पृष्ठ:पउमचरिउ.djvu/८४

INTRODUCTION 43 "Trībhuvana deemed it necessary to supply them. This naturally poses a problem for us: How it that both the epics of Svayam- bhū stood in need of supplementation? Was Svayambhū forced to leave them incomplete in spite of his original design or was it that these portions--i.e., the subject matter thereof--added by others being unacceptable to Svayambhū, were left out by him intentionally and hence the two epics, in their original unextended form were complete from his point of view? Opposite opinions on this point have been expressed by scho- lars. Jain' thinks that PC. was complete from Svayambhu's view- point, so that the portion added by Tribhuvana has no more value than that of interpolation. On the other hand he considers RC. in its original form to have remained incomplete possibly because of Svayambhu's unexpected death, so that the performance of "Tribhuvana regarding RC. was necessary to bring the work to completion. The additions, on the other hand, made to RC. by Yaśaḥkirti are considered by Jain as interpolations. Premi", on the other hand, takes the view that both the epics in their unextended form were complete according to Svayam- bhū's plan. The additions made by Tribhuvana to PC, as well as RC. were not desired by Svayambhu to be included in them. The additions made by Yaśahkirti might have been designed, according to Premi, to make good the passages that were possibly found missing or damaged in the MS. of RC. in his possession. For judging the plausibility of these views it is essential to critically evaluate whatever scanty evidence is available to us mostly from the Prasasti and colophon stanzas. In this connection the Stanza' given in the beginning of the 100. Sandhi (or it may be considered to be at the end of the 99. Sandhi) of RC. is very important. It has not been interpreted correctly either by Jain or by Premi. Jain just gives the purport of the stanza. He says", "At the end of Sandhi 99 of the Harivainsa- purāna, we have a verse telling us that the poet proceeded to com- pose the Harivamsapurā after having finished the Paümacariu and yet another work of great merit Suddhayacaria. This informa- tion precludes us from imagining that his Paümacariu was inter- rupted by any calamity like death'. According to Premi the Stanza in question was written by Tribhuvana and not by Svayambhū as Jain is inclined to think. He says, "इस (९९ वी ) सन्धिके अन्तमें एक पद्य है जिसमें कहा है कि पउमचरिउ या सुव्वयचरिउ बनाकर अब मैं हरिवंशकी रचनामें प्रवृत्त होता हूँ, सरस्वतीदेवी मुझे सुस्थिरता देवें । निश्चय ही यह पद्य त्रिभुवन स्वयंभुका लिखा हुआ है और इसमें वे कहते हैं कि पउमचरिउ की अर्थात् उसके शेष भागकी रचनर तो में कर चुका हूँ, उसके बाद अब मैं हरिवंशमें अर्थात उसके भी शेषमें हाथ लगाता हूँ। यदि इस पद्य को हम त्रिभुवनका न मानें तो फिर इस स्थानमें इसकी कोई सार्थकता ही नही रह जाती। हरिवंशकी ९९ सन्धियों बना चुकनं पर स्वयंभुदेव यह कैसे कह सकते हैं कि पउमचरिउ बनाकर अब मैं हरिवंश बनाता हूँ। Both these scholars have failed to understand the words " (1) Jain, 1935, 71-72. (2) Premi. 1942, 376-377, 380-382. (3) Appendix 1, 65. It reads: Kāüma Pomacariyam. Suddhayacariyan ca guna-gan agghaviyam! (4) Jain, 1935, 71. (5) Premi. 1942, 378.