāh).
The author's primary aim is to narrate the stories included by Haribhadra in his Dhū. He closely follows the Prākrit text, and mainly concentrates his attention on narrating the stories, ignoring the mosaic descriptions of Haribhadra and spicy similes of Sanghatilaka. At times his rendering is quite literal. To make the narration effective, he amplifies the original by additional remarks (p. 49, 11, 19, 22-3; p. 60, 11. 5-6; p. 64, 11. 21-23; etc.). Some verses in the Prākrit (III. 83, V. 80) are not duly covered, and some details (V. 115 f.) are disposed off summarily. Partly agreeing with Sanghatilaka, some quotations are not included (II. 73, IV. 92, V. 4, 5, 18, 103). Somehow I. 87*1 is quoted with some different readings.
There is not the least doubt that the author is mainly following tho Prikrit text: his Gujarāti rendering, as a rule and throughout the work, agrees more with Prakrit original than with the Sanskrit version of Sanghatilaka; two quotations (II. 50, III. 67) which are rendered into Sanskrit by Sanghatilaka, are quoted in Prākrit, as in the original, by our author (pp. 54, 57); and one legend, III. *10*, omitted by the Sk, text, is duly given by him (p. 58). Though the Prākrit text is mainly and closely followed, there is sufficient proof to indicate that he has consulted the Sanskrit text of Sanghatilaka. Many points and remarks, which are not found in the Prākrit but are present in
1 Bee III. *6* above. 2 In continuation of what my friend Dr. A. M. Ghatage has said (New Indian
Antiquary, 1, 5, August 1938), I might record here that Sanghatilaka uses the form mutkalāpya (334, 394), gerandive from the root mutkalap; and it stands opoe for aucchitina, 'having taken leave' (V. 9), and once for pucchiun, 'having takon pormission' (1.74) in the original Prakrit.