Chaupannamahapurischariyam

Author(s): Shilankacharya, Amrutlal Bhojak, Dalsukh Malvania, Vasudev S Agarwal
Publisher: Prakrit Text Society Ahmedabad

Page 26

( 11
--$9]
INTRODUCTION Hemacandra's Parisistaparvan I 29-266; Vajrasvåmin: ibid. XII). Our suggestion is further supported by the fact that in the Mahavira-carita itself Silanka's version shows very little conformity with the other texts.
Silänka omits also the following portions contained in HTr and other texts: the individual parts of the Mahāpadma-carita, the Pradyumna-Sāmba-carita (forming part of the Harivamsapurāņa, see SC/M p. 83, last paragraph), the Krsna-legends contained in HTr VIII 10, a considerable number of legends and inserted stories (as related in the Mahāvica-carita and elsewhere ; see SC/M pp. 122 f. on inserted stories ), and finally all references to events yet to happen (HT. X 13). The Vasudevahindi and Krsna's life-story (up to the foundation of Dväravati) have been condensed into 9+24 gāthas which are preceded by a short piece of prose. In the same way the Rāmāyaṇa has been reduced to a few prose sentences followed by 26 găthās. Almost as exhaustive as Hemacandra's text is Silānka's treatment of Sagara, Sanatkumāra, of the last portion of the Hariyamsapurâna, of Brahmadatta, and of Parsva. These pieces recur in Dutt. Some parts of the account of Rşabha's previous existences missing in DUtt) are also related in great detail. The following pieces are included in SC but missing in the other versions: four lists of things related to culture ( 15 disciplines like dance, medicine, etc.; the alphabets ; the numerals from 5 to 84.00.00028; the varnas and the castes of the children in mixed marriages) and four short pieces which form part of the Mahävira-carita; see SC/M pp. 54, 106, 112. Besides this subject-matter which was no doubt taken from earlier versions, Silanka has incorporated into his work a drama and three stories ( 19 ). A parable related by Mahavira in one of his sermons is also peculiar to SC (SCM p. 110). In those parts which have not been mentioned in this paragraph, Silanka's account is more or less incomplete as compared with HTr.
SC differs considerably from HTr in the biographies of Sagara, Triprstha, Dviprstha, Svayambhū, Purusottama, Subhūma, Mahāvīra, and in the Hariyamsapurāna (except the last portion). SC and HTr are rather similar in the biographies of Rşabha/Bharata (for the most part ), of Paruşasimha, Sanatkumara, Malli, Brahmadatla, Pärsva, and in the last portion of the Harivansapuräna. Those parts which recur in Dutt have been put in italics in order to demonstrate the relative agreement in the portions common to all three texts. The remaining parts of SC either differ only slightly from HTT, or they are too condensed to allow a comparison.
$ 8. Comparison of the "main versions" (II): SVh and HTY/SC. Besides the Vasudeva-hindi, its proper subject, SVh contains a few small pieces from the Hariyamsapurăņa and the biographies of the following great men (completely or in part): Rşabha/Bharata, Sagara, Triprstha/Acala/Ašvagriva (related twice ). Sanatkumara, Santi, Kunthu, Ara, Purusapundarika (Ananda ) / Balin, Subhūma, Rāma/Laksmana/ Rāvaņa. Others are only mentioned by their names. As a rule Sangbadāsa's account is not less comprehensive than HTr, but in a few cases the text is much condensed (still more than in the corresponding portions of SC). As might be expected, the relation between SVh on the one hand and HTr and SC on the other is different in each part of the text. But it seems that SVh is nearer to HT than to SC; the distance SVh-HTr seems however greater than the distance SC-HTr.
99. The Svetāmbara-tradition and the Digambara-tradition. Sometimes one or several Svetämbaraversions show greater conformity with the Digambara-tradition (Jinasena/Gunabhadra, Puşpadanta ) than the others. But the comparison of the Svetāmbara-versions with the versions of the other sect (which was limited to the Harivamsapurāņa and to a few samples in the rest of the UH) has not led to the conclusion that one of the Svetämbara-versions shows throughout the UH a special similarity with the Digambara-tradition. What has been said on p. 90 of SC/M with reference to the relation of SC and the Digambara-tradition in the Harivamsapurāņa seems to be true for all three Svetāmbaraversions (HTT, SVh, SC) and for the whole of the UH: "There can be no doubt that silanka's