________________
618
A CRITICAL STUDY OF PAUMACARIYAN
T
In the third chapter there is a comparison of various episodes of the Rāma-kathā of Paumacariyam with those of the Valmiki Rāmājana and the Rāmacaritamānasa of Tulasidasa. The Răma-stories of Vasudevahindi and Uttarapur āņa comprising two currents of a different Jaina tradition have been also compared in it. Along with that various other Jaina and non-Jaina works on Rāma-story have been quoted showing some traditional backing of Paumacariyaṁ or its influence on them.
In the fourth chapter 63 intervening stories of Paum acariyam have been summarised and similar stories from other Jaina and Brahmanical works have been add uced showing the source or influence of Paumacariyam.
In the fifth chapter we have come to the conclusion that the genealogical list of the Ikşvāku Vamóa given in the Paumacariyam is influenced by the Valmiki Rāmāyaṇa and the Brahmanical Purānas, Other five dynasties, namely, Soma, Hari, Vidyādhara, Rākşasa and Vanara have independent genealogical lists. Subsequent Jaina works have generally drawn upon Paumacariyam as regards these dynasties.
In the sixth chapter there is a critical estimate of the preceding three chapters showing the sources, contribution and influence of Paumacariyaṁ. It can be summarised as follows :
Vimalasūri's Ramakathā has its basic foundation on the Jaina and Popular tradition because we find that in its certain features it takes us back to the Adi Rāmāyana and in one case even before it. Sita is the legal daughter of Janaka born of his wife; there is no golden deer incident; Lanka has not been set on fire and Hanumat here neither jumps across the sea, nor changes his form, nor brings any mountain peak. These features take us back to the original Adi Rāmāyana. Bhāmandala as the brother of Sítā has no mention in the Valmiki Ramayana but it is a historical element and thus it takes us even prior to the Adi-Rāmāyana.
In the PCV there is absence of the depiction of the Raksasas as demons, the Vanaras as monkeys. Kumbhakarna as a diabolical character and Rāvaņa as a cruel and ten-faced monster. They are all exaggerations in the VR, which did not form the part of the original story.
Now this querry may safely be posed : How could Vimālasûri come to know that the above elements were not the ingredients of the orginal Ramakatha ? During his time i. e. 5th century A. D. when the
