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 83 of: Paumacariya (critical study)
83 (of 671)
External source: Shodhganga (Repository of Indian theses)
Download the PDF file of the original publication
54
A CRITICAL STUDY OF PAUMACARIYA�
Käśmirī Rāmāyuṇa (Bulcke-p.325) blame Sarasvati. In the Adhyatma
Ramāyaṇa (2.1.33-28) it is also mentioned that a day before the
coronation of Rāma, Nārada goes to Ayodhyā and reminds Rāma of
his promise to lighten the burden of the earth by killing Rāvaṇa.
Rāma then accepts his advice and promises to enter the forest rather
than accept the kingdom. Further at the time of Kaikeyi's demand
for his exile, he consoles his father saying that his exile is meant
for the accomplishment of the wishes of the gods (devakārya� cāpi
bhaviṣyati 2.3.75). Thus Kaikeyī is saved from being blamed.
Ananda Rāmāyaṇa (1.6), the Kāśmirī Rāmāyaṇa and the interpolated
portions of some versions of the Rāmacaritamānasa also contain this
account (Bulcke, p.319). In the Ramalingamṛta, Kaikeyī tells Rāma,
after his return from Lankā, that she sent him in exile for killing
Rāvana as she was induced by the Devendra (Sarga 12) to do so
(Bulcke-p.207).
The
There are some works which make Pitāmaha (Brahmā) responsible
for the exile of Rāma. According to the Rāmopākhyāna (MB,3.269.9-10),
Gandharví Dundubhi was commissioned by the Pitāmaha to be born
as Mantharā for bringing about the destruction of Daśgarīva by exiling
Rāma. The Gauḍīya version of Padmapurāṇa (Pātālakhaṇḍa ch. 15)
and the Ananda Rāmāyaṇa (1.2.3) mention the same thing.
Then there are certain works which tell us that the enmity of
Manthara with Rāma was responsible for that unhappy episode. The
Agnipurana (6.8) mentions that Rama had insulted Mantharā, hence.
the latter put him in trouble. According to the Telugu Rāmāyaṇa of
Ranganatha (2.3) Rāma had fractured a leg of Mantharā. The
Seri Rāma and the Rāma Kiyena mentiou that Rāma had pierced an
arrow into the hump of Mantharā. According to the Satyopākhyāna
the enmity between Mantharā and Rāma in their previous life be-
came the cause of the exile of Rāma (Bulcke,p. 326).
According to the PCV, Rāma voluntarily prefers exile to crown.
Kaikeyī does not demand his exile. There are some non-Jaina works
.which agree with this point of the PCV.
The Dasaratha Jātaka and the Dasaratha Kathānam mention that
Kaikeyi demanded only the coronation of Bharata. But Dasaratha
being suspicious of the intrigues of the mother of Bharata sent Rāma
and Lakṣmaṇa away from his territory for twelve years. According
to the Anāmakam Jātaka the king voluntarily retired to the forest to
avoid battle with his maternal uncle.
According to the Tibetan Rāmāyaṇa, Dasaratha was unable
to decide whether Rāma or his younger brother should be made the
