________________
INTRODUCTION
98
stories are common with those of HK, it is reasonable to take that Nos. 1-12 in HK form a solid block: the first four illustrate Uddyotana and the next eight are devoted to the limbs of Samyaktva. The topics are connected with gatha Nos. 2, and 44-5 of the Bha. A.; therefore, though Harişeṇa and Prabhācandra may differ among themselves, we have to admit that the stories given by them are not in any way foreign to an Aradhana Kośa. Nos. 1, 2 and 4 give details about some eminent authors, namely, Patrakesarin, Akalanka and Samantabhadra, who are brilliant figures in the annals of Indian literature and some of whose works have come down to us. How far these details are historical, what are the earlier sources to confirm them, and what events can be accepted as historical facts: these are independent questions that must be tackled on their own merits; and that these stories are inauthentic because Hariṣeņa has not included them in his work is not a relevant deduction, because Prabhācandra had before him other sources, his stories are legitimately Aradhana tales, and because he is not mechanically following Harişeņa. We have assigned Prabhacandra to the close of the 11th century A. D.; and it is rather unfortunate that all the sources of PK have not come to light so far. The verse anyatha etc. given in Patrakesarin's story is a pretty old verse often quoted in logical treatises; the verse nahaṁkāra etc. from Akalanka's story is also found in one of the Sravana Belgol inscriptions1 of 1128 A. D.; and the verse purvam Paṭaliputra etc. (quoted along with Kañcyam etc.) is not only found in the above inscription but is given also at the close of Svayambhu-stotra in some Mss. The facts that some of these verses are in the first person and that they stand like quotations even in PK probably indicate that Prabhācandra's details might go back to an earlier source. The story No. 18, which is fully reproduced by me in the Notes on No. 45, is important in various ways: It is connected with gatha No. 589 of the Bha. A. which contains a direct allusion, and has, therefore, a legitimate place in the Kathākosa; it is not found in the Kośa of Hariṣena; and lastly, the story becomes intelligible only on the assumption that it had its original in Prakrit.
Prabhācandra is completely silent about his sources and predecessors. Chronologically HK is older than PK by more than a century. A close comparison of the common stories between HK and the first part of PK shows common contents, but the elaboration and sequence of events in the story and expression indicate rather a common source than Prabhācandra's indebtedness to HK. Some of the verses quoted in both the Kośas come from the same common source (HK Nos. 15. 16, 31. 13). Prabhacandra is concerned primarily with the immediate story with its absolutely necessary details, while Harişeņa adds more past and future births in a verbos style and with all possible details (HK 127, PK 64; HK 139, PK77). The stories in the second part of PK, which form a supplementary unit, give, however, a different impression. All the thirtytwo stories correspond almost to a conti
1 Epigraphia Carnatica II, No. 67, verses 23 and 7.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
