________________
Secondary Tales of the two Great Epics
like turning the stony figure into a human being by touch or so; it is achieved only by Rama's going to her hermitage and accepting her hospitality. The nature of the redemption does not anticipate any divinity on the part of Rām.
This raises a possibility that the central portions wherein Viśvāmitra is present are by one author, while the portions of Rşyaśộnga, incarnation-theme and Paraśurāma-episode are by another author and added to the epic in the second stage of interpolations, the first most probably being the tales of entourage and Viśvāmitra. We can only say that the author of the central portions must be some redactor of the Višvāmitra gotra, because Viśvāmitra is more prominent in these portions than even the hero of the epic. The episodes on either sides of these portions with Viśvāmitra are connected with incarnation-theme and are brought in by some Vaişņava Sectarian, very likely a Ksatriya. He could, under no circumstances, be a Bhargava redactor. A Bhārgava would never end the BK with an episode in which Paraśurāma, the greatest of the Bhargavas, is shown defeated even if at the hands of the hero of the poem, the lord of the three worlds. The almost complete neglect of Vasistha also precludes the possibility of the redaction being by some brāhmin of Vasiştha gotra. What is probable is that the portion from Viśvāmitra's coming to his going must be by some Vaiśvāmitra, the episodes on the either sides of these portions must be by some Vaişnava Ksatriyas. Whether the two authors could be identical is a problem to be answered yet.
One more thing. In the popular belief Paraśurāma is the sixth incarnation of Visnu, Rāma is the seventh and Krşņa the eighth. It is often said that in the above encounter Paraśurāma realises that the task of his incarnatiop (avatāra-kārya) is over and in Rāma a new incarnation is coming of its age. But neither in this episode nor in the MBh anywhere is the Bhargava Rāma called an incarnation of Visnu. Actually the incarnation-theory itself seems to have been fostered by Vaisnavas in the post-epic period with the fermentation of the Bhakti cult. Very likely the incarnationism has found a sound footing in the age of the Vaisnava Gupta kings-it should be noted that Rāma in the RM and Krsna in the MBh-both of them Ksatriyas-are presented as the incarnations of Vişnu. Paraśurāma is greatly eulogised in the MBh for his prowess, but where Krsna is already present as an incarnation of Vişnu, there is hardly any scope for another character in the same epic to be treated as an incarnation. Paraśurāma is not, could not be, treated as an incarnation in the epics. How did he become one later on?
One possibility is that the present episode might have been responsible for elevating Paraśurāma also to the level of an incarnation alongwith Rāma. Some parts and aspects of the episode could have been possible instruments in it: the similarity of namesake, the similarity of possessing great prowess in the use of arms, Parasurāma's so-called possession and presentation of the Vaişņava bow to Rāma (which can well be looked upon as a symbolic transfer of the divine power, and Rāma thereafter
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
