________________
No. 1] Heroes of the Jain Legends
13 facts themselves should be held to be unreal. It may not be impossible to foist an alligorical interpretation on the Ráma-Story but the question is whether this is what the authors of the Råmāyawa intended. First of all, there is the unbroken tradition about the truth of the Rāma-Story. There are ruling princes even ‘now in India who claim to have descended from Rāma himself. All places connected with the Rama-Story are geographically real and wellknown. There is no inherent improbability of the facts of the Ramayañna. Under the circumstances, one would not be unjustified in holding that the Rāma-Story has atleast a core of historical truth.
The story of the Rāmāyaña, appearing in the Jaina Purañas, points to the same conclusion. Ráma is the Para-Brahmañ, Sita is his Māya or Sakti or Jivātmā; and the story of the Ramayana may he interpreted as the Lila of the All-Highest. This may be in consonance with the principles of the histic Vedāntâ philosophy. But Jainism is opposed to the Vedānta philosophy on important points. There is no reason why Jainism would choose to glorify the Rāma.Story, if it were nothing more than an allegorical discription of Vedāntic principles. Thus the very fact that the Jainas have respectfully embodied the käma:story in their sacred lore is almost a proof conclusive that it is more than philosophical speculation in symbolic garb and that it may have a historical basis.
The appearance of the Rama-Story in the Buddhist literature is another fact corroborating what we have said above. We admit that in Buddhist hands, the story has been changed almost beyond recognition. We are told, for instance, by the Buddhist that Sitā was Rāma's sister. Still, the substance of the Rāma-Story, given by Valmiki, is there. The fact of Rama being the prince of Ayodhyā and Sitä, his consort, that of his exile and Sita's abduction, that of Sita's recovery and Rama's ascending the throne of Ayodhyū are found in the Buddhist version also. Had the Rāma-Story been nothing more than a penniworth of the Vedānta philosophy, so to say, how could we expect to find it with those substantial details in the literature of the Buddhist who are antagonist to the doctrine of the Jivätma and the Paramåtmā ?
For essentially the same reasons as above, we are unable to subg. cribe to R. C. Dutt's theory that the Rāmāyana is but an elaborate
