Tathakathit Harivanshchariyam Ki Vimal Kartuta Ek Prashna

Here's a comprehensive summary of the Jain text "Tathakathit Harivanshchariyam ki Vimal Kartuta Ek Prashna" by Gulabchandra Chaudhary:

This article critically examines the assertion that Vimalasuri, the author of the Prakrit epic Paumacariya, also authored a Harivamsa Charita. The author, Gulabchandra Chaudhary, argues against this widely held belief, tracing its origins and presenting evidence to refute it.

The discussion begins by noting that after the German scholar Hermann Jacobi published Vimalasuri's Paumacariya in 1914, comparative studies between it and Raviṣena's Sanskrit Padmacarita emerged. Prominent scholars like Nathuram Premi and Parmanand Shastri wrote articles in the 1940s discussing the similarities and differences between these two works. However, the question of Vimalasuri's authorship of a Harivamsa Charita was not addressed at that time.

The origin of this hypothesis is attributed to Nathuram Premi's Jain Sahitya aur Itihas (1942). Based on a verse from the introductory section of Udyotanuri's Kuvalayamala (written around 700 CE), Premi suggested the possibility of a Harivamsa Charita by Vimalasuri. The verse in question reads: "बुहयणसहस्सदइयं हरिवंसुप्पत्तिकारयं पढमं । वंदामि वंदियं पि हु हरिवंसं चेव विमलपयं ॥" (I bow to the esteemed, the first creator of the origin of Harivamsa, pleasing to thousands of scholars, and also to the Harivamsa which is of the Vimala school). Premi interpreted "Vimalapada" as referring to a Harivamsa composed by Vimalasuri. At that time, this was a mere conjecture, as the verse was not thoroughly examined for its context and the text itself was not widely available.

Dr. Jyotiprasad Jain further advocated for this theory, suggesting that the Paumacariya's colophon, which mentions "सोऊण पुन्वगए नारायणसीरिचरियाई" (Having heard the earlier Charitas of Narayana-Shri), implied that Vimalasuri had composed a Harivamsa (the Charita of Narayana-Krishna) even before his Paumacariya. He also pointed to Svayambhu's (a contemporary of Udyotanuri) mention of Vimalasuri as an ancient poet and suggested that Svayambhu's Retthemi Charu (a Harivamsa) might also be based on Vimalasuri's lost work, as was his Ramayana on the Paumacariya. He even speculated that Jinaseṇa's Harivamsa (783 CE) might have Vimalasuri's work as its source.

However, Dr. V.M. Kulkarni, in the English introduction to Paumacariya, countered Dr. Jyotiprasad Jain's interpretation. Kulkarni clarified that the word "सीरि" (Shri) in the colophon referred to Baladeva or Haladhara, Krishna's elder brother, and that "Narayana and Shri" in this context likely represented Lakshmana and Rama, thus indicating the trustworthiness of the sources for Paumacariya rather than a prior composition of a Harivamsa. Kulkarni also doubted Svayambhu's specific mention of "Vimalasuri" in the passage, stating that the name "Vimalasuri" was not explicitly mentioned.

The author then delves into the critical textual analysis of the Kuvalayamala verse that formed the basis of Premi's hypothesis. At the time Premi made his conjecture, only one manuscript of Kuvalayamala from the 15th century was known. This manuscript contained verses 27-44 in its introductory section, where Udyotanuri respectfully mentions various Jain and non-Jain poets and their works.

The verse identified as verse 36 states: "विमलांकने जैसा विमल अर्थ प्राप्त किया वैसा कौन पायेगा, उसकी प्राकृत रससे सरस मानों अमृतमयी हो।" (Who will find such pure meaning as Vimalanka obtained, his Prakrit rasa is like nectar). This clearly refers to the Paumacariya by its author, Vimalasuri (whose name appears as Vimalanka). Following this is a verse mentioning Rajarshi Devagupta as the author of Sapurushacharita. Crucially, the verse "बुहयणसहस्सदइयं हरिवंसुप्पत्तिकारयं पढमं । वंदामि वंदियं पि हु हरिवंसं चेव विमलपयं ॥" is not immediately after the verse about Vimalanka but is separated by the verse about Devagupta. The author argues that if Udyotanuri intended to highlight Vimalasuri as the author of Harivamsa Charita, it would have been mentioned in sequence with the verse about Vimalanka, thus avoiding the repetition of "Vimalapada." The interposition of another verse suggests that "Harivamsa chev Vimalapada" does not refer to Vimalasuri's Harivamsa. Instead, the altered sequence suggests that the Harivamsa Charita mentioned here is not by Vimalasuri but by someone else.

The situation changed significantly with the discovery of another manuscript of Kuvalayamala from the Jain Bhandar in Jaisalmer, dated to 1139 CE. This manuscript proved to be more authentic than the earlier paper manuscript. Based on this palm-leaf manuscript, Dr. Upadhye prepared a critical edition of Kuvalayamala. Dr. Upadhye corrected the controversial reading in the verse from "हरिवंसं चेव विमलपयं" to "हरिवरिसं चेव विमलपर्यं" (Harivarsa chev Vimalaparyam). He considered the original reading "Harivamsa chev" to be redundant due to the preceding phrase "Harivansuppattikarakam" and disruptive to the meaning. The corrected reading translates to: "I bow to Harivarsa, who is dear to learned people, the first cause of the origin of Harivamsa, truly venerable, for his pure (explanations)." This corrected reading completely negates the claim of Vimalasuri's authorship of Harivamsa.

The author highlights that Dr. Upadhye discussed this with Pandit Premi, who was inclined to revise his earlier conjecture but couldn't due to his old age when the second edition of Jain Sahitya aur Itihas was published. Despite the revised edition, the possibility was not explicitly refuted in its introduction.

The article concludes by stating that even after the publication of Kuvalayamala, some scholars, such as Dr. V.M. Kulkarni and Pandit Amritlal Bhojak, continued to repeat the old conjecture without critical examination. The author reiterates that Vimalasuri's authorship of Harivamsa Charita is not proven; instead, the mentioned author of Harivamsa is Harivarsa. The author suggests that if Harivarsa's Harivamsa Charita was extant in Udyotanuri's time, it would have influenced Kuvalayamala and subsequently Jinaseṇa's Harivamsa Purana. By comparing Kuvalayamala with Jinaseṇa's Harivamsa, one might infer the nature of Harivarsa's lost work and shed light on the sources of Jinaseṇa's Harivamsa. The author notes that Jinaseṇa's Harivamsa Purana, accepted by the Digambara tradition, contains certain unique aspects that warrant further investigation into its origins. Finally, the author suggests that Harivarsa's Harivamsa Charita could have been in Sanskrit, Prakrit, or any other language, as Udyotanuri equally referenced poets from Sanskrit and Prakrit.