________________
46
Gunabhadra. So alternatives (i) and (v) we may dismiss as improbable. Alternative (ii) 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 invent highly extraordinary variations in an established legend, especially if the legend had a religious significance. Gunabhadra must, therefore, have had some authority for the version of the story that he gave. However, of the alternatives (iii) and (iv), it is difficult to say which is more probable. It is quite likely that he embodied in his Purana the story of Rama as it came to him through Acarya-Parampara. We have some reason to believe, however, that Gunabhadra may have been indebted to Kavi Paramesthi or Parameśvara. He is said to have composed a Purāna glorifying 63 salākāpuruṣas, celebrities of the Jain faith. Gunabhadra himself says that it was a gadya-katha and that it was used by Jinasena for Adi-Purana22. Jinasena calls it Vägartha-samgraha23. Now if Jinasena followed Kavi Parameśvara in composing his Adi-Purāņa it is not unlikely that Jinasena's pupil, who completed his teacher's unfinished MahāPurana by adding to it his Uttara-Purāṇa, too, based his Rama-story on that of Kavi Parameśvara24.
STUDIES IN JAIN LITERATURE
Let us now turn to the views of Pt. Premi and Dr. Narasimhachar regarding the sources of Gunabhadra.
9. The relation of Gunabhadra's version with the Dasaratha Jātaka and the Adbhuta-Rāmāyaṇa
In his paper on "Padma-Carita Aura Paüma-Cariya" Pt. Premi suggests that Gunabhadra describes the birth of Sītā as Ravana's daughter after the AdbhutaRāmāyaṇa, whereas Kingship of Dasaratha over Vārāṇasī and the absence of the incidents such as Sītā's abandonment, the birth of Lava and Kuśa, the twin sons of Sītā, can be traced to the Buddhistic Jātaka25. Dr. Narasimhachar, referring to the elements in the story such as Sītā's birth, her abduction in the precincts of Vārāṇasī, the intensely ascetic nature ascribed to the character of Rāma, and the golden deer incident, remarks that "it seems to be a conglomeration of various legends pertaining to Rāma" and that "it has no unitary source" 26
Now let us examine this question of Gunabhadra's sources. Chronologically speaking Adbhuta-Rāmāyaṇa is very much later than Gunabhadra's Uttara-Purāna. Grierson remarks: "The Adbhuta Rāmāyaṇa is a comparatively modern work. It is distinctly śākta in character, exalting Sītā above Rama. It is also an attempt to introduce the terrible cult of Saiva Śaktism into the altogether alien soil of Vaisnavism." Adbhuta-Rāmāyaṇa is later than
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
