Kuvalayamala Part 2

SR No.: 002778
Original Sutra Author: Udyotansuri
Author: A N Upadhye
Publisher: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan
Publication Year: 1970
Total Pages: 368
Language: Sanskrit, English
Classification: Book_Devnagari & Literature
File Size: 12 MB

Page 138

INTRODUCTION
99
Harigupta and Uddyotana, is quite natural. Harigupta's pupil was Devagupta who is called Mahākavi and who seems to be identical with one referred to by Uddyotana at 3.28. Devagupta also came from the Gupta-vaṁśa, a ruling family, for he is called rājarşi: possibly he had composed a work with some title like Su- or Tri-puruşacarita.
The note on Toramāņa by N. C. MEHTA! who depended mainly on an article of Muni JINAVIJAYAJI has been sharply criticised by some scholars; and their views require to be scrutinised at this stage. Some of the statements of N. C. MEHTA are half-truths, and some bold conjectures. K. P. MITRA has been hypercritical and is not quite fair to the facts. N. C. MEHTA apparently considers that Uddyotana was a southerner, because he writes a kind of Prākrit which is of the southern type Māhārāstrī, because he uses the Saka era, and because he is dakşiņa-cihna. All these are partial truths. Once Māhārāstrī became a literary language, it could be used by any author, staying anywhere. As a matter of fact, Uddyotana tells us that he composed his work in Prākṣta (pāiya-bhāsā-rasyā, 4.11). Some Jaina authors have used Saka era in the north as well, for instance, Jinasena just five years later, uses the saka era; and he is writing his Harivamsa at Vardhamāna. Lastly, the title dakkhiņņa-imdha really stands for dākṣinya-cihna which has nothing to do southerner. Ratnaprabhasūri, who prepared the Sanskrit Digest of the Kuvalayamālā, clearly describes its author as dākṣiṇya-cihna-munipa. So MITRA'S argument how Uddyotana hailing from Deccan could have known about Toramāna loses all force. Now as to the readings, J gives Torarāyena and P Toramānena: sand ni are very much alike in appearance. In the light of what I have observed about the authenticity of the readings of both P and J,' I do not see any reason why this reference to Toramāņa should be doubted. It is true that Kuvalayamālā is a religious romance: this reference does not come in the story of the text, but occurs in a paragraph where Uddyotana is giving biographical details, almost at the close of his work. He is primarily mentioning his ascetic ancestry. His Teacher ancestor, Harigupta, an Ācārya of the Jaina Church six or seven generations earlier, was camping (obviously during the rainy season) at Pavvasyā, the metropolis of Torarāya or Toramāna. This Harigupta is described as the Guru of Toramāņa and as having hailed from Guptavamsa. There is no eulogy bestowed on Toramāņa by Uddyotana, nor there is any hint that the king was converted to a creed of kind-heartedness?. All that Uddyotana says is that Harigupta was a Guru of Torarāya or Toramāņa; and if one is aware of the rigorous life of detachment which a Jaina monk leads, there is nothing improbable that Toiamāņa respected him as Guru, even as matter of expediency, as some have tried to understand it. There are many instances of Jaina Teachers winning royal respects like this. There is no doubt
N. C. MEHTA: Jaina Record on Toramāņa in the J. of the Bihar O. R. Society, Vol. XIV, pp. 30 f., Patna 1928; also Jaina Siddhānta Bhāskara, XX, 2, pp. 1-6, Arrah 1953.
2 K. P. MITRA: Toramāņa in Kuvalayamālā in the I. H. Quarterly, Vol. XXXIII, 4, pp. 353-59, Calcutta 1957.
3 N. C. MEHTA himself quotes this verse. 4 See above pp. 12 f.