Jain Journal 1980 04

Author(s): Jain Bhawan Publication
Publisher: Jain Bhawan Publication

Page 74

APRIL, 1980
avagahya tam vanavaram maya sakhisamvrta jinajanetri vicarati cittarathe devi amaravadhu yatha ratividhijna sa kridartham upagata pilaksa-sakham bhujaya avalambya pravijrmbhita salila tasya yasavato jananakale
(Mhvst, II, p. 19, 1.17, 18, quoted from Le Mahavastu, Text Sanskrit, poublie pour la premiere fois par E. Senart, Tome deuxuieme, Paris, 1890). According to this passage Maya performs the game by bending down the branch of a Plaksa-tree !
Here also the performance of the salabhanjika pose appears not to be bound necessarily to the Sala-tree, This observation runs parallel with what we have already noticed in the.description of a salabhanjika in the AMg.-text Rayapasenaijia (Cf. p. 152), where the Asoka-tree is mentioned. Comparing the Mhyst-prose salabhanjikam ca karisyati to pilaksasakham avalambya in the Arya-metre I would not be inclined to see in this a contradiction between metre and prose with salabhanjakam in the sense of 'game of the branch bending pose', not taking sala here in the sense of sala-branch.
* Thus the game is called by Maithili speaking children. In Bengal I heard luko-curi which would correspond to 'hide and seek', but is used in a wider sense in games.
25 How much the graceful pose of a woman raising her arm for any other purpose also appealed to the aesthetic sentiments of people in India is disclosed in an old Hindi stanza of the great Hindi poet Bihari, who prays to a beauty to remain in the pose which she strikes when she wants to take something from a daheri a vessel hanging from a roof in which curd is placed and not to lower her raised arm. It reads;
ahe dahemri jini dharai, jini tu lehi uttari
nike hai chimke chue
179
--
aisi hi rahi nari 604
Quoted from Bihari, Satasai-bodhini, Prakasak: Sahitya-Seva-Sadan-Bulanala, Kashi, Samv. 1944, p.274.
26 Cf. Vogel's remarks comparing the style of figures in Bharhut and Mathura (op. cit., p.224):
"There cannot be the slightest doubt that these pillar-figures (referring to Mathura) are derived from the images decorating the toranas of Bharhut. But how far removed in style are they from those solemn gatekeepers. The Mathura figures have a singular lack of distinction in their aggressive nudity, as Mr. V. A. Smith puts it. They exhibit lasciviousness combined with grossness. Whilst Canda and Culakoka and their sisters have the appearance of heavenly nymphs their unworthy descendants are mere courtesans, exhibiting their opulent charms and gaudy jewellery.'
I, myself, had a chance to see the originals in the Mathura Museum. I felt that the figures are nearer to earth indeed and display more human artfulness and worldly affinities, but I do not think that Vogel's sharp formulation is justified here. His note however is interesting, as a Buddhist writer might have felt the same way.
27 atha sa plaksavrkso bodhisattvasya tejo 'nubhavenavanamya pranamati sma atha mayadevi gaganatalagateva vidyuddristim daksinam bahum prasarya plaksasakham grhitva salilam gaganatalam preksamana vijrmbhamana sthitabhut. (Lalitavistara her. v. Dr. S. Lefmann, Halle, a.S., 1902, 0,83, 1.3-7) * Op. cit., p.52.