________________
127
added, which is most probably imaginary one. (2) The prophesy of the baby-boy was told by a sādhu in the ĀvCū. Hemacandra presents it in a more Jainized way. He says, 'ŞIRAH tyta: ufatnya aga' - The knowledgeable Jaina monks reside for some time at the house of the householder Caņi (8.195) (3) The śrāvakatva of Cāņakya is described very effectively, in the following manner
चाणक्योऽपि श्रावकोऽभूत्सर्वविद्याब्धिपारगः ।
19Toda a H ea: UGTI (8.200-201) The layman Cāņakya was well-versed in all vidyās. He possessed contented attitude due to his being a layman (a Jaina householder). (4) Name of Cāņakya's wife is not mentioned in the ĀvCū and PariP. The incident of her insult due to her poverty is described at length in the Pari-P. Cāņakya's decision to approach Nanda at Pāțaliputra for getting some donation is same in both of the texts. Šīlānka's perception is a bit different. In the Ācārānga-tīkā he presents this incident as an example of rāga-dveșa i.e. Cāņakya's attachment towards wife and hatred towards the king Nanda. (5) The episode of Cāņakya's insult in the court of Nanda is almost same. The ĀvCū mentions the specific day as the full-moon-day in the month of kārttika. Hemacandra ignores the day. The ‘siddhaputra in the AvCū is the ‘Nanda-putra' in the Pari-P. In both of the texts, Cāņakya was actually driven away by a female-servant (dāsī). (6) The famous verse quoting Cāņakya's oath viz. 301917 yppee -- -' etc. is not literary quoted by Hemacandra. He paraphrases the same purport in the following manner -
सकोशभृत्यं ससुहृत्पुत्रं सबलवाहनम् ।
tray-koff heralfa 544 11 (8.225)
