|
The Indian Analyst
|
|
North Indian Inscriptions |
PART B THE SCULPTURAL REPRESENTATIONS & THE TEXTUAL TRADITION Exactly the same is to be observed in the other commentary literature. In DA. page 674 Buddhaghosa refers to the Sammodamānaj. as Vaṭṭakaj., on page 178 to the Vidhurapaṇḍitaj. as Puṇṇakaj., besides on page 674 to the Daddabhaj. (322) as Paṭhavīuddīyanaj., on page 657 to the Dhammaddhajaj. (384) as Dhammikavāyasaj. In the DhA. in Vol 1, 55 the Sammodamānaj. is called Vaṭṭakaj., in Vol. IV, 83 the Telapattaj. bears the name Takkasilaj., and the Kachchhapaj. (215) is cited in Vol. IV, 92 as Bahubhāṇij. Such fluctuations in the titles of the Jātakas, however, must have existed already in the time when the Bhārhut reliefs were carved. Only in this way indeed it is understandable that in the inscription No. B 42 two labels Biḍalajata[k]a and Kukuṭajataka are given side by side as it were for choice.
The reason for these fluctuations is also recognizable. At the time of the Bhārhut
sculptures these titles were in no way literally fixed, but were used only as convenient short
designations. In the beginning the different Jātakas did not have any real titles. The
first Pāda of the first Gāthā was taken as the heading. This custom has been retained in
the Jātaka-Atthavaṇṇanā, even where, on account of regroupings sometimes made by the
author of the Atthavaṇṇanā, it did not suit any more. In the Vidhurapaṇḍitaj. (545) the
heading is paṇḍū kisiyāsi dubbalā. This is indeed the first Pāda of the first Gāthā in the
proper story of Vidhura and Puṇṇaka, but not of the Jātaka as it stands now in the
Atthavaṇṇanā, because the story of the Chatuposathikaj. (441) from the Dasanipāta precedes
it.[1] Likewise the Kosiyaj. (470) and 9 further Gāthās precede the proper story in the
Sudhābhojanaj. (535)[2]; the title, however, reads naguttame or naguttame girivare, which is the
beginning of the first Gāthā in the proper story[3]. The Mahāummaggaj. (546) opens
in the Atthavaṇṇanā with a whole row of narrations that were independent Jātakas in the
original collection : G. 2[4] belongs to the Sabbasaṁhārakapañha (110), G. 3 to the Gadrabhapañha (111), G. 4-5 belong to the Kakaṇṭakaj. (170), G. 6-7 to the Sirikāḷakaṇṇij. (192),
G. 8-19 to the Meṇḍakaj. (471)[1], G. 20-40 to the Sirimandaj. (500), G. 41 to the Amarādevīpañha (112)[5], G. 43-47 to the Khajjopanakaj. (364), G. 48-57 to the Bhūripañhaj. (452),
G. 58-61 to the Devatāpañhaj. (350), G. 62-83 to the Pañchapaṇḍitaj. (508).[6] The proper
Mahāummaggaj. begins only with Gāthā 84 and the Pratīka of this Gāthā Pañchālo sabhasenāya therefore still appears in the Atthavaṇṇanā as the title. I regard it as most probable
that the combination of several Jātakas had been undertaken by the author of the Atthavaṇṇanā himself who in this way wished to avoid repetitions in the prose-narrations. This
regrouping will scarcely have been accomplished at the time of the origin of the Bhārhut
sculptures. The label yavamajhakiyaṁ jatakaṁ (cf. B 52) will therefore not refer to the
Mahāummaggaj. in its present form, but will only be the title of the story of Mahosadha
and Amarādevī. This story, on account of its containing only one Gāthā (41), originally
stood as J. 112 in the Ekanipāta where it is at present mentioned under the title Amarādevīpañha or Chhannapathapañha totally unsuitable for the story handed down to us in the
Jātaka collection. The title Yavamajjhakīyaṁ jātakaṁ therefore, according to my opinion,
[1]G. 11 has probably been taken from the Sirimandaj. (500). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|
