________________
great and marked difference between the two; it is, that while the second is typical Jain in character, the first might pass for a Hindu or Buddhist legend, if we drop the reference to the Jain temple in Tilayadiva (Tilakadvipa) and the Suyapañcami vow. We shall therefore not be far wrong if we believe that the original story had no religious colouring, but was only a popular legend or romance of a middle-class tradesman's life, just as the Kādambari is of court-life, and it was subsequently turned to religious account by the Jains. It is, however, not quite possible to say if the Jain colouring was already there when Dhanapāla put his hand to it, or whether it was he himself who did so. The former alternative seems to be more likely, if we believe the poet when says at the end of Sandhi XIV qripi fata HS Hš gfas athafer 3-Hving obtained different old poems (presumably on the same subject), I have composed this with the help of Saraswati.' There is nothing strange in this, for we know how the Buddhists and Jains have from the beginning drawn upon Hindu fables and legends for illustrating their own doctrines. The Paumacariya of Vimalasūri is a great illustration in point.
Jacobi refers to the Kathāsaritsägara where the Yakşa Maạibhadra is mentioned as the tutelary deity of tradesmen and travellers and suggests15 that the temple in Tilayadīva might have been the Yakşa's own temple and that originally it might have been the Yaksa himself who appeared to Bhavisayatta in a dream, and not the lord of Accyutasvarga. This change, and the metamorphosis of the Yaksa temple into one of Candraprabha Jina, must have been made when the story was caught hold of for their purpose by the Jains.
Jacobi gives expression to a hard truth when he says16 regarding the previous births; 'An derartigen Vorgeschichten ist die Erzählungsliteraturder Jainas überreich. Meistens sind sie klägliche Erzeugnisse einer dürren Pfaffenphantasie-The story-literature of the Jainas is over-rich in such fore-histories. Mostly they are the miserable productions of a barren priestcraft-phantasie.'
Lastly there is this important fact to be borne in mind that nowhere does the Suyapañcami-vrata appear inevitable. In fact, of the two places where it is mentioned, viz. Sandhi VI 2, 10 ff., and Sandhi XX 11, 9, on the first occasion it is advised to be done by Suvrata, when Kamalasri's son was already being helped by the lord of Accyutasvarga and his servant Māņibhadra. In fact it was Bhavisaytta's own good conduct that had turned into his friend and helper the Rāksasa, who had come to devour him and Princess Bhavisāņuruvā. On the second occasion it does not concert main persons of the story at all. This clearly establishes the fact that the 16 Op. Oit. Introduction p. 13 and 14.
Op. cit. Introduction p. 20.
