Studies in Jain Literature

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

Page 63

ORIGIN OF THE STORY OF RĀMA IN JAIN LITERATURE
45
3. The Digambara Version of Guņabhadra
Now, in connection with this problem of the origin of the Jain Rāmāyaṇas, the Digambara' version of Gunabhadra, deserves to be carefully investigated, for the two versions of Gunabhadra and Vimalasūri markedly differ from each other in regard to story element, characterisation, etc. Further, we may note that Vimala shows that Hanūmat, 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 upākhyānas, gives a detailed history of the dynasties of the Rākşasas and the Vānaras and the Iksvāku, narrates the account of Vālin and Sugrīva differently. It is but right then if we say that the two versions should be regarded as independent forms of the story of Rāma.
The first question that comes to mind about Gunabhadra's version is : “Why was it that Gunabhadra did not follow Ravisena, his Digambara predecessor ? Ravisena was a Digambara. We expect, therefore, Gunabhadra, 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 Vimalasuri (with whose story that of 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.
(ii) 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.
(ii) He gives the story as he found it in some work of a predecessor of his,
belonging to his Guru-Paramparā, 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 Samgha.
(v) He gives shape to some local version that was then current.
Now let us examine these logical possibilities :
Gunabhadra 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 Ravisena, or that he gave literary shape to local version. As he is a 'modern writer' compared with the eminent Hindu poets Vyāsa and Vālmīki and the Jain poet Vimala, their versions, with some slight variations, were widely known at the time of