|
The Indian Analyst
|
|
North Indian Inscriptions |
PART B cannot be taken to prove that the artists of Bhārhut were following a text-book different from the Pāli Jātaka as suggested by von Oldenburg. The same holds good for the title Kinnarajātakaṁ (cf. B. 54). That the Pratīka-headings took the place of titles is confirmed by the label yaṁ bramano avayesi (B 51). It is identical with the heading in the Atthavaṇṇanā (J. 62). This way of citation seems to me to be one of the strongest proofs for the still disputed view[1] that originally only the Gāthās of the Jātakas were collected together. Indeed I do not understand how it can be doubted that the original collection contained only the Gāthās. For (1) the stories are arranged according to the number of the Gāthās they contained, (2) they are referred to according to the first Pāda of the first Gāthā, (3) the prose-narration does not agree with the Gāthās in innumerable cases, and (4) the prose-narration handed down to us calls itself a commentary to the Jātaka[2] (Jātakass’ atthavaṇṇana)[3]. 2. Regarding Foucher’s point three it cannot be disputed that there are representations of stories in Bhārhut which are not to be found in the Pāli Jātaka book. But I don’t know why this fact should speak against the use of the Pāli collection by the artists. From amongst the sculptures at Bhārhut that are either not designated as Jātakas in the labels or are totally undesignated, up to now 21 can be identified with certainty and two with probability with the stories occurring in the Pāli Jātaka collection. This, however, does not prove that all similar representations must be taken as Jātakas. The artists may as well have illustrated legends which were never Jātakas or had not become Jātakas at their time. For example this, in my opinion, is the case with the legends, the scene of which was mount Naḍoda. On the other hand, it is scarcely a chance that the 18 scenes, labelled as Jātakas[4], are all to be identified with Jātakas in the Pāli collection. To me this seems to speak decisively for the fact that the artists of Bhārhut worked according to the Pāli Jātaka collection.
This statement could be contradicted, if the sculptures would show differences from the text of the Pāli collection. While discussing such possible cases, it has to be taken into consideration that only such matter can be used for comparison which is proved to be old by the Gāthās and not merely mentioned in the prose-narration. Lanman, JAOS., XVIII, p. 185 opines that the representation of the Ārāmadūsakaj. (Pl. XLV 5) is a good example showing that the sculptural representations agree with the canonical texts in the essentials, but deviate in details: in J. 46 the gardener gives leather bags (chammaṇḍa) and wooden tubs (dārukuṭa) to the apes, in J. 268 leather vessels (chammaghaṭaka) for watering of trees, while in the relief the monkeys use earthen pots in nets suspended from sticks carried on their shoulders. In the Gāthās, which alone are canonical, nothing however is said about the kind of the vessels used. So this can scarcely be called a contradiction.
In the Chammasāṭakaj. (324), the fool pushed down by the ram is, according to the
prose-narration, a religious mendicant carrying a skingarment (chammasāṭako paribbājako
Bārāṇasiyaṁ bhikkhāya charanto). In the Gāthās, however, he is a Brahmin carrying a burden
suspended from a stick (khāribhāra), and the relief (Pl. XLI 1 ; 3) exactly corresponds to it.
[1]e.g. Weller, ɀII., IV, p. 47. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|
