Swetambara Parampara Me Ramkatha

This document contains two distinct parts: a summary of the Ramkatha within the Shwetambara Jain tradition and a discussion on the date of Lord Mahavir's Nirvana.

Ramkatha in the Shwetambara Tradition

The Shwetambara tradition, unlike others, has a nuanced approach to the epic Ramayana, primarily focusing on its Jain version presented in Vimalasuri's Paumachariya.

• Early Mentions: While the Shwetambara Agamas mention Krishna extensively, references to Rama are minimal, mainly limited to naming him and his parents. The Samavāyānga Sūtra lists the 24 Tirthankaras, 12 Chakravartins, 9 Baladevas, and 9 Vasudevas, but doesn't explicitly name Rama or mention his story. It does, however, list Baladeva (Padma) and Vasudeva (Narayana) with their father Dasharatha, suggesting a connection to the Ram story.
• Paumachariya as the First Independent Work: Vimalasuri's Paumachariya, composed around 530 Veer Nirvana Samvat (54 CE), is considered the first independent Jain Ramkatha. Despite some scholars dating it later, it's generally placed before the 3rd century CE.
  • Jain Adaptation: The Paumachariya is not just a Jain version but a distinct Jain narrative of Rama. It avoids glorifying violence, hatred, and adultery, instead promoting virtues. It also downplays the caste system; Shambuka's death is accidental, caused by Lakshmana (Narayana) unknowingly during a ritual, not due to Shambuka's caste or penance.
  • Character Elevation: The narrative elevates characters by reframing their actions. Kaikeyi's demand for the throne is motivated by preventing Bharata's renunciation, not malice. Rama voluntarily goes to the forest to avoid being an obstacle to Bharata's accession, showcasing his filial duty and the elevation of Kaikeyi's character.
  • Seeta's Purity: The abduction of Sita is handled differently. To preserve Rama and Sita's characters and promote non-violence, the story of the golden deer is omitted. Ravana's attempt to violate Sita is portrayed as him seeking her consent, as he had vowed not to touch any woman without her willingness. His efforts to dissuade people from eating meat are also highlighted as a Jain influence.
  • Rationalizing the Narrative: Vanaras and Rakshasas are presented as Vidyadhara clans, advanced in arts and technology, who traveled in aerial vehicles rather than on foot.
• Later Adaptations:
  • Vasudevahindi: Sanghadassa Gani's Vasudevahindi (6th century CE) presents a version of Ramkatha where Sita is depicted as the daughter of Ravana and Mandodari, abandoned in a box and found by Janaka during ploughing. This attempt to rationalize Sita's origin aligns with the concept of her being born from the earth.
  • Hemachandra: Hemachandra's Yoga Shastra and Trishashthishalakapurushacharita also retell Ramkatha in Sanskrit. While generally following Vimalasuri, Hemachandra attributes Sita's exile to her painting Ravana's portrait at the request of Rama's co-wives, driven by jealousy.
  • Other Authors: Haribhadra (8th century) in Dhurtakhyana, Shīlānkāchārya (9th century) in Chauppannamaḥāpuruṣachariya, Bhadrēśvara (11th century) in Kāhālī, Dhanēśvara (14th century) in Śatruñjaya Māhātmyam, Devavijaya Gani (16th century), Meghavijaya (17th century), and Jinaratna Suri (mentioned in Jinaratna Kosa) also contributed to Jain Ramkatha literature in various languages like Prakrit, Sanskrit, Apabhramsha, Rajasthani, and Hindi. Vinaya Samudra's Rajasthani Padmacharita and Shukalchandji's Hindi Shukal Jain Ramayana are also mentioned.

Reconsidering the Date of Lord Mahavir's Nirvana

This section delves into the historical debate surrounding the exact date of Lord Mahavir's Nirvana, presenting various scholarly opinions and the evidence supporting them.

• Traditional Shvetambara and Digambara View: The widely accepted traditional view, supported by texts like Titthyogali (Shwetambara) and Tiloyapanatti (Digambara) from the 7th century CE onwards, places Mahavir's Nirvana 605 years and 5 months before the Shaka King's reign. This leads to the commonly cited date of 527 BCE.
• Challenges to the Traditional Date:
  • Lack of Early Evidence: The author notes that before the 6th-7th century CE, there's no clear evidence linking Mahavir's Nirvana to the Shaka era in this specific manner.
  • Ambiguity in Agamas: While Agamas mention the lineage of monks and the timing of recitations (like the final recitation of Kalpasūtra by Devarddhikshamana 980 or 993 years after Mahavir's Nirvana), they don't definitively fix the Nirvana date relative to the Shaka era.
  • Conflicting Views within Traditions: Even within traditions, there were differing opinions on the time elapsed between Mahavir's Nirvana and the Shaka king. Tiloyapanatti mentions four, and Dhavala commentary on Shatkhandagama mentions three, different intervals.
  • Chandragupta Maurya's Reign: The date of Chandragupta Maurya's coronation is crucial. The traditional Shvetambara view places it 215 years after Mahavir's Nirvana, while Hemachandra's view suggests 155 years. Hemachandra's date, if correct, contradicts the 527 BCE Nirvana date.
• Scholarly Revisions and External Evidence:
  • Western Scholars: Western scholars like Hermann Jacobi (477 BCE), J. Charpentier (467 BCE), and S.V. Venkateshwara (437 BCE) have proposed earlier dates, often based on their interpretations of Hemachandra and other textual evidence.
  • Indian Scholars: P. A. Shanti Raj Shastri proposed 663 BCE by equating the Shaka era with the Vikram era. P.K. Jaiswal and K.R. Norman have also contributed to the discussion.
  • Jugal Kishore Mukhtar and Kalyan Vijay: These scholars have largely defended the traditional date of 527 BCE, attempting to resolve inconsistencies.
  • P.H.L. Eggermont: Proposed 252 BCE, linking it to the Tishya Gupta schism.
  • V.A. Smith: Accepted the prevalent date of 527 BCE.
• Analyzing Jain Literary and Epigraphic Evidence:
  • Contemporary Figures: The text discusses the synchronicity of Mahavir with figures like Buddha, Bimbisara, Shrenika, and Ajatashatru, relying on both Jain and Buddhist sources.
  • Buddhist Sources (Dighanikaya): The Dighanikaya mentions Ajatashatru referring to Mahavir as an elder ("ardhagatvay"). It also mentions Mahavir's death occurring during Buddha's lifetime, but interprets this as a "prvada" (rumor) of death, possibly linked to Gosala's influence.
  • Synchronicity of Acharyas: The text critically examines the claimed synchronicity of prominent Jain Acharyas like Bhadrabahu, Sthulibhadra, and Suhasti with historical figures like Chandragupta Maurya and Samprati.
    • Bhadrabahu and Sthulibhadra: Their contemporaneity with Chandragupta Maurya is strongly argued, which, if accepted, leans towards an earlier Nirvana date for Mahavir (around 467 BCE) rather than the traditional 527 BCE.
    • Suhasti and Samprati: Similarly, the synchronicity of Suhasti with King Samprati also suggests a date around 467 BCE for Mahavir's Nirvana.
  • Epigraphic Evidence:
    • Mathura Inscriptions: Inscriptions from Mathura mentioning figures like Arya Manghu, Arya Nandil, Arya Hastihasti, Arya Krishna, and Arya Vriddha are analyzed. While some of these inscriptions align better with the 527 BCE date, others strongly support the 467 BCE date for Mahavir's Nirvana.
    • Dhrvasena's Inscriptions: Inscriptions of King Dhrvasena of Valabhi are also considered. If the Shvetambara tradition's dating of the Valabhi recitation (980 or 993 years after Mahavir's Nirvana) is accurate, and Dhrvasena's reign is placed historically, it can support either the 469 BCE or 527 BCE date.
• Conclusion on Mahavir's Nirvana Date: The author concludes that while there are conflicting pieces of evidence, a critical analysis of literary and epigraphic sources suggests that a Nirvana date of 467 BCE for Mahavir is more consistent and logically supported than the traditional 527 BCE. This earlier date allows for the contemporaneity of key Acharyas with prominent historical rulers, a factor that is difficult to reconcile with the later date. The text emphasizes the need for comparative analysis and prioritizing epigraphic evidence.

In essence, the book highlights how the Shwetambara tradition adapted the Ramayana narrative to align with its ethical and philosophical principles, and it rigorously examines the historical evidence to propose a revised and earlier date for Lord Mahavir's Nirvana.