Tathakathit Harivanshchariyam Ki Vimalsuri Kartuta Ek Prashna

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text in English:

The article "Tathakathit Harivanshchariyam ki Vimalsuri Kartuta: Ek Prashna" (The so-called authorship of Harivanshcharitam by Vimalsuri: A Question) by the late Dr. Gulabchandra Chaudhary discusses a scholarly debate regarding the authorship of a "Harivansh Charitam" by Vimalsuri.

The discussion begins by mentioning the early 20th-century German scholar Hermann Jacobi's 1914 edition of Vimalsuri's Prakrit epic "Paumacariya" (Padma Charitra). Subsequently, comparative studies between Vimalsuri's work and Raviṣeṇa's Sanskrit "Padma Charitra" (Padma Purana) emerged. In 1942, Pandit Nathuram Premi published an article titled "Padma Charitam aur Paumachariyam" and Pandit Parmanand Shastri wrote "Paumacariya ka Antahparikshan," both analyzing the similarities and differences between these two epics. However, these articles did not shed light on whether Vimalsuri authored any other works.

Premi, in his 1942 work "Jain Sahitya aur Itihas," initially refuted the possibility of a Vimalsuri, the author of "Prashnottar Malika," being the same as the author of "Paumacariya." However, in an appendix to the same book, he raised the possibility that Vimalsuri might have authored a "Harivansh Charitam." This was based on a gatha (verse) from the introduction of Udyotanuri's then-unpublished work "Kuvalayamala" (dated Shak Samvat 700). The verse is quoted as: "Buhayanasahassadayim Harivamsuapattikārayam paḍamam | Vamdāmi vandiyam pi hu Harivamsaṁ cheva Vimalapayam ||"

Premi interpreted this gatha to mean that Vimalsuri was the creator of the "Harivansh" (genealogy of Krishna's lineage) and that this work, though not yet found, might have influenced Jinaseṇa's "Harivansh," just as Raviṣeṇa's "Padma Purana" might have been inspired by Vimalsuri's "Paumacariya." This speculation by the respected Premi went unchallenged for a significant period.

Later, Dr. Jyotiprasad Jain, in an article before 1957, supported this possibility. He argued that the gatha indicated Vimalsuri was not only the author of "Paumacariya" ("Vimālāṅka kāvya") but also the first author of the "Harivansh Purana." He cited a phrase from the "Paumacariya" prologue, "Soūṇa puvva-gae Nārāyaṇasirichariyāi," suggesting that Vimalsuri had composed the life of Narayana (Krishna Charita or Harivansh) even before "Paumacariya." Dr. Jyotiprasad Jain also claimed that Svayambhū, a contemporary Apabhramsha poet, remembered Vimalsuri as an ancient poet and that Svayambhū's "Riṭṭhanemicariu" (Harivansh) might also be based on Vimalsuri's Harivansh, as was his Rama epic based on "Paumacariya." He further suggested that Jinaseṇa's "Harivansh" (783 CE) might also have Vimalsuri's work as its basis.

However, Dr. V. M. Kulkarni, the author of the English introduction to "Paumacariya," strongly refuted Dr. Jyotiprasad Jain's interpretation. Kulkarni explained that the word "sir" in the cited verse was misunderstood. It refers to Baladeva or Haladhara, Krishna's elder brother, implying Lakshmana and Rama in the context of the Paumacariya. Therefore, Vimalsuri was merely indicating the trustworthiness of his source for "Paumacariya." Kulkarni also doubted Dr. Jyotiprasad Jain's assertion about Svayambhū's homage to Vimalsuri, noting that the name "Vimalsuri" is not explicitly mentioned in the relevant passage.

The article then revisits Premi's original basis for the speculation: the gatha from "Kuvalayamala." At the time of Premi's writing (around 1942), only one manuscript of "Kuvalayamala" was known, dated to the 15th century. The introduction of "Kuvalayamala" (verses 27-44) mentions various Jain and non-Jain poets and their works. The article focuses on two specific verses. Verse 36, for instance, praises "Vimālāṅka," likely referring to "Paumacariya." The subsequent verse mentions Rajarshi Devgupta as the author of "Supurushacharita." Following these, the problematic verse "Buhayanasahassadayim" appears.

Premi interpreted "Harivamsaṁ cheva Vimalapayam" as referring to a "Harivansh" by Vimalsuri. However, the author of the current article argues against this interpretation. He points out the sequence of verses: the verse mentioning "Vimālāṅka" (Paumacariya) is followed by one mentioning Devgupta, and then the verse in question. If Udyotanuri intended to credit Vimalsuri with a "Harivansh Charitam" at that point, it would have been mentioned consecutively. The interpolation of Devgupta's mention breaks this continuity. The author argues that the phrase "Harivamsaṁ cheva Vimalapayam" should not be interpreted as Vimalsuri's Harivansh due to this disrupted order. Instead, it suggests the "Harivansh Charitam" was by someone else.

The article emphasizes how a strained interpretation of a verse led to a widespread, yet unsupported, tradition.

A significant development occurred in late 1942 when a palm-leaf manuscript of "Kuvalayamala," dated 1139 CE, was discovered. Dr. Upadhye prepared a more authentic edition based on this manuscript, with the first part published in 1959. Dr. Upadhye considered the palm-leaf manuscript more authentic than the earlier paper manuscript. Crucially, based on the palm-leaf manuscript, he corrected the problematic phrase to "Harivarisaṁ cheva Vimalapayam." Dr. Upadhye considered the "Harivarisaṁ cheva" portion redundant due to the preceding phrase "Harivamsuapattikārakam" (creator of the Harivansh origin) and deemed it to be an error. He interpreted the verse as a salutation to "Harivarsha" for his "Vimalapada" (pure expressions). This correction completely invalidated the claim of Vimalsuri's authorship of the Harivansh.

Dr. Upadhye discussed this with Pandit Premi during his lifetime, and Premi was inclined to change his earlier stance. However, due to his old age, he couldn't revise the second edition of "Jain Sahitya aur Itihas" published in 1956 to reflect this. The author notes with surprise that Dr. Upadhye, despite writing an English introduction to the revised "Kuvalayamala," did not address this issue there.

Despite these findings, some scholars have continued to perpetuate the speculation about Vimalsuri's Harivansh authorship in their introductions. The article concludes that Vimalsuri's authorship of Harivansh is not proven; rather, the mentioned author is "Harivarsha."

The article further suggests that if Harivarsha's "Harivansh Charitam" existed during Udyotanuri's time, it would have influenced "Kuvalayamala" and subsequently Jinaseṇa's "Harivansh Purana." By comparing "Kuvalayamala" with Jinaseṇa's "Harivansh," one might infer the nature of Harivarsha's lost work and shed light on the source of Jinaseṇa's Harivansh. The article notes the importance of tracing the original of Jinaseṇa's Harivansh, as it contains certain elements that are contrary to the Digambara tradition, such as references to Mahavira's marriage, Narada's liberation, and Krishna encouraging the creation of false idols to increase his prestige.

Finally, the article posits that Harivarsha's "Harivansh Charitam" could have been in Sanskrit, Prakrit, or any other language, as Udyotanuri mentioned both Sanskrit and Prakrit poets equally.