Paumchariu Part 1

SR No.: 002523
Original Sutra Author: Swayambhudev
Author: H C Bhayani
Publisher: ZZZ Unknown
Publication Year: 1953
Total Pages: 458
Language: Sanskrit, English
Classification: Book_Devnagari & Literature
File Size: 11 MB

Page 85

44
PAUMACARIU
moha and sudhiya-deha in the stanza correctly. Works on Padmacarita and Harivamsa in Jain literature usually have a beginning in which it is declared that the accounts of Rāma and Krşņa given in non-Jain traditions are false and misleading and SO Sreņika requests Gautama to narrate these Caritas in their correct version--that is known to the Jain tradition. Thus we find in Svayambhu's Paümacariu:
paramesara para-sāsaņehim, suvvai vivareri kahi jiņa-sāsane kema thiya, kaha Rāhava-keri | jage loehim dhakkarivantaehim, uppãiu bhantiu
bhantaehim
(1 9 9-1 10 1) "The narrative of Rāghava, O Great Lord, is heard in other faiths in a topsy-turvy form. (Hence) tell (us) how is it found in the Jain faith. Deluded people in the world have fabricated (many) delusions (regarding this narrative)."
Similarly Svayambhū describes his Harivamśa narrative as sa-samaya-parasamaya-viyāra-sahā "capable of considering (the accounts current in my own faith and (those current in) others'." The word used in PC. is bhanti, Sk. Bhrānti. It is synonymous with moha in the expression Harivansa-moha-harane occurring in the stanza under discussion. Accordingly it means 'in removing the deluded notions (or erroneous views) regarding the Harivamsa (narrative)'.
Agrain, sudhiya means brānta (Dešināmamālā VIII 36), thaka huā (PSM.) 'exhausted'. So sudhiya-deha means 'exhausted in body'. The whole stanza can be rendered as, "Having composed the Paümacariu and the Suddhyacariu replete with merits, (my) Muse (Sarassaī) in removing the deluded view about the Harivamsa narrative, has become as it were exhausted in body". In the sense in which the stanza is understood by Jain we fail to see how Svayambhu can say, when most of RC. was actually composed, that he proceeds to compose the Harivamśa. Similarly Premi's interpretation too has to contend with serious difficulties. Firstly we have to understand Paümacariu in the sense of 'Supplement to the Paümacariu' even though Tribhuvana makes it a point to refer to his contribution to PC. with the special name of Paümacariyasesa'. Secondly, it would be inconceivable that Tribhuvana who holds his father in great respect and who is never tired in showering emcomiums on him, would describe his proposed additions to RC. as 'designed to remove wrong notions about the Harivaṁsa', for it would imply indirect censure of his father's performance. Lastly Tribhuvana's confession of his inspiration waning when he undertook to supplement the Harivamśapurāņa would be something unusual for him in the face of his pronounced tendency to emphasize his nobility in shouldering the highly responsible task of bringing to completion his father's work and in continuing the poetic tradition of his family. Therefore it is more natural and sensible to take the stanza to have been written by Svayambhū himself. After completing 99 Sandhis of RC. Svayambhū says that with the blessings of Sarasvati he has already completed the two works, the Paümacariu and the Suddhayacariu. But as he proceeded with the composition of the Harivassa that was intended to dispel false versions, his poetic inspiration did not remain sustained. Already in the introduction to RC. Svayambhū talks of his (1) Appendix I. Stanzas 19-22, 24-25, 27-28, 30-33, 31-36, 38-39, 53.
Premi's we have to wariu' even thousith the special that Tril