पृष्ठ:पउमचरिउ.djvu/८३

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-suovaya-titthań namāmi, Jujjha-Kandan nisāmeha. '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: Juj- jha-kandam samattam Jyestha Vadi í Some: Finished the Yaddha: 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: Pratha- mañ Parva. Its significance is not clear. The first Kānda is com- pleted with the 20. Sandhi. The 13. Sandhi does not seem to mar- kedly round off the foregoing matter so that the first 13. Sandhis can form a definite unit. Puşpadanta has regularly given separate titles to the indivi- dual Sandhis of his Mahapunāna. Svayambhū only casually assigns a title to individual Sandhis. Thus in the Vidyādhara- Kānda, Sandhis 1, 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 Kāņda at the end of the 20. Sandhi Svayambhū records that his high-spirited wife Amiavva' (=Amrtamba) dictated to him (obviously when he was preparing a copy of his epic, finished partly or wholly) the Vid- yadhara Kānda. Similarly we gather from the colophon of the 42. Sandhi' that his second wife named Aiccamvā (Adityāmbā) dic- tated to him the Ayodhya Kanda. Onwards from the 83. Sandhi we find a statement at the end of each Sandhi saying: Finished the Sarga number so and so en- titled so and so in the supplement to the Paümacariu (Paümacat riya-sesa) that was somehow left out by (or that escaped, uvva- riya) Svayambhū and that was composed, after the latter's pass- ing away, by his younger son Tribhuvana Svayambhú under the patronage of Vandaïya'. This means that Sandhis 83-90 of PC. were written by Tribhuvana'. In the previous Section we saw that Svayambhū's Rițțhaņemi- cariu 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 Svayambhū and (1) That the name is Amjavvă and not Säriavva has been shown on p. 10. (2) Appendix I, Stanza 15. The end of the first half is metrically defective. Aiccamvi(ya-na)mõe is the most probable emendation. (3) Premi, 1942, 377, thinks that Sandhis 84-90 were Tribhuvana's work and that the 83. Sandhi, excepting possibly some closing Kadavakas, must be attribut- ed (in spite of the colophon!) to Svayambhū, because Tribhuvana's refer- ence to the Rama-Story as satta-maha-sagg-angi (Appendix 1, stanza 56) 'having the seven great Sargas as limbs' imply seven Sandhis as his contri- bution 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 Adhika- ras or topics of the Ramayana mentioned by both Vimalasuri: thii-vansa-samuppatti, patthana-ranan Lavankusuppatti/ nivvånam-aneyabhada, sat:a puranettha ahigara/ /* (Paümacariya I 31) and Ravişena sthitir vamsa-samutpattiḥ prasthanam samyugam tataḥ/ Lavanankuća-sambhiti bhavoktih pariniruștih/ Yuktak sapta Puranesmian. adhikari ime smrtáh/ (Padmacarita I 43-44).