________________
INTRODUCTION
Sources of the Paümacariu.
In the very opening stanza of the first Sandhi of PC. Svayambhu declares that he has taken on hand to narrate the Rama-tory after keeping in view the Arsa. The colophons of all the Parvans of Ravişena's Padmacarita begins with iti Arṣe Ravişenācārya-prokte Padmacarite. This makes it clear that Svayambhu's reference pertains to that work. And this is endorsed by PC. 1 2 9 where we are told that Kaviraja Svayambhu has embarked upon such a vast theme through the favour of Acarya Ravişeņa. In the same Kadavaka Svayambhu also gives, following Ravişena, the tradition through which the Rama-story that was being narrated by him was handed down: from Vardhamana to Indrabhūti, Dharma and Prabhava down to Kirtidhara, to Anuttaravac and thence to Ravişena. Ravişena gives also the name of Jambu and the last two are given by him as Kirti and Anuttaravāgmin. Ravişena, while giving his tradition says that his present effort of composing a Rama-epic was made consequent upon the written (likhitam) work of Anuttaravagmin. Now to any one who even casually compares Vimalasūri's Paümacariya with Ravisena's Padmacarita it is as plain as the day-light that one of them is simply a recast of the other and there is no difficulty in granting the claim of originality, as is done by Premi, to Vimalasuri. Ravişena's Sanskrit work is but an enlarged recast of the Prakrit Paümacariya, some of the alterations being necessitated due to the difference of medium and to the fact that Vimalasūri was a Śvetāmbara, but Ravişena, a Digambara. The enlargements chiefly centre round the descriptive and dogmaticdidactic portions. In extent Vimalasuri's epic is 10,000 Granthāgras, that of Ravisena 18,000 granthagras. It requires no elaborate comparison to show that the enlargements apart, Ravisena's work is but a slavish imitation of that of Vimalasuri. Indeed very few cases from the field of our ancient literature can be cited as a parallel to such thorough and continuous verbatim borrowing, when we make necessary allowance for the difference in the linguistic and metrical mediums. Does this mean that Vimalasuri and Anuttaravägmin were one?
47
On the other hand though Svayambhu expressly states to have followed Ravisena and even though we keep out of consideration the alterations forced by the difference in religious belief and literary medium, a close and critical comparison of the Padmacarita and the Paümacariu leaves us very favourably impressed as to Svayambhu's originality and poetic powers. As a rule he holds to the thread of the narrative as found in the Padmacarita, but otherwise also the theme even in its very minor details was fixed by tradition and permitted no significant variation. But many a time he parts company with Ravişena, summarily treats or altogether rejects or rehandles certain topics or waxes eloquent over others that were barely touched in his model, according as it suits his artistic sense. Parallel passages of PC., RP. and VP. are given in Appendix III.
Jain Education International
One broad tendency that is clearly discernible in Svayambhu's handling of his material is that he is primarily interested in recounting the narrative in an attractive manner. This aim is responsible for applying scissors to everything that is flagrantly digressive and for giving only passing attention to the side-episodes. Of course, these observations are to be assessed keeping the diffuse and accom
(1) Premi, 1942, 272-292.
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
