________________
J. C. Jain
28
side of Jain canonical literature, Alsdrof showed that this work must have been of great antiquity and closer to the date of the canonical text, 26
(4) After making a study of the mutilated and corrupted Vasudevahindi text, which was edited after consulting 12 manuscripts, and making a note of a variant (ettha padho),26 it seems that the text already existed at the time of Sanghadāsagaui, who just put it into its final shape. In that case the original text's date should be pushed back quite a bit. In this regard the Jaina versions of the Brhatkatha represented by Harivamsa purāņa of Jinasena and Trişastišalakāpuruşacarita by Hemacandra and others should also be taken into account.
(5) While considering the composition date of the Vasudevahindi one has to also consider whether the Rāma and Krşna lagends of the Jaina cosmography were borrowed from the Brhatkatha, or whether they already existed before the Bțhatkatha's composition 27
(6) In his Paumacariya (end of the 3rd century A.D.),28 Vimalasuri altacks Vālmīki's Rāmāyaṇa by saying that thc Rākşasas should not be meat-eating demons and the vānaras portrayed as lower animals lashing their tails and uprooting mountains. He has tried, in effect to 'rationalise' the tale in the Jajna version of Rāma's story, On the other hand Sanghadasagani, the author of the Vasudevahindi, simply accepts the popular tale as it existed in his day, without any conscious editorialising or protest, Most likely he follows a different tradition. It may very well be that since Vālmīki composed his Rāmāyana based on the ancient ballad's prevalent at his time, the author of the Vasudevahindi likewise based bis tale on a slightly different version arising out of some different ballads. Perhaps be followed the same version offered in the Byhatkatha,20
Whatever the case may be, the explanatory and critical tone of the Paumacariya as well as its entire language strongly suggests that the work
25 See "The Vasudevahindi, A Specimen of Archaic Jain Maharashtri," in the BSOS,
VIII, 1935-37, pp. 319-333. 26 The Vasudevahindi. 306. See author's introduction to the Vasudevahindi, to be published shortly.
dehortly. 27 See Alsdorf, "Introduction to the Harivamsapurāna - Mahāpurāna Tisashimahāpuri.
saguņālankāra by Puşpadanta, p. 121, Hamburg 1936. Here criticising the date proposd by Bühler, he formulates that Gunādhya must have flaurished at least in the
1st or 2nd Century B.C. 28 V.M. Kulkarni, Introduction to Paumacariya, ed. by Jacobi, PTS, 1962. 22 According to Lacôte, the author of the Byhatkatha draws inspiratian from the
Rāmāyana, but Vālmīki drew his heroes from national legends and old myths, whereas Gunādhya used accounts of fairy travels to the country of enchanters "Essay on Gunädhya and the Bșhatkatha," Pt. III, Ch. IV,
