1.3 What is the Dharmaparīkṣā?
1.3.5 The Dharmaparīkṣā and Dhūrtākhyāna
I have mentioned in my overview of previous studies that the Dharmaparīkṣā is often, if not always, compared to the Dhūrtākhyāna by Haribhadra. This is because the works have a similar set-up, refer to similar purāṇic-epic stories, and both use humour to criticise the Brahmanical tradition. In order to clarify to the reader of this dissertation the basis upon which the two works are compared, I will here explain in a few sentences what kind of text the Dhūrtākhyāna is and by which details it is similar to the Dharmaparīkṣā and how it is different. As a third comparative element, I will give a preliminary statement on how these two texts use humour.
The Dhūrtākhyāna ('The Rogue Tales') is a frame narrative best known in the version by the Śvetāmbara author Haribhadra written in Prakrit in the eighth century.73 In fact, the narrative goes back to the Āvaśyaka literature in the Nisīhavisesacunni (seventh century) and in a condensed form in the Nisīhabhāsa (sixth century), and exists, just like the Dharmaparīkṣā, in several adaptations, including one in old-Gujarati language. The authoritative version is, however, the version by Haribhadra, and it is this text that is said to have inspired the Dharmaparīkṣā (Upadhye 1983: 149). For the plot of this novel, I paraphrase Osier and Balbir (2004: 26):
During the rainy season hundreds of rogues come together in a park near Ujjain.
Their leaders, Mūladeva, Śaśa, Puṇḍarīka, Elāṣādha and Khaṇḍapaṇā, the only woman, decide to play a game of which the reward is a feastmeal for the whole group. The rules of the game are such that each of them has to tell an experience and that the others have to prove its banality by referring to purāṇic or epic stories.
72 My idea of a generic Dharmaparīkṣā is informed by the content as it is in the version by Hariṣeṇa, or in the version by Amitagati without the elements that are particular to his adaptation, though none of the characteristics I describe would not fit the other versions as well.
73 For studies on the Dhūrtākhyāna see Upadhye (1983; 2002), Krümpelmann (2000), Osier and Balbir (2004), and Osier (2005).
Indeed, for each of the narrated experiences the rogues are able to find similarly 'ridiculous' purāṇic legends and thus they must be true. Khaṇḍapāṇa is the last one to share her life experiences. After telling several episodes, which are confirmed, she turns her story thus that she reveals the identity of the other leaders as nothing more than thieves. To this, the male rogues keep quiet and accept their defeat.
Given the way in which I have described the Dharmaparīkṣā so far in this dissertation it should be clear that the biggest similarity between the two plots is the pattern of comparing ridiculous life stories with purāṇic-epic episodes, and that this is done to discredit the purāṇic tradition. What is not evident from the general description of these plots is that also among the stories that are told several are the same or similar. I will here list those stories or references that are similar but refer to my detailed description of the Dharmaparīkṣā-plot below, as well as to Osier and Balbir (2004), Upadhye (2002), and Krümpelmann (2000), for details on their specific place within the Dhūrtākhyāna plot.
Dhūrtākhyāna Dharmaparīkṣā
Mūladeva tells how he was chased by an elephant, even when he fled into a pot.
Fortunately, after he jumped out, the elephant, wanting to follow him out of the pot, got stuck by the hair of his tail. (1)74
Manovega tells how he and his 'brother' were chased by an elephant, even when they fled into a pot. Fortunately, after they jumped out, the elephant, wanting to follow him out of the pot, got stuck by the hair of his tail. (12)
Perplexed by Tilottamā's dance, Brahmā grows four extra heads. (1)
Perplexed by Tilottamā's dance, Brahmā grows four extra heads. The last one is the head of a donkey. (11)
Brahmā and Viṣṇu cannot find the extremities of Śiva's liṅga. (1)
Brahmā is born from Viṣṇu's navel but remains stuck to it (because of his daṇḍa).
(1)
Brahmā and Viṣṇu cannot find the extremities of Śiva's liṅga. (17)
Brahmā is born from Viṣṇu's navel but remains stuck to it (because of his scrotum hair). (13)
The cut-off head of Elaṣādha eats the fruits from a shrub. In the morning villagers join his head to his body again. (3)
Manovega cuts off his own head to eat the fruits in the top of a tree. When the head
74 The numbers refer to the chapter in which this motif occurs.
Lakṣmaṇa and several killed (dismembered) monkeys were healed by Hanumān. (3)
Hanumān rejoins the body of Angada after he was killed by Rāvaṇa's sword. (16) Skanda, who was born in six parts from six
mothers, was united into one. (3)75
Agastya swallowed the ocean. (4) Agastya swallowed the ocean. (13) The monkeys (from the Rāmāyaṇa) built a
bridge across the ocean. (4)
The monkeys (from the Rāmāyaṇa) built a bridge across the ocean. (16)
Kuntī united with the Sun without being burned by him. (5)
Kuntī united with the Sun and remained a virgin. (14)
The wife of Yama united with Agni and was not burned by him. (5)
Chāyā, guarded by Yama, had intercourse with Agni and took him in her belly. (11) Gautama took vengeance on Indra, after he
had seduced his wife Ahalyā. (5)
Gautama took vengeance on Indra, after he had seduced his wife Ahalyā. (11)
Whereas some of these purāṇic-epic references are exactly the same, others are only partly equal.76 It also interesting that the life experience of having his cut-off head eating fruits, as told by Elāṣādhā, is supported by exactly the same stories in the similar invented experience by Manovega. Because of the number of similar motifs and the comparative structure of the plot, Upadhye (1983) is convinced that the Dharmaparīkṣā's supposed original author (Jayarāma) based himself upon Haribhadra's work (149). It is totally plausible, indeed, that any author of a Dharmaparīkṣā after Haribhadra (eighth century) and before Hariṣeṇa's time (tenth century) would have known Haribhadra's work, since we know (also from the Dharmaparīkṣā tradition) that Digambara and Śvetāmbara literature was not strictly divided. However, considering that the 'Rogue Tales' go back to the Āvaśyaka literature, I believe that we should not exclude the possibility that frame narratives of a similar set-up circulated already longer, probably orally, and that two of the literary products engendered by this circulation which we know today, are the ones here compared.77
75 Note that these three just-mentioned stories in both versions are used to support a similar life story. In the Dhūrtākhyāna they support the story of Elāṣāḍha whose head was rejoined to his body after it had been cut off by thieves (see Osier and Balbir 2004: 87-88). In the Dharmaparīkṣā they support the story of Dadhimukha (cf.
infra, p. 70)
76 For example, the reason why Brahmā is stuck to Viṣṇu's navel in the Dhūrtākhyāna is because of the stick and the pot he is holding, whereas in the Dharmaparīkṣā it is his pubic hair that gets stuck in Viṣṇu's navel.
77 I believe that it is probable that when we further unlock the Jain manuscript libraries, we would encounter other stories with such set-up.
After presenting the similarities, I will now indicate significant differences between the two narratives (see also Osier 2005; Upadhye 1983). First, I want to point out the difference in the characters of the two narratives. In the Dhūrtākhyāna there are only rogues telling ridiculous stories. In the Dharmaparīkṣā we have on the one hand the two vidyādharas and on the other hand the Brahmins. The vidyādharas are fictitious figures, popular in Jain kathās and Purāṇas, able to transform into characters that evoke questions in the Brahmins. Especially the lead vidyādhara (Manovega) cannot be blamed for faults because he only makes up stories of fictitious gaffes to confront the Brahmins. This is in contrast to the rogues or Khaṇḍapānā, who even after winning the contest, remains a rogue. As such, next to pointing out the illogicalities of the Brahmanical narratives, the Dharmaparīkṣā is stronger in also guiding the audience towards a correct religious path.
This is moreover emphasised by the interference of a Jain monk from whom our main character has received the authority to teach his friend (and the audience). As said, the Brahmins form the second type of character and are the dialogue partners of our vidyādharas. Their presence makes that there is more at stake for the flying creatures. Not only do they impose fear, but they also make the debate between the two religions very real.78 Unlike in the Dhūrtākhyāna, in the Dharmaparīkṣā the debate between the vaidika affiliates and the Jain affiliates is staged as if it would be in real life, with the difference of the setting and the magical elements. This makes the soteriological effect of the narrative under discussion stronger, since it is easier for the audience to assimilate, and enables the narrative to end with the rules of lay conduct that bring the listeners one step closer to achieving the Jain goal, than in the Dhūrtākhyāna.
Both these narratives are said to be satires (Leumann 1902; Mironow 1903; Upadhye 2002; Osier 2005),79 because they ridicule the Brahmanical belief in the purāṇic and epic corpus.80 Indeed, the humorous element within their plots is evident, but there are important differences in the way this humour works. First of all, the difference in characters influences the humoristic effect. In the Dhūrtākhyāna, there are rogues on both sides of the dialogue. Because of that, we know that we are dealing with untrustworthy characters whose stories we should not believe. However, it is not explicit whether the experiences are true or not, or whether the rogues actually believe in the purāṇic-epic
78 Osier has also noted this (2005: 211-215; see above).
79 Osier actually leaves room for interpretation. He writes 'Satire ou autre genre littéraire, l'essentiel reste: [...]
le recours à la dérision dans la disussion avec les brahmanes sur des points de théologie s'est fait littérairement jour [...] dans les deux courants principaux de la religion jaïna et a abouti à la constitution d'un corpus satirique' (2005: 37).
80 The meaning of satire has undergone several changes in history (see Horstmann and Pauwels' introductory discussion in Horstmann and Pauwels 2012), so that today there is no single agreed upon definition of it.
Sometimes it is strictly associated with classical Greek and Roman culture, but more often it is seen as involved in overturning power structures, although not all 'satires' have that intent. I choose not to go deeper into this discussion and leave an examination of whether or not these texts are satirical for later study. See also fn. 21.
stories. The confrontation of the ridiculous stories of these debased characters with the Brahmanical ones leads to a parody of the latter and highlights the brilliance of the rogues' deceitfulness. This reversal of status adds to the hilarious effect of the narrative.
In the Dharmaparīkṣā Manovega is identified as a faithful Jain. After telling his 'life story', of which we know it is untrue because he fakes being someone else, he supports it by referring to purāṇic-epic stories told by the Brahmins, of whom we know they are the religious opponents. Because of his moral superiority Manovega acquires the personality of a worthy debating partner and even of a teacher. The confrontation of this ridiculous experience and the Brahmanical narrative remains parodic and evokes laughter, but the tone is immediately much more didactic. Secondly, the setting of the Dharmaparīkṣā frames the parodic confrontation as in fact a serious issue. Manovega is afraid for his friend and is therefore advised by a monk to go into these narrative debates with the Brahmins. What is at stake is more than just ridiculing the purāṇic-epic narratives but is to effectuate a significant change in his friend's (and perhaps that of the Brahmins') beliefs. The Dhūrthākhyāna also unmistakably wants to have a similar effect on its audience, but this is only explicit in the final verses of Haribhadra. Therefore, I believe that the humour in both works is slightly different and I suspect that the Dhūrtākhyāna would have been received with more laughter than the Dharmaparīkṣā.81