Essay name: Paumacariya (critical study)
Author:
K. R. Chandra
Affiliation: Research institute of Prakrit, Jainology and Ahimsa Vaishali
This is a critical study of the Paumacariya: the earliest Jain version of Rama's life story, written in Prakrit by Vimalasuri dating to the 4th century AD. In this text, Rama (referred to as Padma) is depicted with lotus-like eyes and a blooming face. The Paumacariya places emphasis on the human aspects of characters rooted in Jain values, contrasting with the divine portrayal in Valmiki’s version.
Page 390 of: Paumacariya (critical study)
390 (of 671)
External source: Shodhganga (Repository of Indian theses)
Download the PDF file of the original publication
SOCIAL CONDITIONS 361 wife of a Vipra could not meet her paramour at the appointed
place, but unfortunately the brother of that Vipra was killed, who
happened to go to that place (82-47). Śrīdāmā, the queen of
Kulankara become successful in establishing illicit connection with
a Purohita and for that she become merciless to the extent of causing
the murder of her husband (82.37). Queen Kiranamandala,
though warned by her husband, did not prevent herself
from meeting her paramour again. And for that she was exiled by
her husband (101.60). The wife of an envoy caused the death of
her husband at the hands of a Vipra who was her paramour. Further
she did not hesitate in hatching a plot to get her sons murdered,
but the plot was unearthed and the Vipra was killed by her sons
(39.42). The wife of a Gṛhapati got her husband tied to a tree in
the forest at the hands of her Vipra paramour and freely enjoyed with
the latter (48.65). In addition
to these instances of women
who belonged to different strata of the society, there is an allego-
rical reference to a corrupt woman (padutṭhamahilā 15.66) who
would freely move from house to house. There is a further
mention of a harlot (svairiṇ� 5.105) who became the cause of enmity
between two friends.
These evidences support the disparaging remarks made about
the character of woman by the author through the mouths of Rāvana
and Rāma.2 But the statements are
are
circumstantial. Rāvaṇa invites.
calamity by his own misconduct. His brother and sons get captured
by the enemy, his mission fails in sending back Rāma without Sītā and
Sītā also does not like to become his wife. Thus the only course left
open to him was that of the war. At such a time Rāvaṇa gets desperate
and blames the woman-kind. It was on account of his being motivated
by the sexual urge that Rāvaṇa did the ignoble deed of kidnapping
Sītā and for that Rāvana is further found to be blaming himself and
confessing his guilt³ (69.32-33). Thus Rāvaṇa being compelled by the
situation made such derogatory remarks about women otherwise Sītā
was so chaste that she upheld the glorious position of women. Rāma
accepts Sītā after killing Rāvaṇa. He is not suspicious of her virtue.
1. Narayassa
mahāvihi, kaḍhinā saggaggala anayabhūmi, Sariyā vva
kuḍilahiyaya, vajjeyavvä havai nārī-69.34. Sa Padhamadiṭṭhasanti amaena
va majjha phusai aṃgāi�, Sā paramasattacittā, ucciyaṇijjā iham jāyā 69.35.
2. Ahava ko juvainam, jāṇai cariya� sahāvakuḍilāṇam, Dosāṇa āgāro cciya,
jāṇa sarire vasai kāmo. 93-35. Mulam duccariyāṇam, havai ya narayassa
vattaṇ� viulā, mokkhassa mahāviggham, vaijeyavvā sayā nārī-93.36.
3. Niyayakula� uttama� kaya� maliṇam...vammahaaniyattacitteṇa� 69.32.
Dhiddhi aho akajja�...ihāṇīya mayaṇamūḍheṇa�--69.33.
