________________
232
Story of Pāma in Jain Literature
there was a Southern Dravidian independent Ravana legend cannot be accepted.
8. The Digambara version of Guņabhadra
Now, in connection with this problem of the origin of the Jain Ramayanas, the 'Digambara' version of Guņabhadra, deserves to be carefully investigated, for the two versions of Guņabhadra and Vimala Súri markedly differ from each other in regard to story element, characterisation, etc., as can be seen from the table setting forth their comparison. Further, we may note that Vimala shows that Hanümat, Sugrīva and Rāvana were relatives, that Hanūmat had helped Rāvana in his fight against Varuna etc., tells of the 'later history of Rāma' - introduces about a dozen Upåkhyānas, gives a detailed history of the dynasties of the Raksasas and the Vänaras and the Ikşvāku, narrates the account of Vālin and Sugriva differently. It is but right then if we say that the two versions should be regarded as independent forms of the story of Rama.
The first question that comes to mind about Guņabhadra's version is: "Why was it that Guņabhadra did not follow Ravisena, his Digarnbara predecessor? Ravisena was a Digambara. We expect, therefore, Cuņabhadra, a Digambara poet, to follow his predecessor. But our expectation is not fulfilled. As we have stated above, Gunabhadra's Rāma-story is vastly different from that of Vimala Sūri (with whose story that cf Ravisena almost perfectly agrees). So to find an answer to the question raised we may set forth the following logical possibilities: (i) Gunabhadra was not aware of the existence of the epics of Vimala and Ravisena.
Even if he was aware of their existence he did not think the narrative embodied
therein to be good enough to be followed by him. (iii) He gives the story as he found it in some work of a predecessor of his, belonging
to his Guru-paranıpāra, which work is now lost to us. (iv) He gives literary shape to the oral tradition as handed down by a line of successive
teachers of his Sangha. (v) He gives shape to some local version that was then current.
Now let us examine these logical possibilities :
Guņabhadra flourished in the 9th century A.D. So it is not likely that he was not aware of the existence of the works of Vimala and/or Ravişena, or that he gave literary shape to local version. As he is a 'modern writer' compared with the eminent Hindu poets Vyasa and Vālmīki and the Jain poet Vimala, their versions, with some slight variations, were widely known at the time of Guņabhadra. So alternatives (i) and (v) we may dismiss as improbable. Alternative (ti) also may be dismissed as improbable as a man of Gunabhadra's calibre cannot be accused of lack of balanced judgment. It is impossible to imagine that a writer coming at a sufficiently late stage in a literary tradition would
