Paumchariyam Part 1

Author(s): Vimalsuri, Punyavijay, Harman
Publisher: Prakrit Granth Parishad

Page 27

INTRODUCTION
enlarged edition in Sanskrit of the Prakrit Paimachariya. A few more arguments may be adduced here in support of Pandit Premi's view :
Ravisena clearly states that his work is based on written Rāma-Katha' whereas Vimalasuri states that the Rāma-story before him was handed down by oral tradition and that it was only "Nāmāvaliyanibaddhath' and thus indicates that for the first time he gave it a literary shape composing it in the Gathā metre.
Ravişena's work has a very distinct Digambara stamp. If the Paumachariya were later there is no reason wby its author should retain only some Digambara traits and in some other cases introduce Svetāmbara traits.
Ravisena displays his great dialectical skill and argumentative ability and high proficiency in philosophical erudition, as for example, when he launches a vigorous and spirited attack against the Vedic sacrifice, the creation theory etc. If this highly important portion of the text were before Vimalasäri, he would have certainly incorporated this criticism in his Purāna-kavya and enhanced its value. His silence in this regard is very significant and probably suggests that in his days he had not felt the need of rebutting the opponent's point of view by resorting to dialectics.
The horoscope of Hanumana as given in the Paumachariya is astronomically not correct, whereas. the one found in the Padmapurāņa® is astronomically correct. This clearly proves that Ravisena hes corrected the obvious error found in the Paumachariya that was before him.
The arguments (for late dating) so far considered have not much force behind them and one cannot seriously challenge the date given by the author on their basis; the last arguments based on the identity of the Naila-kulavamsa and Naila Saba' is, however, very weighty and highly plausible. Jacobi has absolutely no doubt in his mind regarding the identity. Pandit Lalchand B. Gandhi believes that Naile-eacchi and Nagendra gaccha (and Naili Sahā) are, possibly identical.' The writers of "Jaina Paramparāno Itibāsa hold that the two are identical * In his celebrated work called "Vira Nirvāna Samvat aura Jainn Kala gananā" Muni Kalyana Vijayaji supports the view that Naila Kula, Naili Saba, Naila gaccha and Nagendr gaccha or Kula are all identical, although he points out that the equation Nails=Nagendra is not in accordance with grammatical rules. In a recent letter 10 written to the present writer, however, he unbesitatingly accepts this identity. Once we accept this identity it follows that we
1. वर्धभानजिनेन्द्रोक्तः सोऽयमर्थो गणेश्वरम् । इन्द्रभूतिं परिप्राप्तः सुधर्म धारणीभवम् ॥
Santia: fa masyarafa fafaat aku ata a suu: I. vv. 41 42 2. नामावलियनिबद्ध आयरियपरंपरागयं सव्वं । वोच्छामि पउमचरियं अहाणुपुब्धि समासेण ॥ 1.8
सुत्ताणुसारसरिसं रइयं गाहाहि पायडफुडत्थं, विमलेण पउमचरियं संखेवेण निसामेह ॥ 1.13 एयं वीरजिणेण रामचरियं सिठ्ठ महत्वं पुरा, पच्छाऽखंडलभूइणा उ कहियं सीसाण धम्मासयं
31 ArgTMTC egy fod 443, FITÈ Tazzo GHIACE Elface CX viii. 102 4. Padmapurana, Parvan XI, yy. 164-251. 5. Paumachariya, Parvan XVII, vv. 106-111. 6. Padmapurana, Parvan XVII. vv. 360-377. 7. Jaina Yuga, Vol. I. part 2 (pp. 68-69), Asvina 1981. 8. Jaina Paramparāno Itihāsa, Part I (pp. 305-410), by Triputi Mahārāja, Ahmedabad, 1952. 9 Nagariprachärini Patrika (page 707), Part X, No. 4, Kashi, Samvat 1986. 10. Letter (in Hindi) dated 9th September, 1959.
con are identia Vijayacam, althole recent this ide