Paumchariyam Part 1

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

Page 31

18
INTRODUCTION
surmise is that Svayambha's Ritthaņemicharia' may be a slightly modified recension of Vimalasari's lost work, just as his Pagmacharia is a modified recension of Vimalasari's Prakrit Padmachariya. These are, however, only conjectures. A very close and comparative study of the Svetāmbara and the Digambara works dealing with the subject matter of Harivansa may help us to form some idea of the nature and contents of the lost work of Vimalasari, the earliest Jaina work of its kind. The main topics dealt with in it may probably have been the Dynasties of Yādavas, the Kurus, the grent war between the Kauravas and the Pāņdavas, the aftermath of war, the destruction of the city of Dvārakā and the tragic end of Krşņa, the renunciation of the principal characters and their past births.
10. VIMALASURI'S SECT Let us now proceed to discuss and determine, if possible, the sect to which Vimalasűri belonged. That he cannot be described as a fanatical followar of any one sect is evident from his Paumachariya. At the end of his Paūmachariya he gives his spiritual lineage but does not tell us whether he belonged to any particular sect. Most probably in the early centuries of the Christian era it was not felt necessary by writers to give such details. It might appear rather impertinent on our part to make any further inquiry regarding his sect when he himself is silent about it. However, as inquiries have already been made in this direction by scholars, it will not be altogether irrelevant to discuss Vimalasūri from this aspect.
The Paūmachariya of Vimalasuri is a work of very high antiquity dealing with the Rāmāyana from the Jaina point of view. It is, therefore, no wonder if its auther is equally claimed by both the sects as one of their own. As a solution to this baling problem an interesting hypothesis has been put forward that probably Vimalasūri belonged to the Yāpaniya Sangha. A careful investigation of the Padmachariya from this point of view reveals that some beliefs and dogmas are in harmony with the Svetathbara tradition whereas some others, with the Diguthbara tradition. A few statement in the work are mutually contradictory.
BELIEFS AND DOGMAS WHICH ARE IN CLOSE AGREEMENT WITH THE DIGAMBARA
TRADITION (i) The author states that king Sreņika put the question about the story of Rāma to Gautama,
one of the principal disciples of Mahavira. This way of introducing a story is a peculiarity of the Digambara writers.
1. This surmise is put forward by Dr. Jyotiprasad Jain in his paper referred to above. The colophon
of the work reproduced by Pandit Premi (p. 216) and Dr. Bhayani (p. 117) does not mention any
written work, unlike in the case of his Paumachariu, as its source. 2. For example, Pandit Premi, Muni Mahāraja Amaravijayaji, Dr. Jain, Pandit Paramanand Jain
Sistri. Jacobi unquestioningly accepts the Svetāmbara authorship of the work (Some Ancient Jain Works, Modern Review, 1914). Glasenapp also takes the author to be a Svetāmabara (Jaina
Dharma, p. 118). 3. See for the treatment of this aspect of the question Pandit Premi's Jaina Sahitya Aura Itihāsa,
pp. 98-101 (2nd edition). pp. 283-285 (1st edition). Pandit Paramanand Jain Sastri : Anekanta. year 5, Kiranas 10-11, pp. 337-344 (with f. n. on p. 352-Bhülasudhāra) : Dr. Jain and Dr. Upadhye : Sampadakiya, pp. 5-8, and Prastāvanā (Pandit Pannalal Jain) to Padmapurana, Vol. 1, Bharatiya Jñānapitha Kasi; Muni Maharaja Amara vijayaji : Jain Yuga, Vol. I, Part IV, Märgasirga 1982,
pp. 133-137. 4. Cf. Pc. III. 7-13 (and 1.34)