The Monkey and the Weaver-Bird: Jaina Versions of a Pan-Indian Tale

Author(s): Nalini Balbir

Source: Journal of the American Oriental Society , Jan. - Mar., 1985, Vol. 105, No. 1
(Jan. - Mar., 1985), pp. 119-134
Published by: American Oriental Society

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/601543

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.com/stable/601543?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

American Oriental Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to Journal of the American Oriental Society

This content downloaded from

149.62.44.225 on Wed, 19 Jul 2023 02:24:53 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE MONKEY AND THE WEAVER-BIRD:

JAINA VERSIONS OF A PAN-INDIAN TALE*

NALINI BALBIR

CNRS, ERA 094 (PARIS)

In memory of Ernst Leumann (1859-1931)

Since antiquity up to modern times, this tale has been used in the various Indian traditions as
an illustration of different teachings. The Buddhist and Jaina versions are found in disciplinary
contexts. Though neglected, the (Prakrit) Jaina versions are specially interesting because of their
probable early date and their intricate but clear mutual interrelationship. A comparison of the
Brhatkalpa- and the Avagyaka-traditions is presented below. It is followed by an edition, transla-
tion and commentary of the short vivid drama in which the nest of a patronizing weaver-bird is
ransacked by a stubborn and malevolent monkey, equated with a malicious novice or a dull
elder.

Orientalists (Hamburg, 1902),' Ernst Leumann drew

IN A SHORT BUT SUGGESTIVE ABSTRACT published in the
Proceedings of the XIIIth International Congress of attention to what he called "die Pancatantra-Reflexe
in der Jaina Literatur." By this expression he meant
the small number of early Middle-Indian (Prakrit)
* This is a revised and enlarged version of a paper read at
counterparts of Pancatantra-stories found in the Jaina
the joint session of the XXXIst CISHAAN-VIth IABS Con-
commentaries (ca. 7th cent.): he considered them of
ference, Tokyo-Kyoto, on 3-9-1983. It has largely benefited
from the discussions I had with Prof. Dr. C. B. Tripathi dur-
ing a stay in Berlin which was partly financed by the ERA
094 (CNRS; August 1983). I also express my thanks to CDIA L= R. L. Turner, A Comparative Dictionary of the

Prof. Dr. K. Bruhn who made many suggestions, to the Indo-Aryan Languages, London, 1966.

Institut fur Indische Philologie und Kunstgeschichte (Freie Erzahlungen = Ausgewdhlte Erzahlungen in Maharashtri.

Universitat, Berlin) who put at my disposal all the necessary Zur Einfuhrung in das Studium des Prakrit. Grammatik.

documents (see n. 5), and to all others who gave useful indi- Text. Worterbuch. Hrsg. von H. Jacobi, Leipzig, 1886

cations. (Prof. Dr. A. Mette, H. C. Bhayani, and Mr. K. R. (repr. Darmstadt, 1967).

Norman). PISCHEL = R. Pischel, Grammatik der Prdkrit-Sprachen,

Strassburg, 1900.

ABBREVIATIONS Uebersicht = E. Leumann, Uebersicht uber die Avaiyaka-

For editions and abbreviations of Pali and Prakrit texts see
n. 20 and n. 26 respectively.
Av. Frz. = E. Leumann, Die Avaiyaka-Erzdhlungen nach
der CFdrni und nach Haribhadra's 7Tkd nebst den Ubrigen
indicates a close correspondence between two passages.
inhaltlich wichtigen Stellen aus beiden Werken. Erstes
Heft. Leipzig, 1897, (AKM X, 2; repr. 1966).
Catalogue = C. B. Tripathi, Catalogue of the Jaina Manu-
scripts at Strasbourg, Leiden, 1975 (Indologia Berolin-
ensis 4).
Literatur. Aus dem Nachlass herausgegeben von W. Schub-
ring, Hamburg, 1934. (ANISH 4).
vs(s) = verse(s)
* after a number indicates a verse.
' E. Leumann, "Die Hamburger und Oxforder Handsch-
riften des Pancatantra (Auszug)" in Verhandlungen des XIII
Internationalen Orientalisten Kongresses (Hamburg, 1902.
Publ. Leiden, 1904) 24-29.

119

This content downloaded from

149.62.44.225 on Wed, 19 Jul 2023 02:24:53 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
120 Journal of the American Oriental Society 105.1 (1985)
high value for textual history because of their age.2
He did not carry out a complete study of the problem,
but, in his characteristic cursory manner,3 gave occa-
sional hints,4 especially in his unpublished notebooks
where he transcribed the planned continuation of the
Avasyaka-Erzahlungen, or analysed some particular
point.5
To this unknown but wonderful amount of work,
almost entirely based on manuscripts collected from
India,6 I first wish to pay here a modest tribute, as a
token of deep admiration.
However, I do not intend in the following pages to
analyze all the tales concerned. A Hindi paraphrase of
them along with the indication of a few parallels can
be found in J. C. Jain, Prakrta Jaina Katha Sahitva,
2 Ibid., p. 27: "Was die Pancatantra-Reflexe in der Jaina
Literatur anbelangt, so kommen da besonders einige Erzahl-
ungen in Betracht, die von den Jinisten mehr oder weniger
wortlich in die Avai'aka-Erzdhlungen aufgenommen worden
sind. Wir besitzen diese Avagyaka-Erzahlungen in der Text-
gestalt, die sie etwa im siebenten Jahrhundert unserer Zeitrech-
nung angenommen haben, gewinnen also, da alle unsere
Pancatantra-Fassungen viel spater ihre uberlieferte Form
bekommen haben, beachtenswerthe Facta textkritischer Art."
3 E. Leumann was certainly a remarkable figure of his time.
His interests were far from being limited to Jaina studies, as
Khotanese-specialists, among others, know well. Many of his
contemporaries refer to information given by him (see notes
in Tawney's or Hertel's books). His real achievements are far
beyond what can be seen from the work actually published:
W. Schubring, "Ernst Leumann. Ein Nachruf," ZDMG 87
(1934) 69-75: "Indessen wurden wir LEUMANN nicht ger-
echt werden, wenn wir neben der veroffentlichten Forschung
nicht auch seine stille Arbeit wuirdigten" (p. 73); C. B. Tri-
pathi, Catalogue, Preface, p. XIII.
4 For example, about the story of "the Blue Jackal" in the '0 Comparable to this story is the one about "the selfish
article mentioned above (n. 1), p. 29 (and infra n. 38); about
the story of "the Brahman and the Mongoose" in Av. Erz.
p. 3; see also, idem, "Da~avaikalika-stitra und -niryukti nach
calm Dhanal, the obstinate young daughter of one of his dis-
dem Erzahlungsgehalt untersucht und herausgegeben,"
ZDMG 46 (1892), p. 594, "Der Schakal mit dem Elephanten-
Cadaver."
' These papers lre kept in the Seminar fur Kultur p.
und314 (Wiesbaden, 1979: A History of Indian Literature IX,
Geschichte Indiens (Hamburg). Some of them have been lent
to the Institut fur Indische Philologie und Kunstgeschichte,
Freie Universitat (Berlin). Through the kind help of Prof.
Dr. Klaus Bruhn and Chandrabhal Tripathi, I was able to
have free access to the relevant ones.
6 Cf. Uebersicht, p. II-IV; C. B. Tripathi, Catalogue,
p. IOff.
This content downloaded from
149.62.44.225 on Wed, 19 Jul 2023 02:24:53 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
pp. 77-92 (Ahmedabad, 1971: L. D. Series 30). It is
rather necessary to examine the individual texts (lan-
guage, motifs, etc.), as well as their contexts of occur-
rences or moral purport: it seems that "animal-tales"
have been specially favoured by the Jainas7 when
explaining disciplinary matters of the religious com-
munity and the hierarchy of various types of monks in
the category of the Cheda-Texts or Jaina "Books of
Discipline."8 As an example of such analysis I present
the "micro-study" of one such short dialogue-tale I
came across while reading the Avasyaka-niryukti and
its commentaries (see below, p. 124ff.). It is also well-
known from other Indian sources and runs as follows
in its broad outline.
A weaver-bird is sitting comfortably in the monsoon-
time in the nest she has built for herself.9 She sees a
monkey shivering with cold at the bottom of the tree
and asks him why he has not made any shelter for
himself though he possesses hands and feet like a
human being. Her words arouse the anger of the
monkey who completely destroys the nest, and leaves
her homeless.'0
7 Leumann seems to have had the idea of dealing with the
"Thiersage" in detail: cf. "Dagavaikdlika-sfitra und -niryukti,"
p. 610.
8 They are traditionally called Cheya-suttas. On this type
of literature see W. Schubring, Die Lehre der Jainas nach
den alten Quellen dargestellt (Berlin, Leipzig, 1935: Grun-
driss ... III, 7), p. 76ff.; C. Caillat, Atonements in the An-
cient Ritual of the Jaina Monks (Ahmedabad, 1975: L. D.
Series 49), p. 13ff.; C. B. Tripathi, "Narratives in the Panca-
kalpabhasya and Cognate Texts," Indologica Taurinensia XI
(Torino, 1983), pp. 119-128.
9 Infra, "Appendix" about the identification of the bird and
its English name.
sparrow and the houseless crow(s)" which, in the Marathi
tradition, was first told by the saint Cakradhara in order to
ciples. This anecdote occurs in the LThacaritra, compiled
about 1278 by Mahaibhata: cf. V. B. Kolte's ed. (Bombay,
19822), p. 102; S. G. Tulpule, Classical MardthT Literature,
4). It is still current in modern times: cf. V. Chitnis, An
Intensive Course in Marathi, p. 1108ff. (Publ. Central In-
stitute of Languages). My sincere thanks go to Dr. Catharina
Kiehnle (Mainz) and to Prof. S. G. Tulpule (Poona) who
kindly communicated these references to me. For a South In-
dian oral version, see M. Frere, Hindoo Fairy Legends (Old
Deccan Days) (New York, 1881; repr. 1967), pp. 139-140.
 BALBIR: The Monkey and the Weaver Bird 121

I shall follow two lines of enquiry.
1) First, I wish to point to the fact that versions of
this narrative are available to us in the three main
traditions, i.e., Hindu, Buddhist and Jaina, and in
three languages, i.e., Sanskrit, Pali and Prakrit," and
keys, the Glow-worm and the Bird" (= I, 17 in the
to underline that the didactic purpose is different in
each case. As Hindu and Buddhist texts have long
been known, I shall not linger upon them excessively.
2) Secondly, I would like to illustrate the textual
problems one has to cope with when studying the
Jaina exegetical literature, the niryukti- and bhasya-
verses, or the prose cUrnis and tikas, all replete with
rich, old and little explored narrative material.'2 Thisplicior (1, 18; repeated in a less elaborate form in
perspective has sometimes compelled me to include a
few philological excursuses.
1. Sanskrit versions from the Pancatantra and the Hito-
padesa.
2. Pali versions from Jdtakas and Dhammapada-atthakatha.
3. Prakrit Jaina versions from the Ava~yaka- and theinside the Pancatantra tradition.1 On the other hand,
Kalpa-traditions.
3.1. Context; 3.2. The texts and their archetype.
4. The Jaina texts.
4.1. Short Prakrit version.
4.2. Metrical Prakrit version. 4.2.1. Text; 4.2.2. Transla-
tion;4.2.3. Expansion.
4.3. Metrical Sanskrit transposition by Tilakdcdrya.
5. Conclusion.
APPENDIX: The Weaver-bird.
1. Sanskrit versions: Pancatantra and Hitopadesa.
A few observations will be enough.
The first Book of the Pancatantra in all its versions
has the humorous and realistic fable of "The Mon-
Textus Simplicior recension). A herd of monkeys suf-
fering from cold tries to use a glow-worm as fire. In
reply to the bird's advice to give up useless efforts,
one of them kills her.'3 This is immediately followed
(but in two related recensions only) by "The Monkey
and the Weaver-Bird," which is in fact a by-form
("Nebenform") of the preceding story: Textus Sim-
IV, 12), and "Mischrezension" (Kosegarten ed.). In
Pilrnabhadra's text and "Mischrezension" (Schmidt
ed.), both stories occur, but they are found in different
Books (I, 25 and IV, 9 respectively).'4 Thus there are
arguments to assume that the Weaver-Bird variant
was "late" or secondarily introduced as a doublet
its general renown (and relative antiquity) in India
makes no doubt: unlike the Glow-worm story which
is restricted to the Pancatantra corpus, it also occurs
in Buddhist and Jaina works. The question of its posi-
tion cannot be solved with certainty but it has to be
raised.
The wording of "The Weaver-Bird" is similar in the
different accounts. The dispute with the monkey is in
verse; the prose gives the whereabouts of the scene
and the final development.

' Cf. Th. Benfey, Pantschatantra. Funf Bucher indischer

'' Recently this has also been mentioned in J. C. Jain,
Das Pancatantra. Seine Geschichte und seine Verbreitung
Prakrit Narrative Literature, Origin and Growth (Delhi,
1981), p. 26, n. 1; p. 82, n. 1; idem, Prikrta Jaina Kathi
Sdhitj'a, p. 83. I confine myself to the main literary versions. pp. 58-59 (Delhi, repr. 1968).
Oral versions of this folktale are of course numerous both
inside and outside India (Siam, Laos, Ceylon ... ). For ref-
erences see W. Norman Brown, "The Pancatantra in Modern
Indian Folklore," JAOS 39 (1919), pp. 1-54 = India and
Indologv. Selected Articles. Ed. R. Rocher (Delhi, 1978),
pp. 140-14 1, No. 14 "Ape and Officious Bird"; see also J. L.
Kipling, Beast and Man in India (London, New York, 1892),
p. 22 (quoted below "Appendix"). L. B0dker, Indian Animal
Tales. A Preliminary Surveys (Helsinki, 1957: FF Communi-
cations 170), Nos. 1020 (and 1019); A. Aarne & S. Thomp-
son, The Tipes of the Folk- Tale. A Classification and
Bibliography (Helsinki, 1973; 1961': FFC 184), No. 241 "The
Officious Bird and the Monkey"; ubi alia.
12 Leumann, Uehersicht, 15a- 15b; ubi alia.
Fabeln ( ... )(Leipzig, 1859) Bd. I, pp. 269-271; J. Hertel,
(Leipzig, Berlin, 1914), p. 13: "Uebel angebrachter Rat";
C. H. Tawney & N. M. Penzer, The Ocean of Storv, vol. V,
14 See Hertel's chart in Das Pancatantra, p. 13, for all
details. Simplicior: Ed. F. Kielhorn & G. Buehler (Bombay,
1891-96: Bombay Sanskrit Series) vol. I, pp. 83-84; vol. IV-
V, pp. 30-3 1. Puirnabhadra: Ed. J. Hertel, pp. 251-252 (Cam-
bridge, Mass., 1908: Harvard Oriental Series 11). There are
other later versions following Piirnabhadra: see idem, "Eine
vierte Jaina Rezension des Pancatantra," ZDMG 57 (1903),
pp. 639-704; idem, The Panchakh i'anavarttika (in Gujarati).
Pt. I containing the text (Leipzig, 1922), No. 19, pp. 30-31;
trsl. idem, Indische Erzdhler, Bd. 6 (Leipzig, 1923).
'5 Cp., for instance, L. Sternbach, The Kdvya-Portions in
the Kathai-Literature. An Analy sis. Vol. I Pancatantra (Delhi,
1971), p. 27, 41, 53. 57; Annex I and Annex 11, p. 175; 328.
Vol. 11. Hitopadega (Delhi, 1974), p. 10; Annex 11, p. 176.

This content downloaded from

149.62.44.225 on Wed, 19 Jul 2023 02:24:53 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
122 Journal of the American Oriental Society' 105.1 (1985)
Some features are peculiar to the Hitopade'a (III,
1)16 and betray its secondary character, viz.: the pres-
ence of more than one bird and one monkey; the final
episode, for the monkeys do not only destroy the nest
but also make the eggs fall from it; the number of
stanzas, two versus four in the Pancatantra, and their
wording. Thus the formulation in all the Indian tradi-
tions of the first verse uttered by the bird is nearer to
that of the Pancatantra than to that of the Hitopadesa:
hasta-pdda-sam6peto (v.1 samdvukto) drs',ase puru-
sdkrtih .
M7ena hhidVase (vi. sta-vdta-hato), mikdha, katharm
na kuruse grham ?
(1,18, vs. 391-IV, 12, vs. 98 = Parnabhadra IV, 9,
vs. 56; cp. Buddhist and Jaina versions)
asmdThir nirmita nTdNa cancu-matrdhrtais trnaih
hasta-padddi-samiuktd yule am kim iti sldatha ?
(Hitopade.sa 111, 1, vs. 6).
The basic moral of the story is of a very general
character. It conveys the idea that it is useless to advise
all types of persons indiscriminately, no doubt a fun-
damental human truth! But, as was suggested by
W. Ruben, it could also have social implications, rati-
fying the Brahmins' "Bildungsmonopol" and the
working-classes' inability to learn.' The teaching is
best summarized in the following stanza which intro-
duces all the Pancatantra passages:
upadeso na dAtavi'o iadrge taddrse jane (v. 1. nare)
pasta vanara-markhena sugrhT ni(r)grh! krt.18
In the Hitopade'a this verse has the following counter-
part:
vidvan ev6padestavyo nrvidvims tu kadd cana.
vanardn upadi'iitatha sthana-hhrasta yai'uh khagclh Muniji, with an introduction by Dr. H. C. Bhayani (Bom-
(III, 1, vs. 5).
Whatever the relationship between the two story-
books may be, it can be said that the Hitopade'a is
16 The Hitopade~sa of Narayana. Ed. with a Sanskrit20corn-
References are to the editions of the Pali Text Society
mentary, translation and notes in English by M. R. Kale
(Bombay, 19103), pp. 62-63.
" W. Ruben, Das Pancatantra und seine Morallehre (Ber-
lin, 1959), pp. 77-78.
18 All references can be found in L. Sternbach, Mahasubha-
sitasamgraha, vol. IV, No. 7066 (Hoshiarpur, 1980).
This content downloaded from
149.62.44.225 on Wed, 19 Jul 2023 02:24:53 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
more marginal, or, in other terms, that the Pancatan-
tra version was more widely prevalent in the Indian
tradition: upadeso na datavyo became a floating-verse,
a subhasita which could be introduced in connection
with various other contexts. Many parallels can be
adduced (see n. 18): it was even quoted by the Jaina
commentator KsemakTrti at the end of a Prakrit ver-
sion of our tale (below, 4.2.1). Together with two other
anustubh-verses similar to those of the Pancatantra
text, it is used by gubhasilagani, a Jaina author of the
15th century, who includes them in his Prabandha-
pancasati, an anthology of didactic stories written in
easy Sanskrit.'9
2. Pali versions.20
The Kutidfisakajataka (No. 321; III 71, 3-74, 16; 4
gathas) and the Dhammapada-atthakatha (II 19-23; 4
gathas), the wordings of which are quite similar, pro-
vide us with a Pali version of the story.2' In the latter
text, the animal tale is an illustration of the Dham-
mapada vs. 61 (Dhp-a II 23, 17*-18*), which, on the
other hand, is quoted in the Jataka introductory prose
(imam Dhammapade gdtham dha: III 73. 4*-5*): bet-
ter go alone if one does not meet someone better than
oneself or equal to oneself. No help can be got from a
fool:
caran ce nbdhigaccheYia sevyvam sadisam attano
eka-cariv am dalham kayira, n'atthi hale sahavata.
Two textual levels will have to be distinguished in
order to ascertain the didactic purport of the story.
To begin with, the four stanzas ('lokas): they only
record the dialogue between the monkey (1 stanza)
'9 Shri, Shubhasila Gani's Panchashati Prabandha Samban-
dha or Prabandha Panchashati, ed. Muni Shri Mrugendra
bay, 1968), p. 222.
1. upades$o na datavyo ...
2. hasta-pada-samayukto d~ryase purustkrtih
PTita-vata-paribhrasto grham kim na karisyasi?
3. siTcimukhi, duraeare, rande, paindita-manini
asamartho grharambhe, samartho grha-bhan'jane.
(London); abbreviations are as in A Critical Pali Dictionary
(Copenhagen, 1924-.).
21 To be added, for example, to the list of correspondences
with Pancatantra narratives mentioned by M. Winternitz, A
History of Indian Literature, vol. II, p. 126ff., 163 (Calcutta,
1933).
 BALBIR: The Monkey and the Weaver Bird 123
and the sihgila-sakuna,22 i.e., the Bodhisatta in his
former birth (3 stanzas). They include his advice
undoubtedly colored with a Buddhist tone (as is shown
by the use of technical terms in Ja III 73, 28*-74,
2*-Dhp-a II 23, 1*-4*). As for the destruction of the
nest, without which the story is not complete, it be-
longs to the prose portion; further, the terms of abuse
(rande; re, re pandita-mdnini, etc.; cf. n. 19) employed
by the monkey in his reply to the bird's advice in the
23
Pancatantra sources, as well as the angry rough tone
of the Jaina versions (below) are here conspicuous by
their absence. Hence we are immersed in a totally dif-
ferent atmosphere.24 Thus, in this particular case, the
verses seem to be peculiar to the Buddhists, whereas
the Pali prose is in perfect agreement with the other
parallels.
On the other hand, the prose commentary invites us
to a more restricted interpretation of the story which
relates to the life of the religious community: the story
of the present tells us about two young novices (dahara,
Ja; saddhiviharika, Dhp-a) engaged in the service of a
thera; one of them does it perfectly well, the other
does not accomplish any of the tasks ascribed to him,
but boasts of his companion's services in front of the
Elder as if they were his own. Two such examples of
this blameworthy behaviour are narrated. Twice the
"rebellious pupil"25 is admonished by the superior;
twice he feels resentment about it, and finally he sets
the thera's hut on fire (Ja 71, 17-72, 23; Dhp-a 20,
1-21, 25), hence the title given to the Jataka. Thus the
monkey is identified with him, and the bird with the
Bodhisatta.
We shall see that a similar connection was estab-
lished by the Jainas in one of the two passages where
our story appears.
3. Prakrit Jaina versions.26
Both of them belong to the Prakrit exegetical texts
on the Canon, alluded to at the beginning of this
22 See below "Appendix" about this word.
23 Textus simplicior 1, 18, vs. 392; IV, 12 vs. 100; Piarn-
and K. Bruhn, "Avasyaka Studies" (ibidem), pp. 13ff. Verses
abhadra IV, 9, vs. 58, etc.
24 Note however that the Dhp-a (11 22, 25-26) throws a
doubt on the perfect gentleness of the bird: evary-passa tava
katham gharhviiso ijjhissatF 'W garahanto singilo.. . iha.
25 This is the title given to the story by E. W. Burlingame,
Buddhist Legends. Translated from the Original Pali text of
the Dhammapada Commentary, vol. 11, p. 111 (1921, repr.
1969: Harvard Oriental Series 29).
26 Editions and abbreviations of Prakrit texts are as fol-
lows: jvaiyakacierni (AvC) by Jinadasa (Ratlam, 1928-29),
This content downloaded from
149.62.44.225 on Wed, 19 Jul 2023 02:24:53 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
paper: a) the Avagyakaniryukti dryd verse 680 supplies
the key-word vanaro "monkey." The related ciirni (by
Jinaddsa) as well as the t-ikds (by Haribhadra and
Malayagiri), both in Prakrit, and the Sanskrit com-
mentary (by Tilakdcdrya) give an extensive narrative.
b) the Brhatkalpabhdsya tristubh verse 3252 is more
precise; it mentions both the words vanaro, "monkey,"
and sugehid (= Sa. *sugrhika), "weaver-bird." The
story is developed in Ksemak-rti's commentary. (See
all references infra in 4.). The chronology of all these
works is a difficult question which will be dealt with
in the conclusion.
3.1. The context. It relates to monastic discipline.
3.1.1. In the Ava'yaka texts, the story is embedded
in a section devoted to the exposition of the "Ten
Rules of Monkish Behaviour" (Sa. daia-sdmdcdrT, AvN
vss. 666-723), as they were named by L. Alsdorf.27
Broadly, they deal with the etiquet the monk has to
observe in his relations with his co-fellows or his super-
iors.28 This etiquet is summarized in a tenfold string.
The first technical term, the only one which will con-
cern us here, is icchakara, "voluntary service" (AvN
Part l; Jva~syakaniryukti (AvN) with Haribhadra's tika
(AvTH) (Bombay, 1916-17), Part 1, with Malayagiri's tika
(AvTM), Pt. I (Bombay, 1928); see infra 4.3. about Tilakd-
carya's commentary. Brhatkalpasitra and -bhdDpa (KBh)
with the commentary begun by Malayagiri and continued by
Ksemakirti. Ed. Muni Caturvijaya and Punyavijaya, Pt. III,
pp. 908ff. (Bhavnagar, 1936). For this part the commentary
was written by Ksemakirti. I use the same symbol, KBh, for
both verses and prose. For an exhaustive survey of the Jaina
commentaries see M. L. Mehta, Jaina Sahitya k? Brhad
Itihasa, bhhg3: Agamika vyakhyaJ (Varanasli, 1967: Prs'-
vanatha Vidyadrama Granthamala 11). For further biblio-
graphical details see C. B. Tripathi, "The Jaina Concordance
in Berlin," in Studien zum Jainismus und Buddhismus.
Gedenkschrift fur L. A lsdorf (Hamburg, 1981), pp. 301-329
are referred to by their numbers, prose passages by page and
line-numbers.
27 L. Alsdorf, The Arya Stanzas of the Uttaraj~jhaya. Con-
tributions to the Text History and Interpretation of a
Canonical Jaina Text (Ak. der Wiss. u. der Lit. Mainz, 1966,
Nr. 2), p. 27: A part of the 26th chapter of Utt. is also devoted
to this theme.
28 Their enumeration and treatment form a familiar topic
of Jaina disciplinary works: cf. A. Mette, Pind'esana. Das
Kapitel der Ohani/jjutti uber den Bettelgang, Wiesbaden, 1974,
124 Journal of the A merican Oriental Society 105.1 (1985)

vss. 668-681).29 Here we get a glimpse of the contro- hierarchy and the necessary duties it implies from a
versies which may have arisen regarding the religious lively dialogue between an ordinary sadhu and his
dcarya. The former refuses to serve the young and old
monks, does not practice icchakdra, and thus attacks
the basic agreement by which the Community lives,
pp. 4ff. But the verses where these ten constituents of "cor-
viz., the distribution of the tasks, according to which
rect behaviour" are listed employ various metrical schemes.
the ordinary monk has to serve the elder, and not the
In the Uttarajjhaya we have three 9lokas (26, 2-4; cf. n. 27).
reverse! The text goes:
The Malacara IV (vs. 125) collects the ten terms in a differ-
ent order in one gi-ti:
"He does not willingly serve the younger and elder
'iceha- 2miccha-karo 3tadha-karo ia 4dsia 5nisihT
monks, and when he is invited to do so by the acarya,
6apuccha 'pa~dipuccha 8chandana 9sa-nimantand va
he replies: "and who serves me?"
'0uvasampa.
AvN vss. 666-667 give the standard-form of the list, but they
And further, the pupil dares to retort rudely to his
are mixed from the metrical point of view:
superior:
666. iccha-miccha-1aha-kdro, dvassyiia ya nisThiiva
apucchana va pa(Iipuecha, chandana ia nimantana,
"If you know what service is, why don't you do it
667. uvasampay' Ya kale, sdma parT bhave dasaviha u
yourself?"'30
(v.1. dasaha);

eesim tu payjiani patteyd paruivanam voccham.

The duty of the acarya is naturally to try to show him
666-667 = Pravacanasaroddhara vss. 760-761: 666-667a =
that he is wrong and will not succeed in eliminating
JTtakalpabhasya vss. 880-881a; 666-667ab are found in
his karman, for which the condition is the spontane-
Thananga X (Suttagame I, 309, 13*- 15*) = Viyahapannatti
XXV, 7 (Suttagame 1, 893, 15*-17*) = Anuogaddara, sutra
ous practice of service (Pk. vevivacca) :3
206 (ed. Jaina Agama Series, Bombay, 1968, p. 100) =
tumam. .. abbhaithanam maggamano cukkihisi
MahanisTha V, vss. 43-44 (cf. W. Schubring, Studien Zum
nil.arde
MahionisTha, Hamburg, 1963, pp. 187 and 206) = Uttaraj-
(AvTH 262a, 8).
jhayaniryukti vss. 482-483.
Vs. 666 is a s1oka; vs. 667cd is the second line of a classical
This is the occasion for him to introduce two charac-
arya which serves, as it were, as an introductory remark to
ters with whom the disputing monk is identified. The
the section following in this particular context; hence it usu-
first is a brahman (Pkt. marua) who did not spon-
ally has no correspondence in the parallel passages; vs. 667ab
taneously accept presents on a festival-day, and who
can be considered as the first line of an ordinary arya if we
refused to do so even though admonished by his
read hhave dasaviha u with all the texts quoted, except
wife-an example which is also known through other
Viyahap., AvC and AvT: all three have bhave dasaha which
Prakrit commentaries where it is used in the same
give the second line of an arya. Most texts quote only six
connection.32 The second is our monkey. (A third
padas; and only five were strictly necessary for the complete-
ness of the list. KBh (vs. 1378 = 1623) has recast it in one
verse and kept only the first pada as a 9loka. 30 so na karei veyavavacam bala-vuddhanam ti; ayariya-
About the contents of each term, see H. Jacobi's trsl. of padicoio bhanai: "ko mam abbhatthei?"( ) bhanai: "evam
the Uttarajjhaya in Sacred Books of the East, vol. 45, p. 142; sundaram jananta appana kTsa na kareha?"' AvTH p. 262a;
W. Denecke, Digambara- Texte. Eine Darstellung ihrer cp. AvC I, pp. 344-345; AvTM p. 345a. A similar formula-
Sprache und ihres Inhalts, (Hamburg, 1922), pp. 65-68; tion is used in the definition of taj-jia, the 24th of the thirty-
partly, E. Leumann, Uebersicht, pp. 9b- I Oa. three asatanas, "the violations of good conduct vis-A-vis an
29 Various translations of this term have been proposed: older monk": see, for instance, Dagasuitra as quoted in AvTH
"6assent" (Schubring, The Doctrine of the Jainas, ? 136; p. 726b: the older monk (rainiya) says to the disciple (seha):
idem, Lehre, "WunscherfUllung); "compliance with a wish" "why don't you attend to the needs of the ailing?" And he
(J. Deleu, Viyiahapannatti, p. 291); "carrying out one's own replies: "why don't you do it yourself?"
duty" (S. B. Deo, History of Jaina Monachism, Poona, 1956, 31 About veyavacca as a complementary to nijjara, cf.
p. 211); "acting voluntarily" (H. M. Johnson, trsl. Trisastik- C. Caillat, Atonements (above, n. 8), p. 59; 112-115; etc.
alakipurusacarita, Baroda, 1931, vol. I, n. 122); "Icchakara 32 Key-word maruo at AvN vs. 680. Prose-story in AvC I,
(is required) in the execution of one's intention by oneself or p. 344; AvTH p. 262a; AvTM p. 345a. Various Prakrit ver-
somebody else" (H. Jacobi, op. cit., p. 142); etc. sions with textual remarks have been given by C. B. Tripathi,

This content downloaded from

149.62.44.225 on Wed, 19 Jul 2023 02:24:53 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 BALBIR: The Monkey and the Weaver Bird 125

drstanta about two merchants will not be considered
here).33
3.1.2. Let me now turn to the Brhatkalpa-bhasya,
whose contents can be compared with those of the
Vinaya of the Buddhists (see n. 8). Here several devel-
opments are embedded in which our story appears.
The arya verses (3240ff.) comment the siltra I, 51 de-
fining the so-called dr'a-ksetras, the only places where
monks and nuns are allowed to wander.3' They are get destroyed being crushed by a cart:
interrupted by a set of fourteen tristubhs which pos-
sibly formed an independent tract (vss. 3247-3260).35
These tristubhs are meant to develop the idea ex-
pressed in the arya verse 3246 that "if the acarya does
not know the right path, or, knowing it, does not
show it, he goes to destruction (along with those he
leads)". Two examples are introduced:
gantavvae sTsaga, kamci kalam, aham pi td hol/a
pura-ssard te!"
(KBh vs. 3247).
The former tries to justify the existing state of things
by showing what disaster would befall if the tail did
lead, as it does not have the right knowledge to do so
(vss. 3248-55), but finally it fails to convince the blind
tail which comes to the front; and both immediately
sa manda-buddhT aha sTsakassa, sa-cehanda mandl
vaivanam akium
"pura-ssard hotu muhutta-mettam"; apei'a-cakkhui
sagadena khunnd.37
(KBh vs. 3256).

.,o ganaharo nayvcanai, jcnanto va na desaT maggam

A similar story is adduced in the Kathasaritsagara X,
so SA PPA -STSA GA M piva, vinassaT VEJJA -P UTTO
- 36 LXIII, Nos. 135-136 in order to illustrate the foolishness of
va. attendants, who, by quarrelling with one another, ruin their
master's interests: "Story of the Snake with Two Heads"
Only the first will be considered here: it is expanded
(Tawney-Penzer, Ocean, vol. V, pp. 134-135). Comparable
by the tristubhs 3247-3258 which tell the well-known
dialogues between a snake's head and tail occurring in anal-
motif of the "quarrelling limbs," here the head and the
ogous disciplinary surroundings are also included in the
tail of a snake. The latter complains that it always
Chinese Tripitaka: cf. vol. II, Nos. 181 & 290 in E. Chavannes,
follows, whether in winter, in summer or during the
Cinq Cents Contes et Apologues extraits du Tripitaka chi-
rainy-season, but never leads, and it wants to do so
nois, (Paris, 1910-1915; repr. UNESCO, 1962), and notes
for a time:
(ibidem, vol. IV, pp. 153-154) referring among others to
Aesopus and La Fontaine, Fables (VII, 17) "La tate et la
"sf'-unha-viise v a tam 'andhakdre, niecam pi gacchdmi
queue du serpent."
jao me nesT
To mention another example of the "quarrelling limbs"
motif: some late Kalpasiltra commentaries and cognate texts
include a discussion between greyamsa's right and left hand
"Narratives in the Pancakalpabhasya and Cognate Texts" when he is about to offer sugar-cane juice to Rsabhadeva so
(Indologica Taurinensia XI, Torino, 1983, pp. 127ff. that he may break his one year fast. Each claims its own
33 AvC I, p. 346; AvTH p. 262b; AvTM pp. 345b-346a. privileges and mentions occasions where it has right of way
34 Ed. Trsl. by W. Schubring, Das Kalpa-Suitra. Die alte over the other. They finally join together to give the drops of
Sammiung/jinistischer Mbnschsvorschriften. (Leipzig, 1905 juice: cf. the Kalpadrumakalika by Laksm-vallabha, p. 148ab
Kleine Schriften, Wiesbaden, 1977, pp. 1-69). (ed. Surat, Sam. 2004), and the Kalpalata by Samayasun-
" Their rigid metrical pattern reminds more of the classical dara, pp. 204a-206a (ed. Surat, Sam. 1993); ubi alia.
upajati than of the tristubh as used in the oldest parts of the On the other hand, the Pancatantra tradition has the
Jaina Canon. Cp. A. Mette, "Eine Jinistische Parallele zum well-known story of the Bird with two heads (mouths) and
M isika-Jataka," p. 155 (Studien zum Jainismus u. Buddhis- one stomach (Textus simplicior V, 14; L. B0dker, Animal
mus. Gedenkschrift fur L. A Isdorf, Wiesbaden, 1981). Tales, above, n. I1, Nos. 1027ff.). For Buddhist counterparts
36 The second catchword is developed in the tristubh-verses see J. L. Panglung, Die Erzdhlstoffe des Mdlasarvastivada-
3259-3260 and the relevant prose part. It also occurs in Vinaya analysiert auf Grund der Tibetisehen Uebersetzung
Sanskrit in KBh, vol. IV, p. 1179. Later Sanskrit transposi- (Tokyo, 1981), pp. 42 and 115, with references. The prana-
tions of both the serpent and the doctor-stories are found in samvada theme is famous from the early Brahmanic literature:
Jinakugala's vyakhya (15th cent. A.D.) on Jinadatta's Caitya- see, for instance, L. Renou's trsl. of KausTtaki Upanisad II,
vandanakulaka, p. 5b-10a (ed. Surat, 1920, Shri Jinadatta- 14 (Paris, 1948), pp. 4 and 44-45 with numerous references
suri Prachin Pustakoddhar Fund No. 11). to parallel passages. The European tradition has the story of

This content downloaded from

149.62.44.225 on Wed, 19 Jul 2023 02:24:53 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 126 Journal of the A merican Oriental Societv 105.1 (1985)

The arguments presented by the head are in the form your own strength? Silly one, have you never heard
of comparisons or illustrations mentioned in the last what the monkey did to the weaver-bird?"
pddas of the bhdsya-verses (3251; 3252; 3254). In two
cases we find them developed in KsemakTrti's prose 3.2. The texts and their archetype.
commentary. The first of these developments is a E. Leumann's papers show that he had minutely
Prakrit prose version of the "Blue Jackal" (ad KBh studied the story of the monkey and the weaver-bird
vs. 325 1).38 The second is the story of the monkey and
from the standpoint of textual criticism. He had pre-
the weaver-bird, which the bhdsya-verse (uttered by pared a critical edition following the principles adopted
the snake's head) introduces in the following manner: in his Ava'yaka-Erzahlungen (p. 1-3), on the basis of
all the manuscripts he could collect of AvC and AvTH,
ullattiyi bho mama kim kares, thimam sayam sutthuto which he also added one MS of AvTM (not used for
ajdtnamdnT? the edition of Av. Erz.) and one of KBh. This story
sujam tayi kin na kayli, madhe, jam vinaro kisi served him as a starting-point for evaluating the rela-
sugehiycde? tionship between the MSS he had at hand, of which he
(KBh vs. 3252). proposed a "Stammbaum."40 His analysis drew atten-
"If you change your place with mine,39 my dear, what tion to the following points:
are you going to do to me, for you do not know well 1) the fact that versions of the story are available
in both the Ava'yaka- and the Kalpa-traditions is

Menenius Agrippa. The different versions have been care-

fully studied and a convincing interpretation has been pro-
mukham valita suggests the comparison with CDIAL 2368
posed by H. Quellet, "L'apologue de MWnenius Agrippa. La
*ullatati "turns over" and the cognate forms of Prakrit and
doctrine des souffles vitaux (Skt. prana) et les origines du
Neo-Indian. Hesitations between spellings with dentals and
stokcisme," Travaux Neuchatelois de Linguistique 3 (janvier
spellings with cerebrals are not unrecorded (C. B. Tripathi's
1982), pp. 59-167.
suggestion). Cp. P. Tedesco, JAOS 85, p. 378 referring to
38 KBh p. 909 lines 15-23-Malayagiri's Tika on Vyavahara-
Hemacandra's Prakrit Grammar IV, 200.
bhacsya: uddesa 3, vs. 27; cp. Pancatantra, Tantrakyayika I,
40
8; Textus Simplicior I, 10; Pfirnabhadra I, 11; Hitopadega III,
7 etc. Buddhist parallels are mentioned in J. Hertel, "Die
Erzahlung vom blauen Schackal in den Hamburger Pan-
catantra-Handschriften," WZKM 16 (1902), pp. 269-274.
The Prakrit story had been alluded to by Leumann in his
abstract on Middle-Indian counterparts to the Pancatantra M
(see supra n. I and 4). Note that the Prakrit versions contain
an episode unknown from other Indian versions: when the
blue-coloured jackal yells and thus betrays himself as a jackal, a fiy 6
he is killed by the trunk of an elephant on the back of which
he was carried, and not by the other animals of the forest. KT
This detail surprisingly also appears in the Sanskrit and Chi-
nese texts of the Sanghabhedakavastu (R. Gnoli, The Gilgit
Manuscript of the Sanghabhedavastu, Rome, 1978, Pt. II, ac4y8 = mss of the AvC used by Leumann, on which see
p. 211-213; E. Chavannes, Cinq Cents Contes et Apologues, Uebersicht p. 8a, line 30 and C. B. Tripathi, Catalogue, Serial
vol. II, No. 389 and vol. IV, notes p. 193; J. L. Panglung, No. 51. Leumann added the following comment in his manu-
Erzdhlstoffe, pp. 121-122). In the Jaina account of the Vya- script: "Dieses Schema hat Giultigkeit fur die ganze Curni,
vaha rabhasya, the Blue Jackal is identified with the insuf- wenn man KT ansieht als den Vertreter von Parallelstellen,
ficiently educated monk (agly'attha), who nevertheless wants die sich je nachdem an ac4 oder y6 anschliessen, und wenn
to be considered as an acarya, goes to a foreign place with a man M(alayagiri) als ein Variables Correktiv von apy6 auf-
train of disciples, but betrays himself as he is unable to answer fasst, das gewohnlich durch Haribhadra, oft gleichzeitig
the questions he is asked. About correspondences between durch Haribhadra und Malayagiri, zuweilen auch durch
animals (jackals, lions . .. ) and various types of monks, see einen Uttaradhyayana Commentar oder durch sonst ein
C. Caillat, Atonements, pp. 21, 36 and n. 2. fernerstehendes Referat geliefert wird." On the doubtful
39 Ullattiya is an obscure word (not found in Paiasad- validity of "Stammbaum," see also L. Alsdorf, Der Kuma-
damahannavo). The commentator's explanation by Sa. sam- rapalapratibodha (Hamburg, 1928), p. 29.

This content downloaded from

149.62.44.225 on Wed, 19 Jul 2023 02:24:53 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 BALBIR: The Monkey and the Weaver Bird 127
important. The existence of such parallels could be
useful for editing the text and for compensating for
the inadequacies of the MSS in the absence of a palm-
leaf MS of the AvC. In fact, correspondences of nar-
ratives between these two works are fairly numerous,
and the comparative method was fruitfully applied by
E. Leumann, as can be seen from the Av. Erz. (p. 10,
n. 1; p. 20, n. 1, etc.).
2) In the present case AvC (or AvTM) and AvTH
disagree.4' Let me now describe the texts.
The Brhatkalpa-bhasya commentary simply records
one Prakrit metrical version composed of ten aryas of
the classical type and a concluding prose sentence, fol-
lowed by the quotation of the subhasita upadeso na
datavyo (infra, 4.2.).
As for the Avasyaka literature, the (non-critical)
modern editions show a more intricate situation. As a
matter of fact, both Jinadasa's cirni and Malayagiri's
tika evidently hand down simultaneously TWo differ-
ent traditions of the complete story, the texts of which
are interwoven. However the parallel version in the
KBh induces to disentangle them, and confirms the
independent character of the verse-version as preserved
by AvC and AvTM.
Thus we have:
1) A short account specific to the Av. cluster (infra,
4.1). It consists of an introductory sentence followed
by one drya, in which the bird stresses the contradic-
tion between the human-like aspect of the monkey
and its being without a house:
"You are a man, o monkey: there is no use in your
carrying long arms
as you do not build a hut or a roof 42 on the top of
the tree."
(4. 1., vs. 1).
This was certainly an old nucleus-verse in the story, as
it forms the basis of the discussion between the two
animals. It is the only one really common to Hindu,
Buddhist and Jaina traditions, though the wording is
unfortunately too different to be compared in detail.
4' E. Leumann also drew attention to the specificity of
Malayagiri's tTkd which, in the present case, preserves the
story in Prakrit.
42 Pk. padallT is a deg-i word, cf. Paia-sadda-mahannavo,
(Varanasi, 19632) s.v.; CDIAL 7694; 7695. The word occurs
in Gujarati with the same meaning, cf. M. B. Belsare, An
Etymological Gujarati English Dictionary (Delhi, 19812): "a
roof, a shed."
This content downloaded from
149.62.44.225 on Wed, 19 Jul 2023 02:24:53 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The further words of the bird, the reaction of the
monkey and the destruction of the nests are described
in prose.
2) A quoted metrical version, "Nebenversion" as
Leumann called it (infra, 4.2.). Jinadasa and Malay-
agiri, but not Haribhadra, explicitly refer to "another"
tradition by the comment kei annam pi bhananti, or
the like, i.e., "some say otherwise," which introduces
two series of aryas (vss. 1-5; 5 bis-10). We do not
know which are the (contemporary) authors and the
(lost?) works implied by such phrases.43 In the present
case we can only observe that, except for one stanza
consisting of literary amplification (infra, 4.2.3.), the
two groups of aryas are precisely the same as those
which are preserved by Ksemakirti in his commentary
on the KBh, also as a quotation (introduced by atra
katha nakam); thus the tikakara's only contribution
probably lies in the Pancatantra quotation upadeso
na datavyo appended at the end of the account. And
it can be reasonably assumed that the source for the
ten verses is one of the two as yet unpublished Brhat-
kalpacurnis in Prakrit, or some other work lost to us.
As a matter of fact, Ksemakirti often quotes them ex-
pressis verbis when dealing with dogmatical matters.44
When adducing stories he usually does not mention
any source, but it is highly probable that, living in the
13th century, Ksemakirti did not himself compose
Prakrit stories. Thus we have to search for their ori-
gins. However, the lack of material in this field com-
pels me for the moment to remain satisfied with
hypothetical remarks.
As had already been noticed by Leumann (supra),
Haribhadra's tTcka here clearly disagrees with Jinaddsa's
curni in that, except for its concluding verse, it
does not quote the metrical "Nebenversion": alone
among the Ava'yaka-writers, he gives only the short
account. Such a situation adequately illustrates Har-
ibhadra's method of composition. More than once,
43 This is not the only occurrence of such "anonymous" ref-
erences in narrative passages: see, for instance, Av. Erz. p. 7,
vs. 10; AvTH pp. 341b, 342a, etc. (illustrations about the dif-
ficulty of gaining human birth); AvC 11, 155-AvTH 667b;
714a (32 yoga-samgrahas); etc. Cp. the reference to vrddhava-
dah and piirvaprabandhah in Devendra's commentary to the
Uttarajjhayd, on which see L. Alsdorf, Kleine Schriften,
pp. 1 12f. The minute study of such expressions can be re-
warding: see 1. B. Horner's illuminating article: "Keci, 'some'
in the P5li commentaries," JPTS IX (1981), pp. 87-95.
44 Cf. Index of works quoted in vol. VI of the Brhatkal-
pabhasya ed. (Bhavnagar, 1942).
128 Journal of the American Oriental Society 105.1 (1985)
indeed, elements belonging to other traditions are not
retained in his commentary and this procedure of
selection finally results in a new text. Here verses which
are clearly stamped as being quotations are omitted;
elsewhere the elaborate Canonical prose style of the
curni (vedhas, etc.) which may have been felt to be
outdated by his time has been left aside or adapted.45
It is, however, possible that he faithfully followed a
source other than the curni in the state in which it is
available to us to-day.
As for the unpublished Avasyaka commentary of
Tilakacarya (13th cent.; see 4.3.) it contains only one
Sanskrit remake in slokas. The existence of two ver-
sions could not have been deduced from it alone.
4. The Jaina texts.
I refer to Leumann's readings (L) when they differ
from the editions available to-day. The following rules
of transcription are observed: initial nasal is written
n-; intervocalic nasal is written -n-. All eds. make a
more or less abundant use of inorganic -t- between
vowels. This question has been variously solved by
scholars: the editors of the Jaina Agama Series (vol. I
Nandisuttam and Anuogadddram, Bombay, 1968,
p. 86) put forward a qualified opinion and sometimes
retained the ta-gruti out of respect for the old manu-
script tradition. Whatever its linguistic value, this
orthography may have accounted for verbal puns
(cf. C. Caillat, "Notes sur les variantes dans la tradition
du Dasaveyaliyasutta," Indologica Taurinensia VIII-
IX, Torino, 1981, n. 16 & n. 40; idem, "Notes sur les
45 See, for instance, the description of the birth-consecra-
tion performed by all categories of gods on the occasion of
Rsabha's birth: AvC 1, pp. 136-151 depicts them lengthily
in the elaborate Canonical style, explicitly quoting the Jam-
buddTvappannatti and the Rdyapasenaijja (cf. L .Alsdorf,
Ki. Schriften, pp. 136-159). On the other hand, AvTH,
pp. 121a-125a, summarizes them in ordinary Prakrit prose in-
termingled with a few enumerative verses. Another similar
case is mentioned in A. Mette, Indisehe Kulturstiftungsber-
ichte und ihr Verhdltnis zur Zeitaltersage (Wiesbaden, 1973),
p. 9; ubi alia. This had been rightly stated by Leumann in his
handwritten analysis of our story: "Im Allgemeinen wird
schon von Haribhadra an von allen Benutzern der Curni die
Diction derselben dem ublichen Sanskrit ndher gebracht";
idem, Uebersicht, p. 15a: "Die Clirni bringt -um es kurz zu
sagen- in Sprache und Anlage die erste Traditionsperiode
zum Abschluss, wahrend Haribhadra's Tik5 eine zweite
eroffnet."
This content downloaded from
149.62.44.225 on Wed, 19 Jul 2023 02:24:53 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
variantes grammaticales dans le D.," Indological and
Buddhist Studies in Honour of Prof. J. W. de Jong
( . . . ), Canberra, 1982, p. 71). On the other hand,
R. Pischel (Grammatik ? 203) and A. N. Upadhye
(Kuvalayamala, Pt. 2, Bombay, 1970, p. 13ff.) gener-
ally suppress it. I shall follow their example.
The various texts represent different steps in the
literary development of the story. These do not neces-
sarily correspond to chronological stratification or
criteria.
4.1. The short Prakrit version specific to the Av.
tradition is the simplest stage of the narrative; it may
also be the earliest, but this cannot be proved beyond
doubt: AvC 1, p. 345-346; AvTH p. 262b; AvTM 1,
p. 345ab.
As Leumann did in his Av. Erz., I take Haribhadra's
text as a basis and collect other readings in footnotes.
Some of them are interesting from the linguistic point
of view: e.g., abhidduijjamano M which is perhaps a
present passive participle of the stemm abhiddava-, or
secondarily built on abhidduya- (Sa. abhidruta-) "at-
tacked by"? Words put between brackets are those
which do not appear in the C.
AvN vs. 680 (arya):
abbhatthanae MARUO VANARAO ceva hoi
dit hanto,
guru-karane sayam eva u VANIYAGA DONNI
ditthantd. (see above, p. 124f).
ego VANA ROi rukkhe acchai, (vdsdsu) sTa-vdenai
jhadijaiii
tahe sugharae sauniyae bhanio:
1. "vdnara, puriso si tumam,111 nir-atthayam vahasi
bahu-dandaim,
jo payavassa sihare na karesi kudim pa~dalim
va!" (trsl. p. 7).
so evam tTe bhanioi' tunhikko acchai. tahe so doc-
cam pi (taccam pi) bhanai. (tao) so ruttho (tam)
rukkham duruhium adhatto."' sa nattha. tena tlse
tam gharam sumbam sumbham vikkhittam.i
bhanai ya:
2. "na vi si mamam mayahariyd, na vi si mamam
sohiya va niddhd va,
sughare, acchasu vighard, ja vattasi loga-tattrsu
(=infra, 4.2, vs. 10).
suham idanim accha. " "
i) vanarago C; ii) jhadijjanto C; v. sliya-vaehim abhid-
duijjamano (L abhiduijjamano) sugharae sauniyae
 BALBIR: The Monkey and the Weaver Bird 129

bhanio M; iii) vanaraga, vanaraga nir- C; vanaraga,
puriso M; iv) so tfe evam vutte ta. C; evam so tle bh.
t. a. M; v) araddho M; vi) t.t. ya C; tena tlse ghara-
gam suyam2 vikkhittarn M; vii) nibbhagge, iyanim
suham accha M.
4.2. The metrical version is broadly a versified account
of 4.1.: Brhatkalpabhasya commentary (vol. 111, p. 909-
910 at vs. 3252); "Nebenversion" of AvC 1, p. 345-346
and AvTM 1, p. 345ab.
However, two lines of expansion or amplification
can be seen:
(i) vss. 2-3 form a development emphasizing the
cleverness of the weaver-bird. They are found in the
three passages.
(ii) On the other hand, AvC and AvTM elabo-
rate with an awkward insistance upon the anger of the
monkey: cp. vs. 6 in 4.2.1. and 4.2.3.
The reader will find a discussion of philological
details in the footnotes 46-58.
4.2.1. Text.
In AvC and AvTM editions, where both 4.1. and
4.2. are mixed together, vss. 1-5 are preceded by the
beginning of 4.1. up to paTdalim va then by the sen-
tence kei annam pi bhananti (C) or kei puna evam
bhananti (M).
The narrator:
1. vasena ihadijjantam rukkh'agge vanaram tharath-
arantam
sughara nama sauniya bhanai tayam neddae santT:
b) datthulnarm v. M; tharatharentarm M, KBh.; d) bh.
tayanim vaesantT C ed.; taya niddae santT L.
vdnara, tume a-suhie, amhe vi dhitim na vin-
damo."
a) dhara-pahare KBh; b) geham a. KBh.; d) ratim KBh;
4-5ab are confused in M ed. where we read: hattha tava
manusage jarisa tdrisa hiyammi vinnanam
jTviya ca 'mmoha-phalam tu vi sahasi dhara-vatehim
(chindeuna tanaim) icchasi vasahim na appano kaum.
Leumann's transcript has for M:
hattha tava manusaga [ssa] jarisa hiyayammi vinnanam.
[hattha vinnanamJ jTviyam [ca] moha-[p]phalam tujj[h~a;
visahasi dhara-vate, icchasi . . .
In AvC and AvTM eds., the end of 4.1. comes between
vs. 5 and vs. 6. The sentence anne bhananti (C) or anne
evam bhananti (M) introduces the remaining portion
of the verses.
The narrator:
6. taha doccam taha taccam; rosavio tTW vdnaro pdvo
rosena dhamadhamento, upphidio tam gao salam.
ab) so in KBh; see 4.2.3. for AvC and AvTM; d) u.
bhangium malam M ed.; Leumann's transcript: u. bhan-
gato malam. We should probably read salam "a branch."
In the Jaina nagari script, signs for ma and sa can be
very similar.
7. akampiammi to padavammi phiridi tti niggaa
sughara;
annammi dumammi thia, jhadijjae sra-vaenam.
b) phiradi tti KBh.
8. iaro vi ya tam necd/dam ghettunam padavassa siha-
rao
tanayam ekk 'ekkam anchiuna to u/jhaT kuvio.
c) kuflam e. C; miularn e. L. suiyam . .. chindiuina M;
cp.4. 1. sumbam.

The bird to the monkey: The monkey to the bird:

2. "chettuina me tanaim, aneunarm ca rukkha-sihar- 9. bhamT-gaammi to nec4dayammi aha bhanai van-
ammi aro pavo:
vasahT kaya nivaya, tattha vasamim niruvvigga; "sughare, avahia-hiyae, suna tava jaha ahiriya si!
a) chettuln'ime M; d) vasrmT M; niruvasagga M. c) a.-h. = KBh, M; C anuhia-hidae, lectio difficilior: cf.
3. ettha hasami ramami ya, viisa-ratte ya na vi ya n. 56. d) aiariya C; adhiriya L: for the alternation v/dh
olla mi, see M. Yajima, "A Note on Ayaramga-Sutta 1.2.6.3" in
andolamani vanara, vasanta-masam vilambemi; Sambodhi vol. 9 (April 1980-June 1981), n. 21, p. 75;
a) tattha vasami r. M; andolayami M, KBh, cf. below K. R. Norman, The Elders' Verses II (London, 1971),
n. 50. p. 57.
4. hatthii tava manusagassa jarisa, hidayae ya vin- 10. na va si mamam mayahariyd, na va si mamam
nanam: sohiyd va niddhd va;
hattha, vinnianamn jviam ca moha-pphalam tuj- sughare, acchasu vi-ghard, ja vattasi loga-tattTsu
jhamlI ab) na vi si mamam mayihariya, n'eva si mama setthiya
d) tujjha KBh. va niddha va C.
5. visahasi dhara-ppahare, na ya icchasi vasahim Then the KTik& has a Prakrit sentence, which, accord-
appano kaum; ing to Leumann's notes, has been borrowed from the

This content downloaded from

149.62.44.225 on Wed, 19 Jul 2023 02:24:53 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
130 Journal of the A meritcan Oriental Societv 105.1 (1985)

Kalpacirni. It concludes the story in connecting the month of spring.'

snake's tail with the monkey, and the head with the
weaver-bird (see above, p. 127). Finally, we find the
quotation of the Pancatantra verse (not found in the
Av. tradition):
ata evoktam: upadego na ddtavyo yiddrke tddirejane
pasya vdnara-mfirkhena sugrhf nigrhf krti.
4.2.2. Translation.
4. Like a human being you have hands and intel-
ligence in the heart; hands, intelligence and life
are fruitless to you.
5. You bear the blows of rain and do not wish to
build yourself a house; while you are unhappy,
monkey, I also cannot find peace."
6. So a second time, and a third time; she made
the wicked monkey wild. Panting with wrath52
he went jumping to the branch.53

In presenting the following provisional translation,
my hope is that the reader will appreciate, as I did,
the unpretentious achievement of the anonymous
story-teller in the staging of this little drama, the vivid wind.
description of the monkey's anger, and the sarcastic
tone of its words (vs. 10), as well as the precise sense
of observation which the suggestive picture of the
weaver-bird's behaviour reveals.
1. A monkey tormented by the rains46 was shiver-
ing at the top of a tree. A bird known as the
weaver-bird (sughara)47 who was sitting in her
nest said to him:48
2. "Having cut grass-twigs which I have brought
to the top of a tree, I have made a home, free
from the wind; here I live without anxiety.49
3. Here I have a good time and enjoy myself, and
during the rainy-season I do not get in the least
wet; swinging,50 monkey, I act as if during the
7. As soon as the tree was shaken, the bird flew
away, pfuit! with a flap of its wings.54 Sitting
on another tree she was tormented by the cold
8. Meanwhile the other one took the nest from the
top of the tree, pulled the twigs one by one,"
51 vilambemi= Sa. vidambayami. On I for d see Pischel
? 226. Thus either: "I mock at the spring-month," i.e., as I
can swing at will in my nest, I need not wait for the spring,
or, rather, "(even during the rainy-season) I imitate (the
behavior I would have) in the spring." I owe this convincing
interpretation to Prof. H. C. Bhayani. It is also supported by
Tilaka (infra 4.3) vs. 4cd: andolayvami dola-sthadhunapi
surabhav iva. (An explanation referring to the verb vi-lamb-
can give nothing satisfactory).
52 rosena dhamadhamento: cliche expression with redupli-
cated expressive word (cp. vs. I tharatharantam): see Erzdh-
lungen 72,2*; 71, 38* kovena dh. See for other similar

46 jhadi;.jai, cf. CDIAL 5328.2 *jhatayati "shakes down";
*jhatati "falls"; 5329 *jhadt "rainstorm."
47 See below, Appendix.
48 tayam: enlarged form of the demonstrative pronoun (not
recorded by Pischel); cf. Jacobi, Erzdhlungen 85, 37*; J. J.
Meyer, Hindu Tales, (London, 1909), p. 286, n. 1; J. Deleu-
W. Schubring, Studien zum MahdnisTha (Hamburg, 1963)
? 19 and Glossary; = Digambara Prakrit tago = Jaina Skt.
taka-, cf. A. N. Upadhye, The Brhatkathakoga (Bombay,
1943), intr. p. 98; M. Bloomfield, "On Diminuitive Pronouns
in Jaina Sanskrit," Indian Studies in Honour of C. R. Lan-
man (Harvard, 1929), pp. 7-25. According to Prof. H. C.
Bhayani, the reading of AvC could mean: "advising at that
time" (vaesantT uvaesantT= Sa. upa-diS-); Leumann's read-
ing: "(the bird) who was then sitting in her nest."
49 vasamim AvC, L, KBh; vasamT TM: -im or - as alterna-
tive spellings of a metrical lengthening (cp. Pischel ? 75)?
50 I retain the lectio difficilior andolamaini (C,L), a pos-
sible form of the Middle Feminine Present Participle, for
-atya]miinT against the Present Sg. I andolayimi (TM, KBh;
Tilaka 4.3, vs. 4).
formations H. Jacobi, The Kalpasiitra (Leipzig, 1881), p. 104.
5 upphadai (v. 1. upphidai) also said of a monkey in Das
Saptafatakam des H6la, hrsg. von A. Weber (Leipzig, 1881;
repr. 1966) stanza 171cd:
upphadai makka~do khokkhei a pottam ca pittei.
"(er) springt in die Hbhe, knurrt und schldgt sich den Bauch"
(Weber, ZDMG 28, 1874, p. 391).
54 phiridi ti (Av); phiradi tti (KBh). I cannot find this word
recorded either in the usual dictionaries or in K. Mitra,
"Onomatopoeia and its use in Middle Indo-Aryan (Jaina
Literature)," Indian Linguistics 8 (1940-44), pp. 406-417. It
probably refers to the particular twitter of the weaver-bird,
or, rather to the sound of its wings when it flies away. Cp.
CDIAL 9038* phat "sudden movement." It also reminds of
the adverbs like jhadatti, taditti, etc.: cf. L. A. Schwarzschild,
"Notes on some words meaning "immediately" in Middle
Indo-Aryan," JRAS 1961 (1-2), pp. 39-44 and M. Hahn,
"Iti als Adverbialbilder," ZDMG (Suppl. 111, 2), 1977,
pp. 854-863, where it is however not listed.
ss Pk. amchai, Sa. anichati, Pa. afichati: CDIAL 1099;
CPD 1, s.v. Take note of the lectio difficilior kulam (C). It

This content downloaded from

149.62.44.225 on Wed, 19 Jul 2023 02:24:53 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 BALBIR: The Monkey' and the Weaver Bird 131

and full of anger let them (fall). "As the first time so she spoke a second, a third and a
9. As the nest was lying on the ground, the wicked fourth time. At the fifth time he had been admon-
monkey said: Weaver-bird, just listen with an ished,59 the wicked monkey got wild.
attentive mind,56 you are shameless! Angry, biting his lips-like Hanuman during the
10. You are not my boss,"7 nor my companion, nor burning of Lanka-panting with wrath he went jump-
my friend; o nice-housed one, remain without a ing to the branch."
house (sughare. ... vighard), for meddling in A few details may point to an interpolation: the
other people's affairs.58 insisting tone with five provocations from the bird,
instead of three in KBh; the uncertainty of the word
4.2.3. Expansion. sandattho which may have been influenced by the fol-
Instead of KBh vs. 6 describing the monkey's anger, lowing verse and which is rather obscure; and, last but
AvC and AvTM offer a typical case of literary ampli- not least, the highly formulaic evocation of vs. 6ab
fication in one arya and a half. and the facile comparison with Hanumdn. Biting one's
own lips (Pk. sandatth'ottho = Sa. samdastaustha-)
5bis. jaha padhamarm taha biiyam taha taiyarm taha is listed as one of the conventional manifestations
cautthayam bhaniam, of the "furious sentiment" along with frowning, etc.,
pancamiarm rosavio sandattho vinaro pa-vo in the treatises of dramaturgy.60 Numerous occur-
6. kuddho sandatth' ottho Lankii-ddhe va jaha ya rences of such stereotyped expressions with the verb
Hanumanto (sam-)DAMS- are found in the description of epic
rosena dhamadhamento upphidio tam gao salam.heroes.6' On the other hand, the chapter showing
Hanuman setting Lanka on fire with its tail ablaze
5bis a. taha p. L; c. pancamayam M; d. sandittho M; is clearly a later interpolation in the Hindu Ramd-
6b. - dahe ya jaha sa M. yana.62 As for the Jaina recensions, from Vimalasuri's
Paumacariya to Hemacandra's Trisasti onwards, they
generally do not include this marginal incident.63

could be a metrical form for kula which reminds of kulaya- 4.3. Metrical Sanskrit transposition by Tilakacarya in
"nest" (Pancatantra versions), kutava "idem" in the Pali his still unpublished Ava'yaka commentary.
parallels (Ja III 74, 2*; Dhp-a 11 23, 4* kutika-), explained as In this work, which was composed in Sam. 1296
kulhvaka in the prose; cp. CDIAL 3340; 3227.2. ( 1239 A.D.), all stories are narrated in Sanskrit 'lo-
56 avahiya-hiyaa-, also with irnoti, for instance, in Erzah- kas. It was already known to E. Leumann who referred
lungen 77, 14*: to one MS in the British Museum and another one in
... nisuinasu avahiya-hiyao kumara hou~nam. Cambridge, and gave the date as 1239 A.D. (Ueber-
anuhia-hidae of AvC is not clear to me: "nice-hearted?" sicht, p. 14a, lines 65ff., and p. 15a; idem, "Da'avaika-
"Well-disposed"? lika-sutra und -niryukti," p. 582, n. 2). Other manu-
57 I take Pk. mayahariyi (fem. of mayahara "a village scripts have been recorded by P. Peterson, Detailed
head-man," a degl word) in its technical meaning of "a senior Report of Operations in search of Sanscrit Mss in the
nun, an abbess" (cf. Erzahlungen 36, 13; 37, 27; S.B.DEO,
HistorY of Jaina Monachism, p. 471 and n. 42). Here the 59 M sandittho = Skt. samdista, PSM s.v.; or: "at the fifth
word is obviously used in an ironical derogatory way, may time the monkey was seen furious" (= Skt. samdrrstah)?
be alluding to the moralizing tone of religious people? More 60 See Naftyasi'stra Vll, 16 (ed. Baroda, 1956: GOS 36,
generally it can refer to "a superior lady" to whom respect is p. 352); Dasariupa IV, 81 (ed. G. C. 0. Haas, Delhi, 1962),
owed (cp. 4.3. vs. 8 me mahatT tvam na). etc.

58 tatti "anxious thought, entire devotion to a thing"; e.g.,
R. N. Shriyan, A Critical Study of Mahapurana of Puspa-
danta (Ahmedabad, 1969), p. 254 with references: a "deAT"
word often explained by cinti. CDIAL 5683 seems to relate
it to tapti "heat," while DegTndmamali (ed. R. Pischel, Bom-
bay, 1880) refers to tat in the Glossary. See also A. Weber,
Das Saptafatakam des Hala on stanza 2. Tilaka's text (4.3,
61 The Pratlka-Index of the Mahabharata vol. 6 (Poona,
1972), p. 4171a s.v. sandastostha-. Hemacandra, Trisastiiala-
kapurusacarita VII, 2, l8ab; VII, 6, 399, etc.
62 Baroda Critical Ed. V, p. 52. See H. Jacobi, Das Rumii-
yana. Geschichte und Inhalt nebst Koncordanz nach den
gedruckten Recensionen (Bonn, 1893; repr. Darmstadt, 1970),
pp. 34f.

vs. 8) has para-tapti = Pk. para-tatti (Saptapatakam vs. 866; 63 See for instance K. R. Chandra, A Critical Study of
Manipaticarita vs. 234; etc.). Paumacariyarm (Vaishali, 1970), pp. 85ff., 239.

This content downloaded from

149.62.44.225 on Wed, 19 Jul 2023 02:24:53 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
132 Journal of the A merican Oriental Societl 105.1 (1985)
Bombay Circle, 1882-83 (Extra No. of the Journal of
the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society,
vol. XVI), p. 60ff., with extracts from the text and its
colophon. An important palm-leaf MS with a few
refined paintings (copied in Sam. 1445 = 1388 A.D.) is
mentioned in Muni Punyavijaya, Catalogue of Palm-
Leaf Mss in the Simntinitha Jain Bhandara, Cambay,
Pt. I (Baroda, 1961: GOS 135), No. 63, pp. 86-88 =
U. P. Shah, Treasures of Jaina Bhandiras (Ahmeda-
bad, 1978: L. D. Series 69), No. 410 of the Appendix
on MSS.
The text given below is cited from a fairly modern
MS kept in the L. D. Institute of Indology, Ahmedabad,
No. 9016, foll. 103b-104a (in Catalogue of Sanskrit
and Prakrit Manuscripts, Pt. IV, Ahmedabad, 1968,
L. D. Series 20, pp. 16-17, Serial No. 108; prasasti
ibid., Pt. I, pp. 66-67). I had access to it through a
photocopy prepared and kept in the Institut fur In-
dische Philologie und Kunstgeschichte, Freie Univer-
sitat, Berlin. Though much later, Tilaka's version
represents a compromise between the short version
(4.1) and the metrical text analysed in 4.2.1. The
description of the monkey's anger is rather tossed
down, vs. 7 being nearer to the sobriety of KBh (vs. 6)
than to the poetical emphasis of AvC and AvTM (in
4.2.3.). At the same time, it includes the verse stress-
ing the human-like aspect of the monkey, which
appears in the short version but is less clear in the
versified one: Tilaka vs. 2-vs. 1 in 4.1. Thus, in this
particular case, chronology of the works and literary
affinities are two different things: the place of Tilaka's
account is in fact between 4.1. and 4.2.
lcd. !Tta-vdtdrdito varsdsv eko 'bhat vinaras
tarau.
2. gakunih sugrh6ce tam: tvam vinara! naro na
hi?
aparthau te bhuji-dandau, svasrayam na
karosi yat.
3. chittvanTya trndny atra !ikharantas taroh
svayam
krte nide nivite 'smin nir-udvigna vasdmy
aham.
4. varsasv api na timyami, hasami ca ramami ca,
mndolaydmi dola-sthadhunapi surabhav iva.
5. manusyasyeva te hastau, vij/iinaqm hrdaye 'pi that no version of the story can be traced in the Jaina
ca,
sarvam nir-arthakam markha!; fivitam te tatha
vrthd.
6. megha-dhdrd-prahdrdn yat sahase tvam nir-
asrayah,
vdnara! tvayy asukhite labhe 'ham api no
dhrtim.
This content downloaded from
149.62.44.225 on Wed, 19 Jul 2023 02:24:53 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
7. sakrd uktah sthitas tasnrm. dvis-trir ukto 'tha
so 'kupat.
tam druhya tarum vegid abhdhks!t sugrhd-
grham.
8. ace: me mahatT tvam na, na snigdha va, suhrn
na via.
sugrhe! vigrhd tistha! para-taptim karosi yat.
5. Conclusion.
I have purposely refrained from mentioning any
chronological indications for the Jaina texts I have
referred to. As they are composed of different layers,
we always have to distinguish between the approximate
date of the entire work and the date of a particular
piece. Thus the Ava'yaka-niryukti is usually ascribed
to the first centuries A.D. In the case of the story
studied here, we have no means to prove that the
drya (680) where it appears is so old. The same is true
of the Brhatkalpabhasya tristubh (3252). On the other
hand, we know that Malayagiri and KsemakTrti lived
in the 12th and 13th centuries. However, the diction
and the style of the metrical version (4.2.) suggest an
earlier time of composition, perhaps around the 7th
or 8th centuries A.D. Thus it may have been contem-
porary with the era of the curnis from which it was
borrowed. The short account (4.1.) is written in a plain
style, but this fact does not necessarily point to a high
antiquity; it may have been contemporary with the
metrical text. Nevertheless, the existence of the story
in the Pancatantra and the Jaina/ Buddhist traditions
may prove that it was known in India at a fairly early
date. There is no evidence that, in this case, the Pali
verses are particularly old, or that one version is more
"original" than the other.
We have seen the difference of contexts between
the Jataka, the Ava'yaka and the Brhatkalpabhdsya
commentaries. However, both the Buddhists and the
Jainas show the same type of specialization: the mon-
key and the weaver-bird story is used in a disciplinary
context as an illustration of the conflicting relations
between monks who do not take for granted the reli-
gious hierarchy as it is. The Ava'yaka texts put face
to face a superior and a novice, whereas the Brhatkal-
pabhasya intends to demonstrate the shortcomings of
some senior monks. Would all this explain the fact
narrative literature of the Middle-Ages, which is
mostly devoted to encouraging the layman's virtues?
The study of the Prakrit texts has helped us to
analyze the intricate material handed down by the
Avagyaka tradition which appears to be composite.
We have here one of the many cases where related
versions are preserved side by side in one and the
 BALBIR: The Monkey and the Weaver Bird 133

same text. The Brhatkalpabhasya parallel proves the version (4.2) vividly depicts its using the nest as a
existence of an independent metrical account, probablyswing.
derived from the short one in mixed prose and verses. A zoological identification is not impossible. The
It should be added that the task of tracing more commentator on the Su'ruta-samhita (XLVI, 64) ex-
Jaina parallels is not an easy one in the case of such plains that the sugrhF has a yellow head and is com-
stories where no proper name occurs. And their monly known as the "weaver" (sugrhF pitamastako
amount-and interest-in all the Prakrit commen- vayd iti loke; CDIAL 11298 vaya "weaver"; hence
taries is far from negligible. The Dictionary of Prakrit
Hindi bayi). Similarly the old Indian names are kept
Proper Names proves to be insufficient in such a in the western Neo-Indian languages: Gujarati sugharF
situation. The only solution might be to prepare de- and sugaro, Rajasthani sughara (see respectively
tailed tables of contents (or indexes) of the works in H. R. Kapadia, "The Jaina Records about Birds,"
order to extract all the narrative material.64 ABORI 43, 1962, p. 93; M. B. Belsare, An Etymolog-
ical Gujarati English Dictionary; RdjasthanT sabad
APPENDIX: The weaver-bird. kos, Jodhpur, 1978). All refer to the "weaver": Ploceus
philippinus (cf. Salim Ali, The Book of Indian Birds,
It is well-known that animals' names and their iden-
Bombay Natural History Society, 1979", No. 245; ubi
tifications are often a stumbling-block of Indology. alia).
On the other hand, familiar folk-tales, like the one The bird actually associated with our story in the
studied above, may supply valuable information on oral tradition is the baya: cf. John Lockwood Kipling,
the realia. Beast and Man in India. A Popular Sketch of Indian
The different versions do not pay the same atten- Animals in their Relation with People (London, New
tion to the bird. The Hitopadega tradition does not York, 1892), p. 22: "A popular rhyming proverb con-
mention any specific name (paksinah sukham varsdsv trasts the house-building talent of the baya bird with
api nivasanti 111,1). The Pali texts call it singila-sakuna the helplessness of the shelterless monkey, which, hav-
(Be sihgala; singdla) or singila alone, but do not give ing human hands and feet, is yet incapable of protect-
any particular indication about its habits. I cannot ing itself against the weather. This verse is often quoted
propose anything satisfactory for this word which for the benefit of idle boys and girls who object to
seems to occur only in the present context. It is ex- learn."
plained as "a kind of horned bird" by Rhys Davids & Thus for all these reasons Boehtlingk-Roth's identi-
Stede (Pali-English Dictionary, s.v.), i.e., a hoopoe- fication of sugrhT and cognate terms with the "tailor-
bird? It may be formed on Pa. singa (Sa. srnga-) with bird" (Sylvia sutoria = Orthotomus sutorius) in the
suffix -i/a-, as in kokila "the Indian Cuckoo" (cp. Petersburg Dictionary and the Abhidhanacintamani
Wackernagel- Debrunner, A /tindische Grammatik 11/2, (ed. Boehtlingk-Rieu, St. Petersburg, 1847, vs. 1341,
? 231a). It may also stemm from Pa. singin (Sa srh- p. 251) is most probably inaccurate from the ornitho-
gin) with extension -1- (CDIAL 12595)? See moreover, logist's point of view: indeed both birds have in
W. Norman Brown, "The Pancatantra in Modern common the practice of sewing elaborate nests: every-
Indian Folklore" (India and Indology, Delhi, 1978, body remembers the charming "Darzee's chaunt" in
n. 36, p. 141). Kipling's Book of the Jungle. Nevertheless, they belong
On the other hand, the Pancatantra tradition and to entirely different families and the modern Indian
the Prakrit versions lay emphasis on the bird's skill- names of the "tailor-bird" are quite different from
fulness in building a sophisticated hanging nest; hence those mentioned above (Sdlim Ali's personal letter
its name of sFicimukh& (-ii) "needle-mouth," sugrhT dated 3-11-1983). Hence here the equivalent "weaver-
(Pk. sughara, suharli, sugehili) "nice-housed," hence bird."
also the pun sugrhT/ni(r)grhT. The Prakrit metrical Finally the reader can refer to Anand Krishna,
"Illustrated Leaves from a Paficatantra Manuscript,"
in Aspects of Jaina Art and Architecture (Ahmedabad,
1975), p. 410 and plate 10, where he will find a realistic
representation of the shivering monkey and the weaver-
64 For example, I found by chance that an allusion tobird
our peeping out from its hanging-nest. Another less
story is included in JIidnapancamlkathah 7.29cd (I Ith cent.;
characteristic illustration is the third one of those
late Prakrit; ed. Bombay, 1949: Singhi Jain Seriesanalyzed
25): by S. Kramrisch, "A Painted Ceiling," Jour-
sughari-makkad-ayanam saccavio vaivaro esa. nal of the Indian Society of Oriental Art, VII (1939),
pp. 175-182.

This content downloaded from

149.62.44.225 on Wed, 19 Jul 2023 02:24:53 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
134 Journal of the American Oriental Societi' 105.1 (1985)

PRAKRIT WORDS DISCUSSED vaesanti n. 48

vasamim. n. 49
amchai n. 55 vilambemi n. 51
anuhiya-hidae (voc.) n. 56 veyavacca ? 3.1.1.; n. 31
andolamani n. 50 sandatth'ottha ? 4.2.3.; n. 60-61
avahiya-hidae (voc.) n. 56 (dasa-)sdmdcari ? 3.1.1.; n. 27-28
icchakara ? 3.1.1.; n. 28-29 Pa. singila(-sakuna) ? 2.; "Appendix"
upphadai n. 53 Sa. sugrhi ? 1.; "Appendix".
ullattiya n. 39 sugehia ? 3.; "Appendix."
kei bhananti p. 128, no. 43 sughara
jhadijjai n. 46
(para-)tatti n. 58 MAIN MOTIFS OR STORIES
taya (Sa. taka-) n. 48
(rosena) dhamadhamento n. 52 Blue Jackal n. 4; n. 38
nijjara ? 3.1.1. Burning of Lanka ? 4.2.3.
paddl! n. 42 Quarelling limbs ? 3.1.2.; n. 36-37
phiridi tti n. 54 Selfish sparrow and houseless crow(s) n. 10
mayahariya n. 57

This content downloaded from

149.62.44.225 on Wed, 19 Jul 2023 02:24:53 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms