Studies in Jain Literature

Author(s): V M Kulkarni
Publisher: Shardaben Chimanbhai Educational Research Centre

Page 62

44
STUDIES IN JAIN LITERATURE
definitely inconsistent with other descriptions of Ravana where he is a Rākṣasa with one face and two arms, etc. So too there is sometimes allusion to the eating of human flesh and drinking of human blood by some Räkṣasas. But as a rule, leaving aside these exceptional instances of grossly exaggerated descriptions, the Raksasas as a class are not spoken of as cannibals.
Vimalasuri removing the inconsistencies and absurdities in the epic represents them as a class of Vidyadharas and adherents of Jainism. He was inspired probably by the legitimate purpose of representing the Jain faith as superior to the Brahmanical traditions by removing from the legend of Rama elements which the people may have found difficult to swallow.
(c) Ravana depicted as noble and grand: No doubt Rävaṇa is represented by Välmiki as an oppressor of gods and others; he is shown guilty of abducting Sitä; he is also depicted as interrupting the performance of sacrifices. But even according to Välmiki (or Vyasa) he is not evil incarnate. Välmiki (or rather the author of Uttarakāṇḍa) tells us how Ravana and his two brothers perform austere penance for thousands of years and obtain boons from the god Brahma. He is said to have been born in a celebrated Brahmin family. In spite of his serious weakness he did possess some commendable virtues. He misuses and misdirects his power and might.
Vimala, as we have already pointed out, looks upon Ravana as a Salākāpurusa a great man, according to Jain tradition; he conceives the character of Rāvana as the noblest man, a devout Jain and ideal king. His only defect is his passion for Sītā which brings about his death. Thus it will be seen that the elevation of Rākṣasa princes is no indication of Ravana's having been the hero of an independent legend. In fact, so far no legend of Rāvana independent of any connection with the story of Rama has come to light. Further, we have established that Vimala was acquainted with the Rāmāyaṇa of Välmiki and that his work is a special edition of the Hindu story brought out to serve the adherents of Jainism as a substitute for the highly popular Ramayana of Valmiki.
Thus the differences in the treatment of the character of Rävana, and in the general account of the Räkṣasa and the Vänara families, as between the Vālmiki Rāmāyaṇa and the Jain versions of the story, can all be explained as due to difference of purpose and emphasis. It is not necessary to assume the existence of an independent Rāvana legend as a hypothesis to explain these differences, unless there is independent evidence to prove the existence of such a legend. And therefore the view put forward by Sen that there was a Southern Dravidian independent Rävana legend cannot be accepted.