Paumchariya Ke Rachnakal Sambandhi Katipay Aprakashit Tathya

Here's a comprehensive summary in English of the provided Jain text, "Paumchariya ke Rachnakal Sambandhi Katipay Aprakashit Tathya" by K. Rushabhchandra:

This scholarly article by Dr. K. Rushabhchandra delves into the dating of the Paumchariya (Padyanucharita), a significant Jain text written in Maharashtri Prakrit. The Paumchariya is recognized as the first complete poetic work on the Ramayana story within Jain literature and, by extension, in the entire Prakrit literary tradition. The name "Paum" refers to Padma, the eighth Baladeva and son of Dasharathi Rama, whose life story is chronicled in the text. Many subsequent Jain Ramayana narratives in various languages are based on this foundational work.

The author begins by addressing the traditionally cited authorship and date of the Paumchariya. It is attributed to Vimalasuri, a disciple of Nagesh, and a disciple of Acharya Rahu. Vimalasuri himself, in the prashasti (colophon) of the work, states that it was composed 530 (or possibly 520) years after Mahavir's Nirvana. However, Dr. Rushabhchandra argues that a critical examination of the text contradicts this dating. While some scholars accept the colophon's date, the majority place its composition between the 3rd-4th centuries and the 7th-8th centuries CE. The article aims to use new evidence from within the Paumchariya itself to re-evaluate its dating and discuss existing theories.

Key Evidence and Arguments Presented by Dr. Rushabhchandra:

• Historical and Political References: The author analyzes references to tribes, kingdoms, and political events within the Paumchariya that can be linked to Indian history.

  • Kelgilan and Shriparvatiyas: The mention of the Kelgilon and Shriparvatiyas assisting Rama against Ravana is linked to historical Kilkilas, whose kingdom ended just before the Vakataka Vindhyashakti established his rule in the South around 223 CE. The frequent mention of Shriparvat and its connection to Hanuman being made king of Shripura (ShriShaila) suggests a connection to the Iksvaku dynasty of South Andhra Pradesh, whose reign is dated to the 3rd century CE.
  • Ananda Dynasty: The inclusion of the Anand people and their kingdom in Lavan and Ankus's conquests points to the Anand dynasty, which emerged in the 4th century CE in the Guntur region.
  • Kagonanda and Political Turmoil: The description of the Kagonanda tribe's rule south of the Narmada, their leader Rudrabhuti, and the abduction of Balikhilya, king of Koovavaddapur, is compared to historical events involving the Mahakshatrap Rudrasimha I, Abhir chieftain Rudrabhuti, and Ishvaradatta in the latter half of the 2nd century CE. The similarities in names (Sinhodara in Paumchariya and Rudrasimha in history, Rudrabhuti common to both) and the hesitant actions of Sinhodara mirroring Rudrasimha's dependence on Rudrabhuti are highlighted. The connection of Ishvaradatta's Abhir kingdom in Nashik to the Kagonanda-controlled region is also suggested.
  • Dashapura and Political Instability: The subjugation of Dashapura (Mandsaur) by Ujjain's king Sinhodara, and Rama and Lakshmana's intervention, is linked to Dashapura's political activity in the 4th and 5th centuries CE. The historical rise of independent rulers in Dashapura during the Gupta period, culminating in Bandhuvarmā accepting the suzerainty of Kumāragupta I (414-454 CE), is noted. The author suggests a possible parallel between Sinhodara and Kumāragupta I's epithet Vyaghrāprakrama.
  • Nandyavarta and Political Strife: The conflict involving King Ativīrya of Nandyavarta and King Bharata of Ayodhya is compared to Nandi-vardhana (modern Nagardhan or Nandardhan near Ramtek), which was a Vakataka capital. The historical invasion of the Vakataka kingdom by the Nal king Bhavadatta Varmā in the mid-5th century CE indicates political turbulence in this region.

• Critical Review of Other Contents:

  • Genealogy and Purāṇaic Links: The Paumchariya places Rama as the 62nd generation from King Iksvāku, which is closer to the Puranic accounts (58th generation) than the Valmiki Ramayana (35th generation). The text's claim to be a Purāṇa and its inclusion of the four purusharthas (aims of life: kama, artha, dharma, moksha) are discussed. The author notes that the inclusion of all four purusharthas became a standard feature of Purāṇas in later periods, and such themes in Jain tradition are believed to have become prevalent before the 5th century CE.
  • Śvetāmbara Monk Mention: A solitary reference to a Śvetāmbara monk in relation to King Sodasa is examined. While the Śvetāmbara-Digambara schism is dated to the 1st century CE, the explicit mention of the "Śvetapaṭa Mahāśramaṇa Saṅgha" appears in a 5th-century CE inscription.
  • Sallekhanā and Night-Meal Abstinence: The inclusion of saṃlekhanā (ritual fasting unto death) as the fourth śikṣāpada (precept) among the vows of a layman is discussed, noting that it's not typically listed among the twelve vows. The author cites Acharya Kundakunda (around 5th century CE) as also placing saṃlekhanā within the twelve vows. The mention of "night-meal abstinence" as the sixth aṇuvrata (minor vow) is also noted, with parallels found in later works by Chamuṇḍarāya and Viranandi, and mentioned by Pujyapāda in his Sarvārthasiddhi.
  • Emphasis on Tapas (Ascetic Practices): The Paumchariya lists about twenty types of ascetic practices, many of which are not found in older Āgama literature or Mūlācāra. This abundance of tapas is seen as a later development.
  • Title of "Suri": The author points out that the title "Sūri" itself is not ancient, as it doesn't appear in texts like Kalpasūtra, Sthavirāvalī, Nandīsūtra, Paṭṭāvalī, or Mathura inscriptions. The use of "Sūri" in place of "Ācārya" is considered a medieval development.
  • Temple Construction and Worship: The text strongly advocates for building and consecrating Jinamandiras. The practice of worshipping Tirthankara images with aṣṭadravya (eight substances) and the detailed description of worship with flowers, incense, sandalwood, lamps, etc., suggest a developed form of worship. The significance of abhiṣeka (ritual bathing) is also emphasized. The author notes that while monks historically resided in forests, gardens, or caves, the practice of staying in Jinamandiras ( caityavāsa) began to emerge, with such themes appearing around the 5th century CE.

• Linguistic Analysis: The Paumchariya is written in Maharashtri Prakrit, which is described as highly developed and influenced by contemporary spoken language. The linguistic features, such as the variation of long and short vowels in nouns and verbs, the use of the 'evi' suffix in past participle forms, the replacement of 'kim', 'katha' with 'kih' and 'kavan', and the frequent omission of singular nominative and accusative case endings (especially in feminine words), are seen as precursors to Apabhramśa. These linguistic characteristics suggest that the work cannot be dated to the early centuries CE but rather shows the influence of the 5th century CE environment.

• Upper Limit of Composition: To determine the upper limit of the Paumchariya's composition, the author considers Udyotanasūri's Kuvalayamālā (778 CE), which mentions Vimalasuri's Paumchariya. This confirms the Paumchariya predates the 8th century CE.

  • Raviṣeṇa's Padmacarita: Udyotanasūri also mentions Raviṣeṇa. A comparison between the Paumchariya and Raviṣeṇa's Sanskrit Padmacarita reveals that the latter is likely a translation or adaptation of the former. Pandit Nathuram Premi's view that Raviṣeṇa based his work on the Paumchariya is supported by new evidence:

    • Astrological Inaccuracies: The Paumchariya's description of Hanuman's birth constellations and ascendant is astrologically incorrect, whereas Raviṣeṇa's Padmacarita corrects these errors. If Paumchariya were based on Padmacarita, such errors would not have arisen.
    • Inconsistent Past Lives: The Paumchariya inconsistently links the past lives of Hasti (in Bharata's narrative) with Bharata's own past lives, whereas Padmacarita presents a consistent account of Hasti's past lives.
    • Name Variations: The Paumchariya refers to a king as Vijjudaḍha, while Raviṣeṇa's Padmacarita sometimes uses the name Viyaddadha, suggesting a possible misinterpretation or textual variation by Raviṣeṇa.
    • Synonym Usage: Raviṣeṇa appears to have used synonyms for names from the Paumchariya to adhere to metrical rules in his work, which Vimalasuri did not need to do.

  • Raviṣeṇa's Digambara Affiliation: Raviṣeṇa was a staunch Digambara. If Padmacarita were an original work, he would likely have named it Ramacaritam instead of Padmacaritam given the prevalence of "Padma" as Rama's name in Jain tradition. The omission of individual names of Baladevas in references to the sixty-three śalākāpuruṣas further suggests a deliberate attempt to align with his sect.

  • Dating based on Raviṣeṇa: Since Raviṣeṇa's Padmacarita was composed in 677 CE, the Paumchariya must precede it. The internal and external evidence suggests a composition date before the 5th century CE and not later than the 7th century CE.

• Revisiting the Colophon Date: The author questions the colophon's date of 530 years after Mahavir's Nirvana, suggesting it might refer to a different era.

  • Shaka Era: If it refers to the Shaka era, the composition date would be 665 CE, which is only 12 years before Raviṣeṇa's work. This is problematic because Raviṣeṇa's work shows marked sectarianism (Digambara leanings, calling initiation Digambari diksha), while the Paumchariya is more liberal and inclusive, containing elements acceptable to Śvetāmbara, Digambara, and Yāpanīya traditions. The author argues that Vimalasuri was free from sectarian influence, presenting what he heard, saw, and learned, even if some elements contradicted prevailing traditions or his own earlier statements.
  • Sectarian Rigidity: The rise of sectarian rigidity and mutual accusations between Śvetāmbaras and Digambaras is believed to have intensified from the 7th century CE onwards. The Paumchariya's lack of such rigidity, contrasted with the pronounced sectarianism in Raviṣeṇa's Padmacarita, suggests that the Paumchariya predates this severe sectarianism. The seeds of this rigidity are seen from Kundakunda's time, and its firm establishment is evident in Jinabhadrā's Viśeṣāvaśyakabhāṣya. Therefore, the Paumchariya cannot be dated after these figures. It is likely from around their time or shortly before or after.
  • Raviṣeṇa's Motivation: The author speculates that Raviṣeṇa might have felt a need for a sectarian Ramayana narrative in his community as sectarianism grew, leading him to adapt the Paumchariya into Padmacarita. The lack of a separate sectarian text by the Śvetāmbaras is explained by their retention of older Āgama literature, unlike the Digambaras who declared such texts apocryphal and created new literature.

• The Likely Era: Vikrama Samvat: Given the issues with the Shaka era interpretation, the author proposes that the 530 years in the colophon refer to the Krit or Vikrama Samvat. This is supported by an example of historical misattribution of dates (Mahavir Nirvana 845 vs. Vikrama Samvat 845).

  • Conclusion on Dating: Therefore, the Paumchariya's composition date is most plausibly 473 CE (530 Vikrama Samvat - 57 years). This date aligns with all the evidence presented, making it the authentic period for the composition of the Paumchariya.

In essence, Dr. Rushabhchandra's article re-evaluates the dating of the Paumchariya by examining its historical, political, linguistic, and doctrinal elements, arguing for a composition date in the mid-5th century CE, placing it significantly earlier than some scholarly estimates and challenging the traditional interpretation of the colophon date.