307
THE WRIHATKATHA.
OCT. 4, 1872.]
cessors.” “Sarva proclaimed it first ; Kāmabhūti heard it from the Gana (Pushpadanta-Vararuchi) and told it to Gunādhya who delivered it in his turn his pupils and to Sātavāhana. The story which thus had come to be written in the Pišā
cha language, gave trouble to the readers.
For
this reason it has been rewritten in Sanskrit.”
month, he who was possessed of taste was asked
by the pure-minded Brahman Râmayašas, and thinking over the story in his mind, he composed for the delight of clever persons this river flowing with nectar. He composed this amusing story at the order of the omniscient Devadhara, who
From these verses we learn nothing new beyond
had obtained royalty over the Brahmans.” Though Kshemendra is fuller in his state
the fact that Kshemendra actually had before
ments about himself than Sanskrit poets usually
him the Vrihatkathá, attributed to Gunídhya
are, still it is difficult to fix his age even appro ximately. His Vrihatkathá is quoted in
and written in the Paisàchi dialect.
The re
maining statements are merely a recapitulation of the contents of the Kathâpitha, which I have given above according to Somadeva. But in the concluding
Ślokas the poet gives some further in
formation regarding himself which is highly im portant. He sayst that his father was a wealthy Kashmirian called Ch a n d a who fed number
less Brahmans, who gave on the occasion of an eclipse of the sun three black-buck skins with a lakh each, who dedicated statues in the temple of Śiva, spent 25 lakhs on ‘gods, Brahmans, and Maths,’ and finally died em
bracing Šambhu's emblem. He further informs us that he studied Alaſkāra under Abhinava
gupta, and that, “intent on the worship of Na rāyana he received the highest happiness through
Dhanika's commentary on the Dašarēpaka and
by Dhundhirāja on the Mudrārākshasa.f. If we could trust the quotation in Dhanika’s Avaloka, we should obtain a respectable age for Kshe mendra. For, as Dhanika lived under Munja, it would follow that Kshemendra lived not later
than in the beginning of the 10th century. But unfortunately, the passage of the Avaloka in which the quotation occurs, is given by only one of Dr. Hall’s MSS.
The other two omit
these verses. It may therefore be an interpo lation. The quotation by Dhundhirāja and another in the Sărngadharapaddhati do not carry us beyond the 14th century.S. None of the personages mentioned by Kshemendra are known except his teacher Abhinayagupta.
the dust of the lotus feet of Soma, the illustrious
The latter is cited as an authority on Alaſkāra
Áchārya of the Bhāgavatas.” He further narrates
by Mallinatha and Mammata and Šárngadeva. He therefore appears to have been known in the 12th century.| Whilst it is thus impossible to decide with certainty the question of priority between the
the particular circumstances which led to his taking the Vrihatkathá in hand, in the following manner :-
‘Once, whilst fasting, on the twelfth day of the
kadāchideva viprena dvādas'yāmuposhitah | prărthito rāmayas'asſisarasah svachchhachetasā|| katham etàm anudhyāyan dineshu vipulekshanah |
- Fol 349a (92a) 1.6—
Kanabhatir gunāqhyāya ganāchchhrutvå nyavedayatſ lambhakasamgrahah
ityetam vipulàs'châryām sa rājā satavāhanah'ſ gunadhyachchhishyasahitah samāsādya vrihatkathám | paramritarasakshivo ghârnaman ivānis'am! saptalakshāni námānityabhāt sånus'ayo, muhuh ! seyam haramukhodgirmä kathánugrahākārini | piša'chavachi, patità samjâtà vighnadāyīnī l atah sukhanishevyāsau krità samskritayå girå samām -
---
-
bhuvam ivānità gangá svabhrāyalambinil The word “lambhakasamgrahah’ ought to stand immedi -
-
ately after the enumerations of the Lambhas, given above. + Fol. 249b. (92b.) l. 2, immediately after the passage quoted above.—
vidadhe vibudhānanda sudhāsyandatarangin im . dviparajyapadasthiteh (sthite .)
Fºlº syājñayå chakre kathâm etám vinodinim].
I am far from considering the emendations in the last s"loka as certain.
f See F. E. Hall, Vásavadattá, Introd. p. 55 and Dasaril paka, I. 61. The lines quoted by Hall are thus rendered by my MS. fol. 17a. 1, 6–
Chânikyanāmnâ tenātha sºakutálagrihe rahah | krityám vidhāya saptáhât saputro nihato mripah | yoganande yas'ahs'eshe pârvanandasutastatah | chandragupto dhrito rājye chänikyena mahaujasā||
-
Kasmirakogunadhāraprakas chandābhidhºbhavat
The reading dhritah in the last line for kritah is evidently
nānārthijanasamkalpapürane kalpapādapah|
the better one. Chânikya for Chāhakya, is a mistake of
yasya merorivodărakalyānā(h). purnasampadah aganeyamabhādgehe yasya bhojyam dyiannanim | sūryagrahe tribhirlakshairdattva krishnajinatrayam | alpapradosmityabhayat salajjānatakandharah| svayambhatilaye sºrimânya pratishthāpya devatāh dattvå kotichaturbhāgam. devadvijamathádishul pājayitvå svayam sambhum prasaradväshpanirbharah gādham dorbhyām samålingya yastºtriya vyapadyatal £ºemendranamá tamayastasya vidvatsu vis' rutah | prayātah kavigoshthishu nāmagrahamayogyatámi -
the copyist who, being a Gujarāti, saw no difference bet ween a and i.
§ A prakāsa by Kshemendra a Kashmirian, is quoted by Purushottama, the son of Wallabhāchārya (16th century). Aufrecht, Oºf. Cat. p 38b. This work may possibly be the Lokaprakāsa, written by a Kshemendra, pupil of Vyāsa ; vide Berlin Catalogue, no. 804.
| An Abhinavagupta is also known as one of the teachers of a sect of Saivas.
A work of his is mentioned by Hall,
s’rimadbhāgavatāchārya songpādābīare?ubhih
Catal. p. 199, as well as several works by a pupil of this Saiva called Kshemarāja. It is not unlikely that Kshemarāja may be the same as Kshemendra. But as the works quoted, by Dr. Hall, are not accessible to me, I leave the question
dhanyatām yah parām (ram M.S.).yato nārāyanaparāyanah|
undecided,
s’rutvábhinavaguptăkhyāt sāhityam. bodhayāridheh | achāryas'ekharamaner vidyāvivritikárinah!.
