________________
238
Story of Rāma in Jain Literature
After vindicating his honour, Rama, with Laksmana and Sitā, returned to Ayodhyā, his capital. Räma had 8,000 queens among whom Sitā and three others were the principal ones. Lakşmaņa had 16,000 queens among whom Prthvisundari and others were the chief ones. Råma and Laksmana very deeply loved each other. After Laksmana's death Rama became a monk, practised austerities, obtained perfect knowledge, and in due course attained to Mokşa. Laksmana, as he did not accept the path laid down by the Jinas, sank into hell. Rāvana, for his lapse from the code of correct behaviour, had to go to hell. Both of them after passing through many births would attain to liberation. Sită, after leading the life of an Āryikā, was born in heaven, but she too would in course of time obtain Moksa.
According to the Jain versions, Rāma Laksmana and Rāvana are the 8th set of Baladeva, Vasudeva and Prativasudeva.
It is quite obvious that excepting the number of the queens of Rāma and Lakşmana, the killing of Rāvana by Laksmana and the Jinistic conclusion this Rāma-story is basically and essentially the same as that found in the Hindu versions of Vyasa and Valmiki.
This investigation of the problem of the origin of Rāmāyaṇa in Jain Literature clearly and unmistakably points to the only conclusion that the Jain forms of the story of Rāma are derivative in character, that they are largely dependent on the VālmīkiRāmāyaṇa and that they do not preserve any features of the ancient ballads about Räma which had gained currency through the bards before Válmiki gave them the literary shape and form of a unified poem in his widely known Rāmāyana. It would not do to say that the Jain versions of Rāma legend preserve the true Rāma story and it is Valmiki who presents its distorted version. The reason for not accepting the Jain versions as truer to the original oral tradition than the Valrniki-Rāmāyana may briefly be stated as follows:
(1)
Chronologically the Jain versions are definitely later than the Hindu Rāmāyana. The later a work in date of composition the less probable it is that the work embodies the original legend more truthfully. The traditions regarding the origin of the Rāma-story recorded by the Jains in their works are conflicting. If the story of Rāma were told by Mahävíra, it should have found a place in sacred works of the Jains. The story of Krsna is found in the canonical texts. It is not easy to explain the absence of the Råma-story in the cannon unless we hold that it was taken up later by the Jain poets to popularize the Jain teachings. The Jain versions unmistakably point to the influence of Vālmiki Ramayana (or The Ramopåkhyāna of the Mahabharata). For example, Vimala Süri who criticizes the Hindu Rämāyaṇa for representing the defeat of Indra, the overlord of the gods, at the hands of Råvana when, in reality. Indra, the lord of Vidyadharas, was defeated, himself describes that Vidyadhara lord as 'Suradhipa', 'Surapati', etc. He uses personal names of heroes after Välmiki
