Shripal Parivarno Kuldharma

This document is an analysis of the religious affiliation of the Shripal family, focusing on the poet Shripal, his son Siddhpala, and grandson Vijaypal. The author, Madhusudan Dhaky, critically examines the arguments presented by Shrimad Shantikumar Pandya, who posits that Shripal and his descendants were Hindu, rather than Jain, as is commonly believed by many Jain scholars.

Arguments for Shripal and his family being Jain:

• Prevailing Scholarly Opinion: Many prominent Jain scholars, including Muni Jinvijay, Mohanlal Dalichand Desai, Muni Kalyanvijay, and others, have identified Shripal, Siddhpala, and Vijaypal as followers of Jainism.
• Shripal's Works:
  • Praise inscription for the renovation of the Bilpank Shiva temple (Samvat 1198/1142 CE).
  • Praise inscription for the Vadnagar prakara built by Kumarpal (Samvat 1208/1152 CE).
  • Shripal's research on Hemachandra's Nabhēya Nēmidvisandhānakāvya.
  • Chaturvishati Jin Stavan (Praise of the 24 Tirthankaras) composed by Shripal.
  • Although lost, inscriptions mention his praise works for the Sahasralinga-tataak built by Siddharaj and the Rudramahalaya in Siddhpur, as well as a literary work called Vairochanaparajaya.
• Siddhpala's Contributions:
  • Built a Poushadhashala (Jain fasting hall).
  • His lost work is mentioned by Somaprabhacharya, which referred to the Ujjayantgiri Tirth (Shatrunjaya).
• Vijaypal's Work:
  • Draupadi Swayamvar (a play).
• Later Accounts: While not contemporary, the Prabhavakcharit of Prabhachandrasuri and Prabandhachintamani of Merutunagacharya provide more details about Shripal's life.
• Siddhpala's Poushadhashala and Vijaypal's Works: The construction of a Poushadhashala by Siddhpala and Vijaypal's engagement with Jain themes are seen as indicators of their Jain faith.
• Shripal's Chaturvishati Jin Stuti: Dhaky argues that the style, terminology, and structure of this work align perfectly with Jain devotional literature, citing the use of end-rhyme, the four-fold invocation (Jina, Jināgama, Saraswati, and self-identification), and the focus on spiritual qualities rather than physical attributes, which are characteristic of Jain stotras. He contrasts this with typical Brahmanical hymns.
• The use of "Sambhav" vs. "Shambhav": Dhaky refutes Pandya's argument that Shripal's use of "Sambhav" for the third Tirthankara indicates a Hindu leaning. He provides extensive evidence showing that "Shambhav" was a common form used by many Jain poets, including those from earlier centuries, and its use does not necessarily imply a non-Jain origin.

Arguments by Shantikumar Pandya (and Dhaky's counter-arguments):

• Pandya's Argument (1): Vijaypal's Draupadi Swayamvar praises Hindu deities (Shiva, Vishnu, Krishna).
  • Dhaky's Counter: Plays performed in Brahmanical settings, even by Jain authors, often included invocations to Hindu deities as per convention and the context. He cites the example of Jain author Jayasinh Suri's play performed in a Shiva temple with invocations to Brahma, Vishnu, and Mahesh, and Bilhana's play performed during a Jain festival with Jinastuti. He also notes the possibility of conversion, referencing instances of religious shifts during the Vaghela era.
• Pandya's Argument (2): Shripal's Vadnagar Prakara Prashasti praises Brahmanical elements (Shiva, Ganesha, Devi, Brahmins, Vedic chants) and compares kings to Vishnu and Hari.
  • Dhaky's Counter: This praise reflects the context of a civic architectural work (a fort) rather than a religious monument. Fortifications often feature protective deities like Ganesha and fierce deities for defense. The praise of Brahmins and Vedic chants is contextualized by Vadnagar being a significant center for Nagar Brahmins and Vedic traditions. He argues that the purpose was to honor the patrons and the cultural context, not necessarily to express personal religious devotion. Dhaky emphasizes that architectural inscriptions often incorporate local or patronal religious elements without defining the author's personal faith. He points out that Brahmanical poets like Someshwar praised Jain temples, and Jain monks composed inscriptions for Shiva temples, demonstrating that context dictates the devotional content.
• Pandya's Argument (3): Shripal's praise of Shiva in Prabhavakcharit shows his Hindu devotion. The Prāgvata community (to which Shripal belonged) included both Jains and Vaishnavas.
  • Dhaky's Counter: While Prāgvats are now both Jain and Vaishnav, medieval Prāgvata inscriptions are predominantly Jain. He argues that if Shripal were Vaishnav, the Bhagavata preceptor Devabodha would not have mocked him as described in the Prabhavakcharit. He also cautions against taking biographical accounts in Prabandhas as strictly factual. He suggests that Shripal's praise of Shiva might be literary embellishment influenced by his courtly role, similar to how Hemachandra praised Somnath.

Dhaky's Overall Conclusion:

Dhaky argues that while Pandya's observations are insightful and his approach is meticulous, his conclusions about Shripal and his family being Hindu are not strongly supported by the evidence when viewed in the broader context of the Solanki period and Jain literary traditions. Dhaky emphasizes the need for direct and solid evidence to overturn the established scholarly consensus. He believes that the adherence to Jain literary conventions in Shripal's Chaturvishati Jin Stuti and the other contextual factors strongly suggest their Jain affiliation. The author concludes by commending Pandya's rigorous research but maintains that the evidence leans towards the Shripal family being Jain.