Tarangvati Tatha Padliptasuri Jain Ke Ajain

Here's a comprehensive summary in English of the provided Jain text, focusing on the debate surrounding the authorship and nature of the Tarangavati story and its relation to Padliptasuri:

Book Title: Tarangvati tatha Padliptasuri Jain ke Ajain? (Is Tarangavati and Padliptasuri Jain or Non-Jain?) Author: Shilchandrasuri Publisher: ZZ_Anusandhan Source: JAIN EDUCATION INTERNATIONAL FOR PRIVATE AND PERSONAL USE ONLY

This article by Shilchandrasuri engages in a scholarly debate about the origins and author of the Tarangavati story and its attributed author, Padliptasuri. The central question is whether Padliptasuri was a Jain scholar and if the Tarangavati narrative is inherently a Jain work.

The Core of the Debate:

The article begins by acknowledging that the Tarangavati-Taranglolā kathā is a valuable gem in Prakrit language literature. It's renowned in Indian literature and has gained international fame over the last two centuries. The original, extensive version of Tarangavati is attributed to Acharya Padliptasuri, believed to have created it in the early centuries CE. However, the original detailed work is now lost, with only a summarized version titled 'Sankhittatarangavai-kaha' by Acharya Nemichandrasuri (likely from the 10th century) available. Extensive scholarly work has been done on these texts, with Dr. Harivallabh Bhayani's annotated edition being considered authoritative.

Professor Narottam Palan's Argument:

The article then introduces Professor Narottam Palan's recent contention that Tarangavati was originally a non-Jain (likely folk or Charani) narrative that was later adapted and converted into a Jain story by a Jain monk. Palan's key arguments, as presented in his article "Gujarat's First Prakrit Story and Poetry," are:

• Adaptation of Folk Tales: Folk tales are often adapted by religious propagators to suit their respective religions. Jain and Buddhist storytellers, naturally not experiencing love or war (Shringara or Veera rasa), would naturally incorporate these elements if they were present in the original folk tales. The presence of war and love descriptions in Jain and Buddhist stories suggests a transformation from original secular tales.
• Tarangavati's Jain Transformation: Palan speculates that this happened with Tarangavati, the first Prakrit story created in Gujarat. Although the original Tarangavati by Padlipta is not available, a story called Taranglolā, created by a Jain scholar based on Tarangavati, is extant. Palan suggests that the original story likely underwent revisions over time, with the addition of 'rebirth' (punarjanma) – a favored element in Jain narratives. He also suggests that the author's name might have been embellished with titles like 'Acharya' and 'Suriji' later.
• K.H. Dhruv's Support: Palan cites K.H. Dhruv, who stated that the author of Tarangavati, Palit or Shripalit, was likely non-Jain. Dhruv's reasoning is based on an 8th-century work, Haribhadrasuri's 'Shishyahiṭā' (a commentary), which includes Tarangavati in the context of non-Jain literature. Dhruv also notes that Nemichandra Gani's disciple, Yash, gave Jain initiation under the name Taranglolā.
• Chronological Shift: Palan posits that secular tales existed before the destruction of Vallabhi, and Jain tales emerged after it. The Jain version's upper limit can be traced to the 15th century. He believes parts of Padlipta and Nagarjuna's stories are later additions. The Jain version of the original story likely occurred after the 8th century CE, and it took 500-700 years to reach its current form.
• Inability to Depict Rasas: Palan argues that Jain monks, being detached and non-passionate (viragi-vitaraagi), would be unfamiliar with Shringara (love) and Veera (heroism) rasas and thus incapable of describing them. The presence of these in Tarangavati further supports its non-Jain origin.
• Haribhadra's Commentary: Palan points out that Haribhadra, in his Shishyahiṭā commentary, described this story as "itar" (non-Jain).
• Fictitious Connection: Palan also considers the connection between the Jain Padlipta and Nagarjuna to be fictitious.

Shilchandrasuri's Rebuttal and Defense of Jain Authorship:

Shilchandrasuri then proceeds to critically examine and refute Palan's claims:

• Dr. Bhayani's Stance: Shilchandrasuri asserts that Dr. Harivallabh Bhayani has clearly established Padlipta as a Jain Acharya and Tarangavati as his creation in his 'Anulekh'. If Padlipta were non-Jain or the story secular, a scholar like Bhayani would not have accepted and presented them as 'Jain' without question.
• Bhayani on Composition Period: Bhayani has also established the composition period of Tarangavati to be within the early centuries CE.
• Bhayani on Original vs. Summary: Refuting Palan's claim that Tarangavati is non-Jain and its summary is the Jain version, Shilchandrasuri quotes Bhayani:
  • The summary explicitly states that the compiler selected verses from Padlipta's original stories.
  • Therefore, the verses in the summary are largely verbatim from the original Tarangavati.
  • Bhayani further supports this by noting that Bhadresha's 'Kāhāvali' contains 425 verses of Tarangavati, of which 255 verses (60%) are verbatim with the summary. The remaining verses also show partial similarity. Considering the subject matter, these parts are likely from the original work, not Bhadresha's additions. Thus, verses common to both are undoubtedly Padlipta's, and most of the remaining verses in the summary can also be attributed to him.
• Bhayani on the Compiler's Identity and Time: Shilchandrasuri presents Bhayani's notes on the compiler of the Tarangavati summary:
  • If the summary's compiler is the scribe Yash, disciple of Virabhadrasuri, then the compiler is unknown.
  • The time of the summary is also uncertain, but if the mentioned Nemichandra and the commentator of Dhanapala's 'Usabhapanchasiya' are the same person, then the summary can be placed before the end of the 10th century. The summary being in Prakrit supports an earlier time.
  • The script in the manuscript of the summary (specifically the letter 'इ') indicates a script from the 11th-12th century, suggesting the manuscript used as a basis was from around the 12th century.
• Palan's Claims Inconsistent with Bhayani: Shilchandrasuri concludes that Palan's arguments are automatically proven inconsistent based on Bhayani's cited notes.
• Jain Scholars' Competence in Rasas: Shilchandrasuri dismisses Palan's assertion about Jain monks' inability to depict Shringara and Veera rasas as a sign of Palan's ignorance of the complete life and works of Jain creators. He states that excellent descriptions of these rasas by Jain monks are found in numerous Puranic and medieval Jain works. The Jain practice is to conclude the description of these rasas with detachment and non-attachment (vitaraagata). To deem them incapable of such description, and thus label Padlipta as non-Jain solely on this basis, is a laughable notion.
• Haribhadra's Commentary Reinterpreted: Shilchandrasuri clarifies the context of Haribhadrasuri's Shishyahiṭā commentary. He states that the sentence cited by Dhruv is not present in the commentary on the Dashavaikālika Sūtra, which Dhruv might have been referring to. Instead, in the commentary on the Dashavaikālika Sūtra, Haribhadrasuri describes Tarangavati as follows (on page 114): "In the world, like in the Rāmāyaṇa, etc., in the Vedas, in sacrificial rites etc., in the Samaya (period/tradition), like in Tarangavati etc. [are found mixed tales]." He explains that Haribhadrasuri uses examples of mixed tales (narratives combining Dharma, Artha, and Kama) when illustrating the three types of narratives described by the Niyukti commentator. Haribhadrasuri mentions Rāmāyaṇa, Vedas, and Tarangavati as examples from the world, Vedas, and the Jain tradition, respectively. The article notes that the commentary (Churṇi) on the Dashavaikālika Sūtra, written by Haribhadra's predecessor, states the same.
• Padlipta and Nagarjuna Connection: While the connection between Padlipta and Nagarjuna might be considered fictitious by some, it is a prevalent notion in Jain chronicles. Jain chronicles often mix history and tradition. However, Shilchandrasuri asserts that both figures are historical, and the experts must determine the nature and historicity of their connection.

Conclusion:

The article concludes that Tarangavati is indeed the creation of a Jain muni, and Padlipta is a Jain Acharya's name. Padlipta was not from the Charana community, nor did he appropriate the works of Charana poets. Shilchandrasuri admonishes against being biased towards Charana poets and consequently discrediting Jain poets and their works. The greatness of a poet is proven by their creations, a fact that should always be remembered.