________________
42
PAUMACARIU
telling us that the Yuddha Kanda is finished and that the Uttara Kānda is now begun. But immediately after this the MSS. read: Siri-muni-suvvaya-tittham namāmi, Jujjha-Kaņdam nisameha. "I bow down to the Tirtha of Muni Suvrata. Listen to the Yuddha Kanda'. Further at the end of the next, i.e., 78. Sandhi, it is stated: Jujjha-kandar samattam Jyestha Vadi 1 Some: 'Finished the Yuddha Kānda, on Monday the first, dark half, Jyeștha'. This is clearly an error. The words Sirimunisuvayya etc. should be found in the beginning of the 57. Sandhi, while the statement at the end of the 78. Sandhi has its legitimate place at the end of the 77. Sandhi,
Similarly at the end of the 13. Sandhi the MSS. read: Prathamam Parva. Its significance is not clear. The first Kanda is completed with the 20. Sandhi. The 13. Sandhi does not seem to markedly round off the foregoing matter so that the first 13. Sandhis can form a definite unit.
Puşpadanta has regularly given separate titles to the individual Sandhis of his Mahăpurāņa. Svayambhū only casually assigns a title to individual Sandhis. Thus in the VidyadharaKānda, Sandhis I, 2, 13, 17 and 18 are found with special titles. On the other hand for Sandhis 83-90, which were not written by Svayambhū, we regularly find the Sandhi titles.
In the colophon of the Vidyadhara Kanda at the end of the 20. Sandhi Svayambhū records that his high-spirited wife Amiavvā' (=Amrtāmbā) dictated to him (obviously when he was preparing a copy of his epic, finished partly or wholly) the Vidyādhara Kānda. Similarly we gather from the colophon of the 42. Sandhi' that his second wife named Aiccamvā (Adityambā) dictated to him the Ayodhyā Kända.
Onwards from the 83. Sandhi we find a statement at the end of each Sandhi saying: 'Finished the Sarga number so and so entitled so and so in the supplement to the Paümacariu (Paimaca+ riya-sesa) that was somehow left out by (or that escaped, uvvariya) Svayambhū and that was composed, after the latter's passing away, by his younger son Tribhuvana Svayambhủ under the patronage of Vandarya'. This means that Sandhis 83-90 of PC. were written by Tribhuvana.
In the previous Section we saw that Svayambhu's Ritthanemicariu was felt to be incomplete by Tribhuvana and the wanting portions were supplied by him and later by Yaśaḥkirti. Here in the PC. too we find a similar state of things. Some portions of the narrative were somehow not covered up by Svayambhú and
(1) That the name is Amiavvā and not Sámiavva has been shown on p. 10. (2) Appendix I, Stanza 15. The end of the first half is metrically defective.
Aiccamvi(ya-na)mãe is the most probable emendation. Premi, 1942, 377, thinks that Sandhis 84-90 were Tribhuvana's work and that the 83. Sandhi, excepting possibly some closing Kadavakas, must be attributed (in spite of the colophon!) to Svayambhū, because Tribhuvana's reference to the Rāma-Story as satta-maha-sagg'-angi (Appendix I, stanza 56) having the seven great Sargas as limbs' imply seven Sandhis as his contribution to PC. But this is a mistake. The seven Sargas referred to by Tribhuvana have nothing to do with Tribhuvana's part in the composition of PC. These seven Sargas are just the seven traditionally laid down Adhikaras or topics of the Rāmāyana mentioned by both Vimalasuri: thii-varsa-samuppatti, patthāna-raņam Lavankusuppatti/ nivvänam-aneyabhavā, satta purānettha ahigärä/ / (Paiimacariya I 31) and Ravisena sthitir vamsa-samutpattih prasthānam samyugam tatah/ Lavanāňkusa-sambhitir bhavoktiḥ parinirostih/ Yuktąh sapta Purānesininnadhikară ime smrtāḥ/ (Padmacarita I 43-44).
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
