Critical Study Of Paumacariyam

SR No.: 022643
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: K R Chandra
Publisher: Research Institute of Prakrit Jainology and Ahimsa
Publication Year: 1970
Total Pages: 672
Language: English, Sanskrit
Classification: Book_English & Book_Devnagari
File Size: 18 MB

Page 285

256
A CRITICAL STUDY OF PAUMACARIYAM
As regards the second aim, it is important to mention that the scholars hold that the story of Adi Ramayana was that of an ideal Kṣatriya. The Brahmanical colouring to it was given by the later interpolators.
For the third aim the consequent discussion will show how far there was backing of some tradition and to what extent Vimalasūri gave a new shape to the story.
Now we shall quote evidences from Adi Ramayana as well as from other early Brahmanical and Buddhist works on Rama-story and the validity of the alleged probabilities and the value of our
contentions.
(a) In criticism of the first aim the following points are worth consideration:
The PCV mentions that Sita was the legal daughter of Janaka. It is supported by the Ramopakhyana of MB and the Harivamsapurana. In the Kathasaritsagara (9.1.60) also Sītā is not referred to as Ayonijā but as Janakātmaja. Not only that but even in the Adi Ramayana i.e. the contents given in the first chapter of Balakaṇḍa of VR (1.1.27), she is said to be 'Janakasya kulejātā (See Supra, Ch. 3. Sec. 28).
The PCV does not refer to any device of deer for abducting Sītā. The Buddhist as well as some Brahmanical works also do not refer to it. The Anamakam Jataka and the Kurmapurana are such instances. The Kathasaritsagara (9. 1. 62) mentions that Rāvana kidnapped Sită deceitfully (māyā). There is no reference to any deer. Even in the VR at (1. 1. 52) i. e. in the Adi Rāmāyaṇa it is mentioned that deceitfut Marica led away Rama and Lakṣmaṇa but there is no reference to the deer. Mr. C. V. Vaidya holds that the episode of deer is a later interpolation in the VR (See Supra, Ch. 3 Sec. 5D)
The PCV does not mention that Hanumat manifested his huge form while crossing the sea and changed his form while entering the city of Lanka. It is supported by the Ramopakhyāna (MB, 3. 282. 59-60). Not only that but even the VR (1. 1. 72) i. e. Adi Rāmāyana does not refer to these two incidents
The PCV does not refer to setting Lanka on fire by Hanumat. This episode, as held by Dr. Jacobi, is interpolated later in the Valmiki Ramayana (Vide Bulcke, p. 366.
The PCV has no reference to the constructing of bridge to cross the sea. The Abhiseka Nataka, the Hindu Padmapurana and the Adbhuta Rāmāyaṇa also do not refer to the bridge. They mention some other