________________
A CRITICAL STUDY
35
thothstand wharata
there haribha
them nearly holds good with regard to legends and their contents?: "Then in the case of citations we must allow for failures of memory, and the quotation was never compared with the original. Moreover we must never forget that probably from time immemorial there have existed local versions of the Mahābhārata. The citations made even by very old writers were from these local versions. A citation by a writer of the eighth century or even the sixth century proves nothing for the Ur-Mahābhārata, that ideal but impossible desideratum; though the citation is far older than our manuscripts, it is evidence only for the text of the local Mahābhārata in the eighth, respectively in the sixth century, notwithstanding that the differences between the various recensions and versions of the Mahābbārata must diminish as we go back further and further."
No doubt there must have been Mss, of the epics and Purāņas (III. 53) in the days of Haribhadra, but generally the narratives were heard from the mouth of rhapsodists. That they were handed down by word of mouth, as suggested by Sukthankar, is to a very great extent confirmed by the fact that, whenever Haribhadra appeals to the authority of Purānas etc., he uses almost uniformly terms like suvvai, suam, etc. (I. 35, 41; II. 27, 31, 61; III. 27, 38, 53, 63, 93; IV. 19, 27; V. 11, 33, 37, 60, 64, 112, 114; etc.). It is not unlikely, therefore, that some discrepancies in the details, whether minor or major, might go back to the traditional narration which was recited round about Citrakūta at the time of Haribhadra; and we can hardly hope to trace the same necessarily in the present-day texts. It is equally possible, in some cases where Haribhadra's statements show deviation from the sources, that he is criticising the legends which passed as such according to the tradition from which he got them. One cannot be dogmatic on one or the other explanation, because the sources, so far tapped, are comparatively limited. Further, when legends are quoted from memory, contamination, confusion and variation in details are inevitable. The very fact that most of the legends or their nearest counterparts we have been able to trace to their sources clearly indicates that Haribhadra did not want to put forth imaginary legends and then to condemn them. Though it is quite plain, it may be noted that the sources recorded by us do not indicate that all those works are necessarily older than Haribhadra, but it only means that those legends belong to a period earlier than that of Haribhadra. He mentions only three works by name, Bhārata, Rāmāyaṇa and Vişnupurāņa; and all other sources are our suggestions.
At times there is no agreement even among the Purāņic legends. For instance, according to one version, Agni was sent by gods to Siva and Umā for a mighty son who can destroy Tarakāsura; while, according to another version, though less popular, he was sent by Iudra to prevent Umā from conceiving a child. Haribhadra narrates clearly the latter version, though the Sanskrit and Gujarāti versions of the Dhū. read there, wrongly of course, the popular legend. The legend given by Haribhadra has its place in the present-day Váyupurāņa, as noted above. It is interesting to note that, in some cases
1 Prolegomona p. 29.
www.jainelibrary.org
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
