Bruhat Katha kosha

Author(s): Harishen Acharya,
Publisher: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan

Page 97

66
BĶHAT-KATHĀKOŠA
points. There are groups of verses, here and there, in Harişeņa's Kośa (126. 19f., 162 f., 220 f., 256 f.; 127. 145 f., 259 f., 89 f.; 131. 67 f., etc.) which have close agreement with the Vaddărâdhane in those contexts. But when we go into more details, perhaps with the exception of Vrṣabhasena's story (K.: 135 and V. 10) which shows nearly the same extent of contents in both, all the stories in the Vaddārādhane are longer and contain more details than those given by Harişeņa. The story of Sukosala, as given by the Kannada text, begins with verse No. 107 of Harişena's story and gives the contents of the first 106 verses later: this is only a glaring illustration which indicates that the order of the presentation of details is not necessarily the same in both the works. Besides giving additional sub-stories, details about more Bhavas, stylistic descriptions and traditional enumerations, one feels, as in the case of Sanatkumāra's story, that perhaps Vaddārādhane is following, at times, a different recension too for some of its details. So far as these nineteen stories are concerned, it is plain that Harişeņa narrates the main events of the story in a straight way without adding too many extra. neous details. It may be that Harişeņa is nearing the close of his big work, while the Kannada author is vigorously shaping and narrating his stories which probably constitute all that he wrote in this context. On the whole the proper names etc. in different stories are the same in both the works, but there a few significant differences which deserve special attention : Sailapura, Jayakā and Vodaka in K. 126. 124 f., but Svetapura, Jaise and Bodhana in V. i, p. 17; Gandharva-bhūpāla in K. 127. 152, but Sundara (v. l. Gandara etc.) Pāņdya in V. ii, p. 31, line 5; Surendradatta in K, 126. 210, but Süradatta in V. i, p. 20; Gomini in K. 126. 206, but Gaurī in V. ii, p. 33 ; etc. Additional and varying details, absence of close agreement in the order of events to be narrated and the differences in some of the proper names rule out the possibility that one is directly and mechanically following the other in writing out these stories. A sober evaluation of these aspects along with the common points lead us to the conclusion that both of them are based on the same source, possibly a Präkrit commentary on the Bhagavati Arādhană, after admitting, however, the probability that every author elaborated the stories in his own way but kept the outline and the motive intact.
The facts that the collection of Kannada stories is called Vaddārā. dhane and that it interprets the găthās of the Bha. A., just as Srīcandra has
.
1 My observations have in view mainly the first ten Kannada stories which are
so far available in print. The next three stories reached my hands rather late, 2 K.-Kathākośa of Harişeņa and V.- Vaddārādhane. 3 The Kannada version remainds me, in some portions at least, the story given
by Devendra in his commentary on the Uttaradhyayanı, see Präkrit-kathāsamgraha (Ahmedabad Samvat 1978), pp. 17-28. Also compare the story No. 3
in Prabhācandra's Kośa. 4 Harişeņa would simply refer to the event of marriage, but the Kannada text
would describe a Svayan vara.