7. Dhanapala’s relation with Bhoja

Munja, as has been noted above, honoured Dhanapala in his court. But it is not certain whether he enjoyed the same favour from Munja's successor Sindhuraja, who, as has been described by Padmagupta alias' parimala, ruled from Ujjayini, though Dhara also might have been continued as one of the seats of the sovereign. Otherwise why should Sindhuraja ask Parimala, instead of Dhanapala, to compose an epic on his life history? Dhanapala could not have been converted to Jainism by that time. It was after at least twelve years of Bhoja's rule that Dhanapala was won over by Jainism. This might have been possibly 66.Peterson’s Reports 6.17.111: samuvaca tatah sriman dhanapalah sriyam nidhih | pratimantri gaya jaino dharmah sad gati hetave || ; also vs. 322:... jehidharma evam sthitah sada || 32|| . 111 *

19 after A.D.1111. Before that he was a staunch Brahmin scholar well-versed in the Veda, Smrti,stoma and sacrificial = ritual. By this time Dhanapala must have been 68 at least fifty seven years of age. Till then his relation wit with Bhoja must have been very cordial and he was considered as one of the indespensable scholars of Bhoja's famous assembly of five hundred pundits. But, according to the Jain tradition as preserved in the Prabhavaka-charita and Prabandha Chintamani, this relation steadily deteriorated after the change of faith on the part of a well-versed staunch Brahmin like Dhanapala whom the Jains considered as a valuable asset and a worthy defender of their faith - rather worthier in that he was a royally recognized superior to all other pundits of Bhoja's court and a prized product of the Brahmanical faith in which they were trying to make inroads. This must have put Bhoja himself on the defensive in favour of the Brahmanical religion, a staunch votary of which he himself was.The anecdota about the dialogues between Bhoja and Dhanapala cdote 68.67.Prabhavaka-charita,17.53: vedasmrti srutistomaparagah pandito'grajah | krtya krtyesu nisnatah www -119311 - - 68.This is in view of the discussion in the next chapter where the year of Dhanapala's birth is tentatively fixed at about 955 A.D., and Bhoja was coronated by about 999 A.D. After twelve years, i.e. by about 1011-12, Sobhana could not have met Dhanapala, who must, then, be about fifty-seven years or age.

20 seem to emphasize the elocutionary skill and a superior convincing power of Dhanapala who is ever shown to have defending defended Jainism and deprecated Brahmanical Hinuism. The dialogues generally concern such aspects of the Brahmanical faith as the status of siva as a yogi par excellance inspite of his having married with Parvati, the violence involved in the sacrificial ritual, the cow-worship, the practice of hunting, the ceremony of investing Mahakala with sacred *k**** fibre-garland (pavitraropana), the superiority of the Jain faith and of its founder Tirthankaras to the Brahmanical gods, and, above all this, the bold outspokenness and staunchness of Dhanapala in favour of his newly acquired Jain faith. The following incidents have been preserved by the popular Jain tradition as a proof of his having gradually go acquired considerable staunchness in his 6.9 faith. (1) Once when Dhanapala accompanied Bhoja to the Mahakala temple (probably at Ujjayini), the poet would not come in front of the image of Siva even though he 67. PRCE 17.117 : kramena dhanapaladha dharmatattvavicaksanah | drdha samyakatvanisthabhirdhvasta mithya matirbabhau || 113 ||

21 was called thrice by the king.When the latter asked the reason, Dhanapala replied that as the god was in company of his bride he felt ashamed to witness it. Of course he used to visit the temple before he acquired the "true faith",i.e. * Jainism, but that was because he 71 was as ignorant as a child then? 1 He further added that it was the ancient sensuous people like the king who had, on the strength of their regal power started such 72. an absurd worship of male and female organs. The king, however, thought that the poet was rather joking, though, 73 according to Bhoja, the joke had a grain of truth in it! This seems to have occured very shortly after Dhanapala's conversion to Jainism as is evident from the question of the king, who is clearly surprised, as to why the poet had been paying homage to the same Mahakala for so 74 long a time till that day. Moreover, the poet also seems to be sufficiently advanced in age at least fifty-seven years to be able to talk with the king on such equal terms. - 70. Prabhavaka-charita 17.122 : devah sti saktisambaddho vridya na vilokyate || 122 || 71.1b 1d.vs,123: rajaha divasa sveta vasu kim tvidrso'rcitah | bhavata tavatsu | praha sodaha ca balatva llajjito na hi || 123|| 72.1b 14.vs.125tf 3 kama se vayara pracyapi bhupairbhavadr saih| balitva darsana tvasya pravartitaga haidrsah || 125 || 73.ibid.vs.127: sthitva dadhyau sa bhupalo hasya satyasama vyadah ||1rana 74.See supra.ft.nt.71,vs.123 ab.

22 (2) The next incident might have been in continuation of the above one when they came out of the temple. The king asked the poet as to why Bhrngiriti looked lean. The poet bluntly, though poetically, brought out the mental confusion on the part of Bhrngirity at the incoherent conduct of his lord siva, viz., if he intends to remain unclad why keep a bow? If he wants to keep a bow, why have the ashes? Well, if he wants to apply ashes to his body, why have anything to do with a woman ? And if he wants the company of a woman, what is the sense in having the enmity with Cupid ? Poor Arngi Bhrngi is, thus, worn by anxiety as to the real intention of his master?? This incident is noted, but with scanty background, by 76 Merutunga! (3) The third incident, not found in the Prabhavaka-charita, but preserved by Merutunga, seems to have followed in sequence to the above one. Once the courtiers of Bhoja reported to him about the concentration of Dhanapala in Jina-worship. At that the king gave him a basket of flowers and ordered him to pay homage to all the deities 75. Prabhavaka-charita 17.130 : divasa yadi taktimasya dhanusa sasvastha kim 43452-412-572-25 karana, bhasmapyasya kimadana yadi ca sa kama paridvesti kie| ityajyonyaniruddhacestitama ho pasyati jastamina bhrn gi suska sirom- vanaruddha adhika dhatte'sthisesa vapuh || 130 || 76.Prabandha Chintamani p.39.

23 f in the city. Dhanapala did go round, but he worshipped only at the Jain temples and returned. The spy, who had pursued him, reported the matter to the king who, later on enquired of the poet how he worshipped the deities. The poet replied that he worshipped there only where he had a scope, and added that he had no scope before Visnu due to the invariable presence of his bride, nor before Rudra due to his being perpetually embraced by his wife, nor beiore Brahma due to his being ever engrossed in meditation which one could disturb only at the risk of incurring a curse, nor before Vinayaka due to the necessity of avoiding a touch at the dish full of sweet-balls, nor before Candika due to the fear of mahisasura ruhing towards him out of the pain consequent to an onslought of her Trisula and spear, nor before Hanumat due to the fear of getting a slap as he is short-tempered. Moreover, how can one offer a garland to one who has no head or a head-dress, to one who has no forehead, or dancing and mahona S music to one who has no eyes nor ears, or a salutation 77 to one who has no feet ? The poet, then, added that he had 77. Prabandha Chintamani p. 40: visnupa ekanta kalatrasad bhavat kudra idiye parbati- sad bhavana brahmano dhyana bhana sayadibhyalu, vinaya [ka]sva sthanibhutamodaka - sanai sparsana samyamana, candikayatrisula heti santrasta mahisa matsa duragamana- vasatu, hanumatah kopatopavasatadasya capetamayat kutrapyajaso nabhut || api ca- vinasyottama vrtha puspamala, lalata vina ho karem paha bandhah | akarne tvanetre kamdha gita nrtye apadasya pade karem mem pranamah || "

24 a scope of worshipping only at a Jain temple where the eyes of the deity were beautifully liquid like the nector, the face was always smiling and cheerful and the 78 demeanour was ever peaceful. (4) Another incident is connected with the investiture ceremony (Pavitraropana) of Mahakala (probably at Ujjayini), when the king remarked about the lack of an investiture ceremony on the part of the Jain deities, who must,therefore, be without the sacred thread (also 'a-pavitra' i.e. impure). Dhanapala retorted that it was only the impure ones who need a purifier (pavitraka). Since the Jain Tirthamkaras are ever pure, they do not 79 stand in need of any purifier like a thread? (5) the next one also is connected with the above incident, as it seems to have occured at the porch of the Mahakala temple where the king pointed out to the poet a sculpture and asked the reason why the Love-god therein was giving a clap in the palm of his beloved Rati.The poet gave a sharply intelligent reply saying that this siva, though well-known as an ideal of abstinence, has been even now clasping to his body his 78. ibid. 79. Prabhavaka-charita 17.157: pavitramapavitrasya - svayam pavitra kimanyaistatra pavitryaya dhirohati | jinah pavitrakaih || 257 || ||

25 beloved out of the fear of separation. And poor public believe that he has conqured the lust ! It is for this reason that the Love-god is amused and enjoys the joke .80 with his believed !! (6) Another incident, omnx omitted by Prabhacandra but noted by Merutunga, concerns the cow-worship against which Dhanapala remarks that a cow is in no way superior to any other animal. And if she is to be worshipped inspite of the absence of any special quality in her, why 81 should a buffalo also be not worshipped ? Merutunga has connected this dialogue with the occasion of a donation of cows to Dhanapala. (X) The next one criticizes in one full sweep the Brahmanical beliefs about the cow-worship, the tree- -worship, the sacrificial killing of a goat for attaining to heaven, the Sraddha ceremony, the untrustworthiness of the gods, the belief in sacrificial oblations reaching .82 an * the gods through fire, and the authority of the Srti 80.Prabhavaka-charita 17.163: sa esa bhuvanatraya pratisamyamah sakro, bibharti vapusardhuna viraha katarah kaminim | aneja kila nirjita vayamiti priyayah karem, karana paritadayan jayati jata hasah smarah || 163|| 81.Prabandha Chintamani p.38. 82. Prabhavaka-charita 17.134 : spaso'medhyabhujam gayamaghaha se vandha visamjna huah, svargara dhara na vatha|dvanoti ca pitrn vipropabhuktasanam | aptascha - parah surah sikhi hune prinati devan havih hai sphita phalgu ca valgu ca srutirirana ko vetti lilavitam ||13ma ; also cf.Prabandha Chintamani p.38ff.

26 (8) Another incident censures the violence at the sacrificial ritual. The poet believes that the poor grass-eating animals deserves to be pitied rather than killed. Further he remarks that caustically that if it be argued that the sacrificial animals attain to heaven, why do the sacrificer not offer their parents in the 83, sacrificial fire and pack them off securely to the heaven? (9) The next incident has its roots in the caustic remarks against hunting. Bhoja seems to have been enraged to the extent of thinking to get him secretly murdered so ska✰ as not to be liable to publie censure and consequent defamation. But the poet was accidently saved by his eulogistica and poetically skillful answer to the king's question as to why the old woman, passing on the road, was shaking her head. The poet said that she was wandering whether he (i.e. Bhoja) was the famous Nandi, Murari, cupid, Kubera, vidyadhara, Indra, the Moon or Brahma, but at last she came to know that he was but 85 King Bhoja himself, superior to all of them! 83.Prabhavaka-charita 17. 151-155; Prabandha Chintamani p.42. 84. ibid vss.139-140: sri bhojah kupita svasyapasavyavacanakramaih | dadhya vamu ejisyami vibruvanta dvijabrunam || 134 || sadasya hatau kim capavadah paramo bhavet | yahah kutrapi velayam badhyo'savesa samsrayah ||14 || 85.1b 1d.ys.143; kim jandi kim murarih kimu ratiramanah kim hara kim kubera, kimva vidyadharo'sau kimaya surapatih kim vibhuh kim vidhata | naye jaye na caya na khalu na hi ja va napi nasau na cainah krodom kartum pravrttah svayamiddha hi halo ! bhupatirbhojadevah || 143||

27 (10) Another incident is intended to emphasize the truthful prophetic authority of the Jain Tirthamkaras in 86 general according to Merutunga, and of Dhanapala in particular according to Prabhacandra. The poet was asked by what door will the king go out. Dhanapala wrote the answer which was safely secured in a sealed envelop. Mrutunga holds that the poet pointed out to the answer being contained in the work named 'Arhaccudamani' According to Prabhacandra, the king then got a hole 88 bored into the roof and went out through it : Merutunga, however makes the king go out through the underground 89. passage dug in the middle of the room. Next morning the envelop was opened and the king read the answer which tallied with what he had done. Prabhacandra's version praises a wise man's eye in the form of intelligence, while that of Merutunga eulogizes the truthfulness, and hence trustworthiness, of the Jain works?0 (11) The next incident testifies to almost superhuman prophetic and poetic genius of Dhanapala.A traveller from Setubandha arrived at the court of Bhoja with 86.Prabandha Chintamani('SJGM) •p.39:- naresvarah sarvajna sasana prasamsaparam pandita dhanapalamalapat || 87.Prabhavaka-charita 17.163: anyada nrpatih prapta taba sukrtabhasane | abhijnana kima- vyakti satya kathya janmaem || 163|| 88.ibid.vss.166-168. 89.Prabandha Chintamani p.39. 90.Prabhavaka-charita 17.171 ff.;alsoPC(SJGM) p.39.

28 a few fragments of inscriptional poetry and reported about an inscription en a kepi temple submerged under the waters of the ocean. The traveller had brought a resin dye of it which contained a couple of incomplete verses. Dhanapala completed them and asserted that it must needs tally with the original ones on the temple walls?1 Merutunga adds that while the other court-poets tried their hands unsuccessfully at completing the verse, Dhanapala could do it in a moment?2 (12) Another one dwells upon Dhanapala's typically Jainistic attitude to public works of munificence, such as, building tanks and etc. Once the king asked him how much merit was earned by constructing such huge tanks. The poet unexpectedly replied in a satirical tone pointing out to the possibility of equally huge demerit due to the death of the acquatic creatures in the event of the tanks 94 getting dried up due to the lack of sufficient rains. (13) The next incident seems to have occured in a very advanced age in the life of Dhanapala, who was called back from his voluntary exile from Malwa. When the king asked him about the condition of his long uninhabited house, the poet brought out, in a paI paronomasiaic 91.Prabhavaka-charita 17.177ff.; Prabandha Chintamani p.41. 92.Prabandha Chintamani p.40... 93.Prabhavaka-charita 17.177FF.;PU(SJGM).p.40. 94.Prabhavaka-charita 17.185-190; also Prabandha Chintamani p.39. I

: 29 though pathetically poetic reply, the similarity between his own delapidated, dusty, servantless house and the king's palace with the golden vessels, highly adorned servants and elephants. 95 (14) The Prabandha Chintamani preserves in one incident the attitude of his contemporaries towards Dhanapala, who once eulogized Bhoja in a verse which metaphorically depicted the Celestial Ganga as being but a chalk-mark put by Brahma 96 as he started counting the best of human kings. When the other court-poets ridiculed his metaphor as unrealistic and far-fetched, Dhanapala paid them back in their own coin by citing similar unrealistic I¸ª‡a¤¤¤ instances from the Ramayana and the Mahabharata and added that those very court-poets blindly praised those 95. Prabhavaka-charita,17,285: prthukarta svarapatra bhusitanihsesaparijana deva| vilakha karenu- gahane samprati samabhavayoh sadaje || 285 || ; which with the king means prthu - kartasvara- panam (having broad golden vessels) bhusita jihsesa-parijanam (having the servants all of whom are adorned ) vilasana-karenu-gahana bhu (packed with the sportive she-elephants ), while with Dhanapala it means prthuka-artasvara-patra (with vessels that make a loud jarring noise [due to being broken ] ) bhusita nihsesa- parijanam (all the servants wherein are lying on the ground - bhusita ) or adorned with the lack of dust) sadanam ----- servants) pilesaka-renu jam (packed with heaps of 96.PAE(SJGM) .p.41-42: dharadhisa dharamahi saganane kautuhali yamartha, vaivarasvad aga na cakara khatikarakhandena rekha dipi| saiveyam tridasapamga samabhavat tattulyabhumidhaya bhasatatyajati sa yo'yamavanipithe tusara - calah ||

97 30 popular works. It should be noted that there is not the slightest indication of the strained relations between Bhoja and Dhanapala in the latter's prose-romance, the Tilakamanjari of Dhanapala, the eulogistic tenor in the introductory verses of which does not warrant the above religious rivalry between a staunch Saiva and an equally staunch Jaina. The introductory verses and the contents of the Tilakamanjari of Dhanapala definitely indicate that Dhanapala composed his prose-romance after his conversion to Jainism, which fact afforded ample scope for expression of such a relationship. But the poet must have thought it quite out of place ally in view of his paternal patronage by Munja and his personal friendship with Bhoja to give vent to his especipersonal opinion on such an occasion like the auspicious commencement of his life's labour of love, i.e. the Tilakamanjari of Dhanapala More properly it is the popular tradition one in particular and the Jain which would have an interest enough to preserve such minute, though minor, details. If one could take them at their face value, one would have to be thankful to both Prabhacandra and Merutunga for 97.Prabandha Chintamani • P• 41-42: saunabandhayati rupa javastamai bajarahanai rvalmiki rambhovidhi, vyasah parthusaraistathapi na tyo ratyukti ru dbhavyate | vastu prastutameva kincana vayam dhumastathapyuccakairlokodsa hasati prasarita mukhastubhya pratisthe namah || =

31 } affording such a peep into the oblivions of the past. In view of the fact that some of the points of the Brahmanical faith, criticized by Dhanapala in the incidents recounted above, have also been made the target of their satirical salvoes by veteran Jain authors like Haribhadrasuri in his Dhuttakknana (i.e.Dhurtakhsana), and by Amitagati in his Dharmapariksa, and by Somadeva in his Yasastilaka-campu, leads one to believe that at least Prabhacandra, though not Merutunga, cannot possibly be charged with having fabricated the incidents with the sole intention of using Dhanapala and his prestige in favour of the propagation of the jain faith. Dr. M.J.Sharma has upheld the realiability of some of the basic data supplied by the Prabandhas in his thesis on MaghaL.mkm).