2023-02-23 18:48:25 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
39
mayüro nāma mahākavir antaḥkaraṇādisarvavayanirvṛtisiddhaye sarva-
janopakaraya ca... adityasya stutim ślokaśatena pranītavan¹
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
'the great poet named Mayura composed a hymn to Aditya (Sürya)
in a hundred ślokas, for the attainment of emancipation from all the
pangs(?) of the soul, and for the benefit of all people'-
is a statement of an entirely formal nature, containing general,
and not particular reasons. And the same is true of the assertion
made in the one hundred and first stanza of the Süryaśataka, to
the effect that that poem was 'composed by Mayūra for the good
of the world."2
The real reason for the composition of the Candiśataka. By
a similar line of reasoning, the Candiśataka of Bāṇa may owe its
origin to the prevalence and popularity of Säivism, or Siva-
worship. Peterson, who accepts Mänatunga as a contemporary
of Bāņa and Mayūra, is inclined to adopt the view that 'the
Candikāśataka of Bāṇa, the Süryaśataka of Mayūra, and the
Bhaktamarastotra of Manatunga are three opposing poems
written by devotees of one or other of the great forms of
religion which flourished side by side under Harṣa's protection."
Here by 'the great forms of religion' Peterson presumably means
Säivism, Sun-worship, and Jainism. Under this ruling, Mayūra,
because of his authorship of the Süryaśataka, must be classed
among the Sauras, or Sun-worshipers, although we shall see
later that there is some reason to believe that he also composed
a poem or literary work in honor of Siva.
Mayūra not a Jain. Ettinghausen states that Mayūra was a
Jain. I do not agree with Ettinghausen on this point, and I
cannot see on what grounds he has reached such a conclusion,
1 This quotation from Anvayamukha's commentary on Mayura's Sürya-
śataka is given by M. Winternitz, in A Catalogue of South Indian Sanskrit
Manuscripts, p. 54 (no. 46), London, 1902. Dr. Winternitz says that the
manuscript containing the commentary should be dated about 1775 A.D.
This is presumably also the date of Anvayamukha.
See below, p. 225.
& Peterson, Kadambart, introd., p. 97.
See below, p. 61 and 233, note 2.
5 Ettinghausen, Harşa Vardhana, p. 93: 'Mayūra, quoique jaina, était un
des poètes favoris de Harşa.'
mayüro nāma mahākavir antaḥkaraṇādisarvavayanirvṛtisiddhaye sarva-
janopakaraya ca... adityasya stutim ślokaśatena pranītavan¹
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
'the great poet named Mayura composed a hymn to Aditya (Sürya)
in a hundred ślokas, for the attainment of emancipation from all the
pangs(?) of the soul, and for the benefit of all people'-
is a statement of an entirely formal nature, containing general,
and not particular reasons. And the same is true of the assertion
made in the one hundred and first stanza of the Süryaśataka, to
the effect that that poem was 'composed by Mayūra for the good
of the world."2
The real reason for the composition of the Candiśataka. By
a similar line of reasoning, the Candiśataka of Bāṇa may owe its
origin to the prevalence and popularity of Säivism, or Siva-
worship. Peterson, who accepts Mänatunga as a contemporary
of Bāņa and Mayūra, is inclined to adopt the view that 'the
Candikāśataka of Bāṇa, the Süryaśataka of Mayūra, and the
Bhaktamarastotra of Manatunga are three opposing poems
written by devotees of one or other of the great forms of
religion which flourished side by side under Harṣa's protection."
Here by 'the great forms of religion' Peterson presumably means
Säivism, Sun-worship, and Jainism. Under this ruling, Mayūra,
because of his authorship of the Süryaśataka, must be classed
among the Sauras, or Sun-worshipers, although we shall see
later that there is some reason to believe that he also composed
a poem or literary work in honor of Siva.
Mayūra not a Jain. Ettinghausen states that Mayūra was a
Jain. I do not agree with Ettinghausen on this point, and I
cannot see on what grounds he has reached such a conclusion,
1 This quotation from Anvayamukha's commentary on Mayura's Sürya-
śataka is given by M. Winternitz, in A Catalogue of South Indian Sanskrit
Manuscripts, p. 54 (no. 46), London, 1902. Dr. Winternitz says that the
manuscript containing the commentary should be dated about 1775 A.D.
This is presumably also the date of Anvayamukha.
See below, p. 225.
& Peterson, Kadambart, introd., p. 97.
See below, p. 61 and 233, note 2.
5 Ettinghausen, Harşa Vardhana, p. 93: 'Mayūra, quoique jaina, était un
des poètes favoris de Harşa.'