Paumacariya (critical study)

by K. R. Chandra | 1970 | 238,015 words

This is an English study of the Paumacariya: the earliest Jain version of Rama's life story, written in Prakrit by Vimalasuri dating to the 4th century AD. In this text, Rama (referred to as Padma) is depicted with lotus-like eyes and a blooming face. The Paumacariya places emphasis on the human aspects of characters rooted in Jain values, contrast...

2. Author of Paumacariam

Warning! Page nr. 33 has not been proofread. Click the page link to verify the generated OCR text with the original PDF.

A A CRITICAL STUDY OF PAUMACARIYAM SECTION II AUTHOR OF PAUMACARIYAM, HIS SECT AND DATE A. Author and his works: The author of Paumacariyam mentions in the Prasasti appended to the work that his name is Vimala (suri). He is a disciple of Vijaya and a grand disciple of Acarya Rahu. He belongs to the Nailavamsa (Paumacariya, 118. 118). He mentions thrice in the Paumacariya that he is the author of it (Paumacariya, 1.31, 90; 118. 118). No other work composed by him has so far come to light. It is Uddyotanasuri who for the first time mentions Vimalasuri. In his Kuvalayamala (p. 3, 11. 27-29) he pays tributes to Vimalasuri and refers to him as 'Harivamsuppattikarayam padhamam' and 'Harivamsam ceya Vimalapayam.' It indicates that he had composed a work, namely, Harivamsa also (see Jaina Sahitya aur Itihasa, p. 113). B. Sect of Vimalasuri : Vimalasuri, the author of Paumacariyam does not mention any particular sect to which he belonged. Evidences available in the work do not prove his bias for any particular sect because some elements support the Digambara tradition, some the Svetambara tradition and some deviate from both the traditions. Therefore, it is difficult to put our author into any sectarian group. Here we make a survey of various types of elements. [I] The elements which agree with the Digambara or Svetambara tradition or are in conformity with some Digambara or Svetambara works can be arranged as follows:Digambara Tradition: 1. There is mentioned in the Paumacariya, 3.67 that Dhanada (Kubera) starts showering gems (rayanavutthi) fifteen months before the birth of the first Tirthankara. According to the Svetambara tradition it so happens only on the day of the birth of a Tirthankara. 2. Lord Mahavira's soul is said to have descended directly into the womb of Trisala (Paumacariya, 2.22). 3. The style of enumerating parentage, birth-places and naksatras associated with the Tirthankaras (Paumacariya, 20. 27.50) is like that of the Tiloyapannatti (4.526ff) and not like that of Avasyakaniryukti, 323-391. 4. The description of the Atisayas (Paumacariya, 2,31-37; 4.34; 75.25-26) associated with the Tirthankaras is generally on the line of the Tiloyapannatti (4.896-914).

Warning! Page nr. 34 has not been proofread. Click the page link to verify the generated OCR text with the original PDF.

55 5. INTRODUCTION The order in which the names of fourteen Kulakaras are given in the Paumacariya (3.50f) has greater agreement with that of the Tiloyapannatti (4.421f) than with that of the Jambudivapannatti (Su. 28), Samavayanga (Su. 156) or Sthananga (7.566). 6. The height of the first three Kulakaras is given as 1800, 1300 and 800 bows respectively. Thereafter every succeeding Kulakara has his height 25 bows less than the preceding one (Paumacariya, 20. Ava N (156). 95). It agrees with the Tiloyapannatti (421-495) and not with In the Jaisalameriya manuscript1 the whole verse has been replaced agreeing with the Ava N but the other two manuscripts K and Kh do not follow it. 7. Tirthankara Aranatha's mother is named Mitra (Paumacariya, 20.44). This name is identical with that in the Tiloyapannatti (4.543). The Sacred trees Samava. (Su. 157) and Ava N, 386 mention Devi. namely, Sarala and Priyangu associated with Tirthankara Abhinandana and Padmaprabha respectively (Paumacariya, 20.30,32) agree with those in the Tiloyapannatti (4.916) while the Samava (Su. 157) mentions Priyaka and Chatrabha respectively. 8. The householder's vow of Samadhimaranam is mentioned under last Siksapada (Paumacariya 14.112-115). The Caritrapahuda of KundaKunda (22-25). also does the same thing. and 9. Abstention from taking food at night is enumerated as sixth anuvrata of householder's conduct (Paumacariya, 6.120). This sixth anuvrata is referred to in the Sarvarthasiddhi (7.1) Rajavartika (7.1). The Acarasara of Viranandi (5.70) and the Garitrasara of Camundaraya include it into the sixth anuvrata. 10. The names like Muni Kulabhusana and Desabhusana whom Rama pays obeisance on the Vamsagiri hill (Paumacariya, ch. 39), are popular in the Digambara tradition. Svetambara Tradition: 1. Lord Mahavira, after attaining omniscience, is said to have delivered while sermons on his way to Vipulagiri (Paumacariya, 2.36). According to the Digambara tradition, Mahavira delivered his first sermon on the Vipulagiri itself. (See Int. p. 7 of Padmapurana of Ravisena-Pt. Pannalal Jain). 2. Mothers of Tirthankaras are said to have witnessed fourteen dreams (Paumacariya, 3.62; 21.12). 1. See revised edition of Paumacariya by Prakrit Text Society.

Warning! Page nr. 35 has not been proofread. Click the page link to verify the generated OCR text with the original PDF.

6 A CRITICAL STUDY OF PAUMACARIYAM 3. The verse referring to the fourteen dream-objects (Paumacariya, 21.13) is identical with that occurring in the Nayadhammakahao: Gayavasahasihaabhiseyadamasasidinayaramjhayamkumbham/ Paumasarasagaravimanabhavanarayanuccayasihim ca//-Naya, I, p.9. 4. The categorical reference to twenty factors necessary for acquiring Tirthankaragotrakarma (Paumacariya, 2.82) is in conformity with the description of the same in the Nayadhammakahao (8.69). 5. Cakravartins are stated to have 64000 wives (Paumacariya, 4.58;5.168) The Digambara tradition mentions 96000 wives. 6. Acala and Padma are referred to as first and eighth Baladeva and Rama as ninth (Paumacariya, 5.154). According to the Digambara tradition, Acala, Rama and Padma are second, eighth and ninth Baladevas respectively (Tiloyapannatti, 4.517). But, the Vasudevahindi names Dasarathi Rama as Rama and not as Padma. 7. The verses (Paumacariya, 5.154 & 155) referring to the names of nine Baladevas and nine Vasudevas bear similarity with those of the Samavayanga (Su. 159 with Abhayadeva's commentary). 8. A number of verses from Paumacariya are quoted by Pt. Parmanand Shastry suggesting their similarity with those of the Digambara Tattvarthasutra But, in our opinion some of them bear similarity with those of the Svetambara works.1 Compare Paumacariya, 102.101 with Svetambara Tattvartha-sutra, 3.7; Paumacariya, 102.67 with the Bhasya on the Tattvartha-sutra, 3.2, Paumacariya, 14.75 with Uttaradhyayana, 30.30 or Samava, (Su. 6) and Paumacariya, 102.140 with Uttara, 36.207. 9. Visnusri, the name of the mother of Tirthankara Sreyamsa (Paumacariya, 20.37) is found also in the Samava, (Su. 153) and in Ava No 385, whereas the Tiloyapannatti (4.536) mentions Venudevi. Malli, the sacred tree associated wiih Puspadanta (Paumacariya, 20. 35) is mentioned in the Samava (Su. 157) but Tiloyapannatti (4.916) refers to the Aksa tree. 10. There is a reference to only three ramparts of the Samosarana of a Tirthankara (Paumacariya, 2.50). The Digambara tradition mentions four ramparts, the fourth being that of the mud (Tiloyapannatti, 4.733). [II] There is no ground to maintain that the following elements show any bias for the Digambara or the Svetambara tradition. 1. In the Paumacariya the story of Rama (Padma) is introduced as narrated by Indrabhuti Gautama to king Srenika (3.14). It is in agreement with the Digambara tradition because, according to the 1. Anekanta, Varsa 5, kirana 10-11, Paumacariya ka Antahpariksana.'

Warning! Page nr. 36 has not been proofread. Click the page link to verify the generated OCR text with the original PDF.

INTRODUCTION 7 Svetambara tradition Sudharmasvamin narrates to Jambusvamin. But in the Vasudevahindi we find both the traditions of introducing the narratives. (i) Tattha tava Suhammasamina Jambunamassa padhamanuoge ...... Vasudevacariyam kahiyam-Vasudevahindi Vol. I., p. 2. (ii) Tato Bhayavam Seniyassa ranno savvannumaggena dhammillacariyam kaheumaraddho-Vasudevahindi Vol. I., p. 27. 2. There is a reference to Anudisa Vimanas (tana vi anuddisaim purao aiccapamuhaim, Paumacariya, 102-145) situated above the Graiveyaka Vimanas. They are four-Vijaya, Vaijayanta, Jayanta and Aparajita. Then Sarvartha is called the best of Ahamaindra vimana (ahamindavaravimanam savvattham ceva ceva nayavvam Paumacariya, 102.146). These vimanas are not referred to as Anudisa in the Svetambara tradition, The Tiloyapannatti states that there are three layers of Kalpatita Vimanas Graiveyaka, Anudisa and Anuttara (Tiloyapannatti, 8.117-gevajjama- niddisayam anuttam iya huvamti tivihappa). But in the Jaisalameriya manuscript of Paumacariya1 the reading is 'tana vi ya uddisami purao purao aicchapamuhaim' and so the reference to anuddisaim. Next at 102.171 and at 2.84 the Paumacariya does not make any difference between Anudisa and Anuttara but all the five are mentioned as Anuttaras. The Paumacariya also calls them as Anuttaras (105. 170). Therefore, it can not be maintained that the Paumacariya is following the Digambara works exclusively. 3. The Paumacariya (20.57-58) states that Mahavira renounced the world as a Kumarasiha. Kumarasiha does not mean that he did not marry but it indicates that he renounced the world before becoming a king (see Jaina Sahitya aur Itihasa p. 100-101). 4. It cannot be maintained that there should be 'vattha' in place of 'tattha' in the Paumacariya (83.5) to justify that Bharata gave up ornaments and clothes just before renouncing the world to observe nudity. At 114.13-15 & 108.46 Rama and Hanumat are referred to as giving up their ornaments but there is no reference to any clothe. Anumannio gurunam Bharaho (Kauna?) mottuna tattha lankaram/ Nissesa sangarahio luncai dhiro niyayakese//-Paumacariya,83.5. The reference to 'nissesangarahio' cannot be taken as nudity as suggested by Pt. Parmanand Shastry (See op. cit. Anekanta). In the Uttaradhyayana (Ch. 35) it is laid down that when one gets ordained he should give up all the 'sangas' but, there the giving up of sangas does not mean accepting nudity. 1. See revised Edition of Paumacariya by Prakrit Text Society-

Warning! Page nr. 37 has not been proofread. Click the page link to verify the generated OCR text with the original PDF.

8 A CRITICAL STUDY OF PAUMACARIYAM 5. At 83.12 Kaikeyi is said to have attained liberation (siddhipayam uttamam patta). At 95.26 it is said that she had ascended to some celestial abode (tiyasavimanuttamam patta). In the light of the latter reference 'siddhipayam' is an interpolation. In the Jaisalameriya and other two manuscripts the reading is 'sammottam' in place of 'siddhipayam'. 6. The preceding fact leads us to believe that a single reference in the whole work to a Svetambaramuni at 22.78 (siyambaram) is perhaps an interpolation. Even, if it be not so, the reference cannot be exclusively taken as a proof of Vimalasuri's belonging to the Svetambara sect. [III] Besides that, some statements in the Paumacariya are contradictory in themselves and some elements neither favour the Digambara nor the Svetambara tradition. 1. It is mentioned at 105.16 that a period of 64000 years elapsed between the events of Ramayana and the Mahabharata2. At 20.81 it is mentioned that a period of eleven lakh years intervened between the advent of Munisu vratanatha and Nemi during whose tirtha-kalas Rama and Krsna were born respectively. 2. At 20.203 Madhukaitabha and Nisumbha are mentioned as fourth and fifth Prativasudevas respectively but, at 5.156 they are mentioned as fifth and fourth Prativasudevas respectively. 3. At 20.44 Aranatha's birth place is mentioned as Prathamapuri i. e. Ayodha while at 95.34 it is mentioned as Kunjarapura i. e. Hastinapura 4. Tirthankara Mallinatha's mother is named Raksita (Paumacariya, 20. 45) and the Sarala tree is associated with lord Mahavira (Paumacariya, 20.50) but the Samava (Su. 157) Ava N (386) and the Tiloyapannatti (4.544 & 4.917) mention Prabhavati as the mother of Mallinatha and associate the Sala tree with Lord Mahavira. 5. The birth time naksatra of Vasupujya is said to be Satabhisaj (Paumacariya, 20.38) but, the Tiloyapannatti mentions Visakha (4.537). The names of the celestial abodes (Paumacariya, 20.22-25) from which the Tirthankaras descended into the wombs of their mothers do not agree generally with those given in the Tiloyapannatti (4.522-25), 6. The names of the mothers of the three of the nine Baladevas (Paumacariya, 20.196) and those of fathers and mothers of two out of nine 1. See revised edition of Paumacariya by Prakrit Text Society, 2. In the new edition of Punyavijayaji (1968) it is more than 6 lakh years.

Warning! Page nr. 38 has not been proofread. Click the page link to verify the generated OCR text with the original PDF.

INTRODUCTION 9 Narayanas (Paumacariya, 20.182-185) do not agree with those mentioned in the Samavayanga (Su. 158). The previous birth-names of the Baladevas and their teachers (Paumacariya, 190-193) generally do not agree with those referred to in the Samavayanga (Su. 158). The above survey poses a question whether Vimalasuri can be assigned to any particular sect of the Jainas. There are elements which support the Digambara as well as the Svetambara tradition equally and there are some verses which show affinity with the works of both the sects. Hence it will be quite hazardous to bind him to any particular sect. It is clear that he had no bias for either sect. He while describing the universe mentions 12 Kalpas only (Paumacariya, 102. 143-144), which are in agreement with the Svetambara tradition but at 82.76 he mentions Brahmottara Kalpa also (devo bambhuttare kappe), which is one of the 16 Kalpas of the Digambara tradition. Shri Nathuram Premi suggests that Vimalasuri might have belonged to the Yapaniya Sangha (Jaina Sahitya aur Itihasa, p. 101). But this suggestion also does not solve our problem because Vimalasuri states in the colophon at the end of the Paumacariyam that he belonged to the Nailavamsa. It is the Kalpasutrasthaviravali which mentions that the Nailasakha originated with a disciple of Vajrasena. Vijaya, the preceptor of Vimalasuri is referred to as Nailakulavamsanandiyara (Paumacariya, 118. 117). It is the Nandisutra Pattavali (Su. 38-39) which refers to Bhutidinna, a pupil of Arya Nagarjuna, with the same epithet. Thus we find that the Nailavamsa finds a place in the works of the Svetambaras whereas the Digambara tradition does not refer to the Nailavamsa and the Yapaniyasangha as a branch of the Digambara sect, Now Svayambhu, a Yapaniya, mentions 16 dream-objects in his his Paumacariu whereas Vimalasuri refers to 14 objects only. It is also to be noted that the Naila-sakha originated in the first century A. D. when the schism between the Digambaras and the Svetambaras had not taken place. Thus it becomes problematic to assign any particular sect i.e. Digambara, Svetambara or Yapaniya to Vimalasuri. Therefore, the only safe position as far as the evidences go, is that Vimalasuri was a Jaina monk and a liberal author without having any bias for any sect. This trait of Vimalasuri is further strengthened when we find him addressing the Tirthankaras with the names of Brahmanical deities (Paumacariya, 5.122; 28.48; 109. 12) (See also Infra. Ch. 9 Sec. 3 Jain Rituals). C. Date of Paumacariyam: It has been a problem for various scholars to assign a uniform date to the author of the Paumacariyam. The date given in the Prasasti of the work does not stand the test of the linguistic evidences, historical parallels and other elements in the Paumacariya as well as so late

Warning! Page nr. 39 has not been proofread. Click the page link to verify the generated OCR text with the original PDF.

10 A CRITICAL STUDY OF PAUMACARIYAM mentioning of Paumacariyam such as by the author of Kuvalayamala. We shall critically examine the statement of the author about the date, the views of other scholars, external and internal evidences to find out the correct date of the work. Author's Statement: The Prasasti appended to the Paumacariyam states that the work was composed 530 or according to another manuscript1 520 years after the emancipation of Lord Mahavira, These dates come to 4 A. D. or 6 B. C, and according to Jacobi's date of Vira-nirvana, to 63 or 53 A. D. Prof. Leumann2 regards 4 A. D. as incontestible date but the history of the advent of monastic lineage of Vimalasuri goes against it. Vimalasuri states that he belonged to the Nailavamsa" and addresses The Nandisutra his preceptor Vijaya as Nailakulavamsanandiyara.4 Pattavali (Su 38-39) refers to Bhutidinna, the pupil of Arya Nagarjuna with the same epithet. Nagarjuna's time is fixed at about 356 V. S. It shows that the Nailakulavamsa was in existence during the last quarter of the 3rd century A. D. The Kalpasutrasthaviravali mentions that the Nailasakha originated with a disciple of Vajrasena. Dr. Jacobi places Vajrasena at about 580-600 A. V. and states that Vimalasuri was, therefore, removed from the founder of the Nailasakha by some generations and he cannot have lived before the later part of the 7th century A. V. i. e. 2nd century A. D. In the colophon at the end of the Paumacariyam, Vimalasuri is called a 'Purvadhara (Puvvaharena) but the Nandisutra, the Avacarni of the Oghaniryukti and Anuyogadvarasutra have no reference to any Vimalasuri as a Purvadhara. Different dates of composition of Paumacariyam given in the manuscripts, the late origin of Nailasakha and the absence of any reference to Vimalasuri as a Purvadhara create suspicion about the authenticity of the colophon and the statement about Vimalasuri's date given in the Prasasti. Therefore, we shall examine external and internal evidences to find out the probable date of Paumacariyam. 6 External Evidences : The Kuvalayamala of Uddyotanasuri of 778 A. D. is the first work which refers to Paumacariyam of Vimalasuri. It shows that the 1. See U pamitibhavaprapancakatha Preface p. 10 2. See A History of Indian Literature Vol. II. Vol.II, p. 477, f. n. 3. 3. See Paumacariya's Colophon. 4. Paumacariya, 118.117. 5. See Parisistaparvan, Int. p. xix. 6. See Int. of Paumacariyam chs. 27-28 ed. by S. C. Upadhyaya 1934. 7. p. 3, b. 27; see also Jaina Sahitya aur Itihasa, p. 88.

Warning! Page nr. 40 has not been proofread. Click the page link to verify the generated OCR text with the original PDF.

INTRODUCTION 11 Paumacariyam was composed earlier than 778 A. D. Uddyotanasuri refers to the Padmacaritam of Ravisena also. Shri K. H. Dhruva1 Padmamaintains that the Paumacariyam was composed later than the caritam. He states that some metres employed in the Paumacariya are modern and the test word Vimala used in the work is also not an old practice. But, these elements cannot be a sure guide in determining the date of the work. The Setubandha also uses a test word though, not the name of the author and we have proved that the Padmacaritam is an enlarged Sanskrit version of the original Paumacariyam2. The date of Padmacaritam3 is 677 A. D. Therefore, the Paumacariyam must date earlier than the Padmacaritam. Internal Evidences: The Paumacariya refers to Dinara at 68.32 on the occasion of mock auctioning of Ravana by Angada. Dr. V. S. Agrawala says that it were the Imperial Kusanas who first introduced the name Dinara to their coins. Kusana King Kadphises (45-78 A. D.) is said to have struck the Dinara coins. Particularly in the south the Nagarjunikonda Inscp. No. 2 of Virapurnsadatta of the time of second half of the third century A. D. refers to such coin and that also as Dinarimasaka(R). The Angavijja also refers to the Dinari. It is the Gupta gold coins which are known as Dinaras 8. All these evidences prove that the Dinaras became prevalent not before the last quarter of the 1st century A. D. Further the Paumacariya (14.115) mentions Sallekhana under the fourth Siksapada of the house holder's conduct. The Caritrapahuda of Kundakundacarya (v. 25) whose date ranges between first to fifth century A. D. is perhaps the first work which includes Sallekhana into the Siksapadas. The Paumacariya refer to a Svetambara monk once only (22.78). At 83.12 it is said that Kaikeyi attained liberation and at 95.26 it is mentioned that Kaikeyi attained some celestial abode. It seems that the first reference is an interpolation and in this light the word Svetambara also may be an interpolation. Even, if it is not so then we find that both the traditions, Svetambara as well as Digambara hold that the schism took place at 136 or 139 1. Jain Yuga, Pustaka 1, Anka 5, Posa-1982. 2. See Infra. ch. 6. sec. 3. Paumacariya, 123.181. 4. See Angavijja Int. pp. 92-93. 5. See Coins of India, p. 45. 6. S 1. Vol. I. p. 222.ยท 7. Op. cit. 8. Collected works of R. G. Bhandarkar. Vol. I. p. 46.

Warning! Page nr. 41 has not been proofread. Click the page link to verify the generated OCR text with the original PDF.

12 A CRITICAL STUDY OF PAUMACARIYAM V. S. i. e. 81 or 85 A. D.1 Therefore, the specific mention of Svetambara or Digambara must not have occurred before 81 or 85 A. D. Muni Kalyanavijayaji2 opines that the specific reference to a particular sect had started not before the 7th century of V. S. i. e. later half of the 6th cent. A. D. and according to that view Vimalasuri's date should not fall earlier than that period. But, the epigraph3 of Sri Vijayasivamrgesa Varma (470-488 A. D.) at Devagiri refers to the 'Svetapatamahasramanasangha". It proves that on this basis Vimalasuri cannot be relegated to so late a period of the 6th century A. D. The Paumacariya (22. 24-27) further refers to not less than twenty kinds of penances. Generally the Jaina Canonical literature and the Mulacara do not refer to most of them. Dr. S. B. Deo1 writes that a large number of tapas is probably a later development. The puspika at the end of the prasasti of Paumacariyam refers to Vimala as a Suri. The Kalpasutrasthaviravali and the Nandisutra-pattavali do not refer to any Suri. The general epithets are Thera and Ajja (Sthavira and Arya). The early Jaina Inscriptions of Mathura also do not refer to any Jaina Suri of early christian era. Dr. S. B. Deo 5 states that it is the Gacchasara which explains 'Suri' as a sole supporter of a gaccha. He further mentions that Suri seems to be a later term for Acarya as it is seldom found in the earlier portions of the Jaina canon and in the Mulacara also there are very scanty references to the term 'Suri'. He says that closer we come to the medieval period we have the predominance of the Suri etc. All these evidences create difficulties in believing the prasasti's claim that the work was composed in the first century A. D. 6 The Paumacariya gives the planetary position existing at the time of the birth of Hanuman (17.107-112). The position of the planets is not accurate. Are these verses interpolated by some mediocre scribe or does accurate plenatory position given in the Padmacaritam of Ravisena indicate that the portion in the Paumacariya is not an interpolation but there are some defective readings in it ? Prof. N. Shastry writes to me that in the Paumacariya only seven planets are taken into consideration, so the system seems to be old whereas the tungatva of the planets in zodiacs 1. See Jaina Sahitya aur Itihasa, p. 97. 2. Sramana Bhagawan Mahavira, p. 307. 3. Insep. No. 98 vide Jaina Silalekha Songraha, Pt. II; see also The Vakataka Gupta Age; Dr. A. S. Alteker (1954) p. 219 and Jainism in South India and Some Jaina Epigraphs, p. 193. 4. History of Jaina Monachism, p. 187 ff, p. 563. 5. Ibid pp. 232, 237. 6. Ibid. p. 514.

Warning! Page nr. 42 has not been proofread. Click the page link to verify the generated OCR text with the original PDF.

INTRODUCTION 13 indicates that it is in affinity with the system of Varahamihira1. Dr. Jacobi on the evidences of the word Dinara, some ancient peoples and astronomical terms places the Paumacariyam between the 3rd and the 4th century A. D. On the basis of the above material we cannot agree with Winternitz3 maintaining that Vimalasuri is a very early Prakrt poet. Political Situation & Historical Data : The political situation as obtained, the historical parallels available and the references to some ancient peoples in the Paumacariya indicate that the work was not composed in the first century A. D. The Paumacariyam mentions that Rudrabhuti, the chieftain of the Kagonanda tribe kidnapped Balikhilya, the ruler of Kuvavaddapura. The latter's minister requested Simhodara, the king of Ujjain to get Balikhilya released, but Simhodara expressed his helplessness. When Rama and Laksmana reached there, they were requested for the same. They crossed the river Narmada, entered the Vindhya forest, subdued Rudrabhuti and got Balikhilya released. (Paumacariya, 34.25-49). The ancient history of India reveals that Ksatrapa Rudrasimha I ruled over Ujjain. He received material assistance from the Abhiras. With their help, he dethroned his nephew Jivadamana and became a Mahaksatrapa. The Gunda Inscp. dated 181 A. D. refers to Rudrabhuti, an Abhira General who is considered to be one of the allies of Rudrasimha. Later another Abhira leader Isvaradatta came into forefront and carved a principality for himself at Nasika. He deposed Rudrasimha I and himself became a Mahaksatrapa. But within two years Rudrasimha ousted the conqueror and again became a Mahaksatrapa. Ruprabhuti is mentioned in both the above evidences while the names, Rudrasimha and Simhodara can be equated on the law of metathesis. Simhodara's refusal to extend his help to Balikhilya against Rudrabhuti can be compared with the historical fact that Rudrasimha could not dare to oppose Rudrabhuti for the latter was powerful and had previously helped Rudrasimha. Abhira Iswardatta's separate principality at Nasika can be compared with the stronghold of the Kagonanda chief in the region south of Narmada. Thus the political situation of the 2nd century A. D. has a fair parallel in the Paumacariam. The Paumacariya mentions that Rama had his allies in the people of Sriparvata, Mahendra and Malaya region (Mahindamalayatira siri- 1. Vide A letter from Prof. Nemicandra Shastry Arrah, dated 17.2.61. 2. Upamitibhavaprapancakatha, p. x. 3. A History of Indian Literature Vol. II., II, p. 477. 4. See The Vakataka Gupta Age; Dr. A. S. Alteker (1954), p. 45.

Warning! Page nr. 43 has not been proofread. Click the page link to verify the generated OCR text with the original PDF.

14 A CRITICAL STUDY OF PAUMACARIYAM pavvayahanuruhaiua Paumacariya, 55.16) while fighting against Ravana. All these three regions are situated in the south. The Paumacariya (85.26) further refers to Hanumat as the lord of Sripura situated in the valley of Sriparvata. It is said that Hanumat was named as Srisaila because in his childhood he had fallen down from the aerial car on the slab of a hill (sancunpio ya selo 18.49). This frequent mention of Sriparvata and its people as allies of Rama indicates that our author was haunted with the memory of the Sriparvatiya-Andhras of the Puranas, identical with the Iksvakus of South Andhradesa, who ruled during the 3rd century A.D. The Paumacariya (55.17) further mentions the Keligilas as the allies of Rama. The Paumacariya (55.29) mentions them as Kailikilas. They are the Kilakilas who are historically known as the ancestors of the Vakatakas. Vakataka king Vindhyasakti (223-275 A.D.) came into power after the Kilakila kings.3 Therefore, the Kilakilas seem to have ruled before the first quarter of the 3rd century A.D. 2 4 The Paumacariya mentions (98,66) that Lavana and Ankusa subdued the Anandas on their way to the Digvijaya. Historically the Anandas rose in the fourth century A.D. They succeeded the Brhatphalayanas and ruled over the Guutura region in the south Andhradesa for a long period. There are references to more political tussles, one between Ujjaina and Dasapura and the other between Ayodha and Nandyavartapura. It is narrated in the Paumacariya (ch.33) that Vajrakarna, lord of Dasapura and a bhrtya of Simhodara of Ujjaina was violating the code of a feudatory. Hence, Simhodara attacked Vairakarna and made him his prisoner. Rama and Laksmana helped Vajrakarna and defeated Simhodara. The territory as well as the treasury under Simhodara was divided between Vajrakarna and Simhodara and latter accepted the suzerainty of Bharata of Ayodhya. It reveals that Dasapura (Mandasora) was trying to be indepedent of Ujjain's overlordship. The inscriptional reference to Dasopura, perhaps for the first time, is found in the Nasika cave Inscp. of the time of Nahapana. It is referred to as a place of pilgrimage (119-124 A.D.). It has no political importance. The town comes into political significance 1. Ibid. pp. 19, 60. 2. See A History of the Early Dynasties of Andhradesha, p. 39. 3. See The Vakataka Gupta Age; Dr. A. S. Alteker (1954), p. 89. 4. See A History of the Early Dynasties of Andhradesha, pp. 5. Seel Select Inscriptions, Vol. I. p. 215,233, 836; The Vakataka Gupta Age; Dr. A. S. Alteker (1954), pp. 64-65. 161.

Warning! Page nr. 44 has not been proofread. Click the page link to verify the generated OCR text with the original PDF.

INTRODUCTION 15 during the Gupta period. Dr. A.S. Altekar1 states that Dasapura was ruled by Jayavarman and Simhavarman as independent rulers during the later half of the 4th cent. A.D. Naravarman and Visvavarman (404 & 423 A.D.) were also independent rulers of Mandasora (asapura) and there is nothing to show that they acknowledged the supremacy of the Guptas The last record of Manddasora (No. 52) mentions Kumaragupta as overlord of Dasapura, which was being ruled by Bandhu-varman, the son of Visvavarman. He says that Bandhuvarman was probably a feudatory chief of Kumaragupta I ruling from 414 to 454 A.D. He further remarks that towards the close of the reign of Kumaragupta I, his kingdom was disturbed by wars but the exact adversaries are not well established. The Gupta emperor was threatened with utter ruin. Dr. H. C. Rayachauduri3 associates the title Vyaghraparakrama with Kumaragupta. In the Paumacariyam the king of Ujjaina is named as Simhodara. Both the Both the terms have some similarity. These events reveal that Dasapura came into political importance in the 4th and 5th century A. D. The Paumacariya (Ch. 37) narrates that when Ativirya of Nandyavartapura sought a battle with Bharata of Ayodhya, Rama and Loksmana left Vijayapura for helping their brother and subdued Ativirya. The Poona Copper plate Inscp. of Prabhavati Gupta refers to Nandivardhana which is identified with modern Nagardhan or Nandardhan near Ramateka about 13 miles north of Nagapura. 4 Nandivardhana was the capital of the Vakatakas. Pravarasena II shifted his capital from this place to Pravarapura in about 430 A. D." Narendrasena, the son of Pravarasena II is said to have been overwhelmed with a debacle on account of the invasion of his dominions by Bhavadattavarman, a Nala king about the middle of the 5th century A. D.6 Thus the history reveals that there was some political tussle in that area and the Paumacariya also speaks of a political tussle in that area. Haradeva Bahari' regards that the evidences such as Dinara, Svetambara and planetary position might be interpolations and hence the date third or fourth century A. D. assigned to the Paumacariyam cannot be maintained. But we have to say that the above stated 1. See The Vakataka Gupta Age; Dr. A. S. Alteker (1954), pp. 166, 167. 2. Ibid. pp. 159-160. 3. See Political History of Ancient India, p. 480 (Fourth edition) vide The Vakataka Gupta Age; Dr. A. S. Alteker (1954), p.161. 4. See AGAI, p. 323 & Select Inscriptions, Vol. I, p. 407. 5. See The Vakataka Gupta Age; Dr. A. S. Alteker (1954), p. 105. 6. Ibid.p. 107. 7. Prakrta aur Usaka Itihasa, p. 66,

Warning! Page nr. 45 has not been proofread. Click the page link to verify the generated OCR text with the original PDF.

16 A CRITICAL STUDY OF PAUMACARIYAM political situations and refernces to historical people, cannot be regarded as interpolations, therefore the date of Paumacariyam cannot go before the 5th century A. D. Literary and Linguistic Evidences : In the genealogical list of the Iksvaku vamsa given in the Paumacariyam, the number of the ancestors of Dasaratha is generally in agreement with that of the Brahmanical Puranas and not with that of Valmiki Ramayana. The Prasasti of Paumacariyam mentions that of besides other things, Kama, Artha, Dharma and Moksa* from the constituents of a Purana. This definition is not in full agreement with the early definition of a Brahmanical Purana, but it is in agreement with the later developed definition of a Brahmanical Purana.3 3 The gatha metre employed in the Paumacariyam shows an advanced stage as the nicest rules of metres are applicable to it. The time of the advent of Maharastri language is generally held to be the second century A.D. but the Maharastri language of Paumacariyam reveals an advanced stage and there is some influence of Apabhramsa on it. We have evidence of the use of Apabhramsa dialect in one of the Ankas of Vikramorvast of Kalidasa (i.e. 4th, 5th century A. D.). 4 Conclusion: Thus we conclude that the Nailavamsa originated in the second century A.D. The references to the Dinara, Vimala as a Suri, Suranga and the astronomieal term take us to still a later date. . The inclusion of Sallekhana by the Paumacariya into the twelfth vow a householder bears similarity with the Caritrapahuda of Kundakunda. The recognition of abstaining from taking meal as the sixth anuvrata of householder's conduct (Paumacariya, 6 120) is mentioned as late as in the Sarvarthasiddhi (7.1) of Pujyapada. The references to the Sriparvatiyas, Kilakilas and the Anandas take us between the 3rd and the 4th century A.D. The political situations around Dasapura and Nandyavartapura reveal historical parallels of the first half of the 5th eentury A.D. 1. See Infra. Ch. 5. 2. Paumacariya, 118. 111. 3. See Infra ch. 11 Sec. 3B. 4. See Infra. Ch. 11. See, 1; See Variant Readings and Orthographic-Scribal tendencies of the PC, Paumacariyam, Pt II, Prakrit Text Society, 1968. pp.13-.

Warning! Page nr. 46 has not been proofread. Click the page link to verify the generated OCR text with the original PDF.

INTRODUCTIONThe character of the language reflects the middle stage of the MiddleIndo-Aryan. In the light of the above evidences the genuineness of the date mentioned in the Prasasti of Paumacariyam becomes doubtful. I am tempted to suggest that the date mentioned, really may belong to the Krta or Vikrama Era which was converted into Nirvana era by mistake* or even may be deliberately. Thus the correct date of Paumacariyam1 come to (530-57 = 473 A.D.). * A parallel to such a mistake can be quoted from the Jaina tradition. The date of the fall of Vallabhi empire is given as 845 V. S. in the Vividhatirthakalpa (p. 29), whereas the Prabandhakosa (p. 74) refers to 845 A. V. and the former is the correct date (see Maitraka Kalina Gujarata by H. G. Shastri Pt. I, p. 157 ff.). " 1. Readers are also referred to my article, New Light on the Date of Paumacariyam, Journal of the Oriental Institute Baroda, Vol. XIII, No. 4, pp. 378-368, 2 "

Let's grow together!

I humbly request your help to keep doing what I do best: provide the world with unbiased sources, definitions and images. Your donation direclty influences the quality and quantity of knowledge, wisdom and spiritual insight the world is exposed to.

Let's make the world a better place together!

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: