________________
Arbat Pārsva and Dharanendra Nexus
Pārsvanatha and of his previous births, the Southern or Digambara (also perhaps Yapaniya) and the Northern or Svetämbara. Whereas the Svetämbara accounts mainly follow the tradition of Devabhadra, the Digambara accounts often follow Gunabhadra. But there are some differences in the tradition of the Uttarapurana and of the Padmacarita of Ravişeņa as well. (I omit giving details; those have been already given by Modi.) Modi's study brings out one salient fact: Detailed accounts of the life of Pārsvanatha and his previous existences have originated possibly after c. 4th century A.D. These perhaps were based on some earlier traditions not yet traceable. But there is at present no explanation for the absence of the account of Kamatha even in the relatively later strata of the Northern canonical texts.
Both Digambara puranas and the Svetämbara caritas give elaborate descriptions of the upasargas caused to Parsva in meditation by a demi-god who in his previous existence was the soul of Kamatha, the younger brother of Marubhūti, who was the soul of Parsva in the earlier existence of Pärśvanätha. According to the Uttarapurāṇa, the Mahapuraṇa of Puspadanta, and the Pasacariya of Raidhu, this demi-god was called Sambara. Vädirāja has called him Bhūtānanda. In the Svetambara tradition, in the Pasanabacariya of Devabhadra, the demi-god is Meghamālin. The Digambara Padmakirti, too, in his Pāsanabacariu calls him Meghamālī, an "Asurendra".
32
It is indeed difficult to say when this tradition of the upasarga caused by the demigod had started. The total absence of the depiction of this episode in the sculptures from the Kankali Ţilä, Mathura, probably suggests that the belief came into currency some time after the Kuṣāņa period, perhaps not long after the fourth century A.D. An elaborate sculpture depicting this episode preserved in the Indian Museum, Calcutta, supposed to have originated in U.P. or Bihar, is often assigned to the Gupta age on account of the carving reminiscent of Gupta art. But the figure of the snakequeen holding the umbrella is clearly post-Gupta in character, reminding as it also does one of the Buddhist representations of the attack of Mära. As the material evidence goes to indicate, it cannot be earlier than the later part of the sixth century A.D. (For illustration see Panorama of Jain Art, figs. 38-3916 and the frontispiece of my recent book, the Jaina Rūpa-Mandana, Vol. 1)." Elsewhere I have published various sculptures depicting this episode of Kamatha's attack, from both northern and southern India in a paper entitled "A Pārsvanatha Sculpture in Celeveland Museum".18 Dhaky has published two beautiful and elaborate sculptures from Karnataka in his article on the Santara sculptures. 19 I need not go in the details of these sculptures since some of the participants in this Seminar have discussed them region-wise. A study of almost all sculptures depicting this incident shows that the
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
