The
First Epic on the Life of Rama:
Paumchariya
by Vimal Suri or Ramayana by Valmiki?
By
Sanjay
Sonawani
The charm of Rama's story on Indians is
indelible. An attempt has also been made to trace the exact source of the Rama
story. Tradition holds that Valmiki was the first poet to depict the story of
Rama. However, there are many differences of opinion among scholars as to when
the Ramayana, the epic, was written by Valmiki and what the scope of his early
work was, which was interpolated and distorted by other poets in later times.
Moreover, simple doubts have been raised about whether this is the first epic of
Rama. A serious contender for the writer of the first epic on Rama is Vimal
Suri, who wrote the Paumachariya epic in Maharashtri Prakrit language and not
Valmiki. We will discuss this issue in this paper.
Although Western scholars turned to Rama only
in the nineteenth century, disciplined research on Rama's story as presented by
Valmiki and other poets gained momentum after 1950. A comparative study of
various religious and linguistic versions of Ramayana, such as Jain, and
Buddhist, also started. About Jain Ramayanas J. W. D-Jong wrote three notes in
the Journal of the Oriental Institute of Baroda on an old copy of the Jain
Ramayana. C. Jain's research article was published in 1975 by the Journal of
Oriental Institute of Baroda. However, it has to be said that there has been a
slight neglect in the comparative study of Rama stories in Buddhist literature.
The only exception is a long article written by D. C. Sirkar, published in
1976, titled "The Ramayana and Dasharath Jataka.". Although the influence
of Valmiki Ramayana on the later Rama stories has also been extensively
investigated, the mystery of the Rama story has not been satisfactorily solved.
1
The Ramayana has also been analyzed from an
archaeological point of view. Various discussions have been held in terms of
cultural and social issues and ethics, and we see that the Ramayana has
unknowingly given rise to many social conflicts. In this paper, we will discuss
which epic on the life of Rama was written first and review how conventional
wisdom often gets stuck in emotional and presumptive chronologies.
The date of Valmiki Ramayana
The date of the Valmiki Ramayana is an enigma
in itself. Since Valmiki (if he was a real personality) did not mention any
date of writing his epic in the Ramayana, it has given a wild scope to assign
almost any time to its writing. As this poem shows Valmiki being an active
participant in many events in the life of Rama, his writing also is dated on
the assumption that the writing of Ramayana also belongs to the mythical Treta
Yuga, i.e. 1.75 million years old, but it is outright refuted by the scholars.
According to internal evidence, from the 5th century BC to the 6th century AD,
dates are assigned to the writing of the Ramayana.
Attention must be given to the fact that the
timeline of Sanskrit literature is conjectural and thus has created many
anomalies. It is a fatally incorrect suggestion that the Sanskrit language is
ancient and the Prakrit languages are daughter languages. Any timeline based on
this assumption is bound to fail. The proposed timeline of Ramayana by modern
scholars is also incorrect because of various factors, which we will discuss in
detail.
The researchers of the traditional view
reject the timeline proposed by the scholars, considering the mentions of
Yavana, Shaka, Surang, Dinar, etc. in the Ramayana as an interpolation, and
stick to their preconceived notion that the Ramayana is as old as they think.
In short, the date of the Ramayana is surrounded by controversies, but there
are some circumstantial pieces of evidence that, though hitherto little
considered, are useful in determining the date of the composition of the core
of the Ramayana. Although it is generally accepted that Balakanda and
Uttarkanda of the present Ramayana were added much later to the original
five-chapter Ramayana, many people have also expressed the opinion that at
least some parts of Balakanda and Uttarkanda must have been written by the
original poet. The language, style, and structure of these kandas are different
from the rest of the kandas, which are loaded with many inconsistencies and
spurious additions and are poetically ordinary; hence, these two kandas are
considered later compositions of unknown poets.
Weber opines that the purpose behind writing
the Ramayana was to spread Arya (Vedic) religion and culture to South India,
including Sri Lanka. It is said that Valmiki used ancient and popular ballads
and folk stories as raw material to compose his epic. 2 This means
that even before Valmiki, Rama's story was quite famous in different parts of
North India, but its forms and narration changed from place to place. Scholars
like Winternitz state that the present Ramayana was shaped by Valmiki in 300 BC
based on ancient ballads, which were scattered in the mouths of the bards, into
the form of a unified poem. 3 Although he is correct in
stating that Ramayana was based on folk songs, his dating seems incorrect as
his arguments betray reality.
The story of Rama appearing in the Dasaratha
Jataka is contradictory to the narrative presented by Valmiki. Had Valmiki's
Ramayana been available in the Buddhist period, there would not have been such
a contradiction in Jataka stories as they came down in written form by the
first century BC. We can conclude that the author who did the final edition of
Jatakas did not know Valmiki's Ramayana because it did not exist then. Another
thing that can be seen from this is that from the time of Buddha & Mahavira
to the first century, before the beginning of the Christian era, there was no
uniformity in the stories of Rama, but many conflicting versions of them
prevailed. T.W. Rhys Davids also agrees. He asserts that Valmiki Ramayana could
not have existed at the time of the Buddha-ballad. 4
Winternitz states that some of the Jataka
stories are retold in the Ramayana, but there is seldom literary agreement.
According to him, there were ballads dealing with Rama, but no Rama epic was
written until then. 5
However, it is generally believed that the
epic style began with the Ramayana. In the 14th century, Vishwanatha
called the Ramayana an Arsha Mahakavya. Nevertheless, the structure of
the epic, as described by critics, is generally followed by the Ramayana.
Kaushik says that Ashwaghosha's epic Buddhacharita is influenced by the
Ramayana and that the Rama stories are mentioned in the 3rd century
AD text Abhidharmavibhashashastra. 6 But this text does not mention
the Valmiki Ramayana as a source of the stories of Rama. The view that
Ashvaghosha's composition is influenced by the Ramayana is also unsustainable
because many scholars propose that Valmiki is indebted to Ashvaghosha for
various poetic descriptions appearing in Buddhacharit, a second-century epic.
There is a difference between knowing the popular story of Rama from other
sources and the existence of Valmiki's Ramayana. Ashvaghosha could have
developed his style independently or under the influence of now-unknown poets.
All the scholars have unanimously expressed the opinion that the Ramayana is
written by collecting materials from traditional ballads and folk stories. That
is, it can be said that the Valmiki Ramayana was written by selecting
traditionally popular versions of the stories suitable for his narrative and
giving them a poetically coherent flow. It is evident that this period is
certainly not earlier than the 1st century AD. 7
Other important evidence is that this poem is
related to Smriti and Vedas, and it is mentioned in the poem that this poem is
derived from Vedas and that this poem is an expansion of Vedas. This has two
important implications. The Ramayana was written and interpolated to propagate
Vedic religion and its principles. The ethics, rituals, and social structure
appearing in the Ramayana are based on Vedic principles. Another important
aspect is that it gives direct reference to the three Vedas and indirect
reference to the Atharva Veda. However, in later interpolations, Balkanda and
Uttarkanda explicitly mention Atharvaveda. (See- VR 1.15.2) In the rest of the
Kandas, although Atharvaveda is not mentioned as the fourth Veda, the hymns of
Atharvas and Angirasa are mentioned. In the Vedic religion, initially,
only three Vedas were accepted, and the Atharv Veda was added as a sacred Veda
much later. Manusmriti, which received its final form in the second century AD,
mentions only three Vedas, i.e., Rik, Sama, and Yajus, and the fourth Veda does
not find even the slightest mention. The Vedic community gave prestige to the
Atharvaveda sometime after Mnusmriti took final form, i.e. after the 2nd
century AD. During the next hundred years after the time of Manusmriti,
the Vedic people started considering acceptance of the Atharvaveda. During the
period when the acceptance process was ongoing but not formalized, it is quite
possible that the Ramayana was written in this middle period, i.e., between the
third century and the fifth century AD. It can be said with certainty that the
Valmiki Ramayana was written after the finalization of Manusmriti, i.e. after
Atharvaveda started gaining acceptance under different names, but before the estimated
time of Kalidasa (i.e., before the fifth century AD).
Regarding the writing period of the Ramayana,
P. C. Sen Gupta also expresses the same opinion from words like Buddha,
Tathagata, Chaitya, Bhikshu, and Sramana mentioned in the Ramayana. After the
spread of Buddhism, the Vedics started opposing it vigorously. During the Gupta
period, they vehemently started blaspheming the Buddha from the literature
because of the royal patronage they received. "Yatha hi chor: tatha hi
Buddha" thus states the Ramayana, and calling Buddha a thief shows us that
this structure belongs to the Gupta period.
C. V. Vaidya states that based on the zodiac
signs in the Ramayana, the period of writing of Ramayana cannot go beyond the
first century BC, and the currently available Ramayana, however, is finalized
after the compilation of the Mahabharata, as a chapter in the Valmiki Ramayana,
Ayodhya Kanda, copies part of the Mahabharata’s Sabha Parva verbatim. 8
The evidence available from Bhavabhuti's
Uttaramcharita is that the Ramayana available in his time was not divided into
cantos but into chapters.9 The period of Bhavabhuti is generally
considered to be between 700 and 740 AD. In short, from the original writing,
the Valmiki Ramayana was also changed in terms of structure and narration
because of the interpolations. By the time of Bhavabhuti, Balakanda and
Uttarkanda were also annexed to the original Ramayana. Vaidya has also
expressed doubt that the Ramayana may not be the work of one person due to
inconsistent and conflicting information in the Ramayana. If the Ramayana’s
writer was indeed a single poet, the original poem written by him must have
been concise and without any internal inconsistencies. We can also deduce from
Vaidya's analysis that inconsistencies may have arisen in the current Ramayana
due to the addition of other popular poems in verse form to the original
composition.
However, the researcher Kunhan Raja has
expressed the opinion that Kalidasa, who wrote the Raghuvamsa, did not know the
epic Ramayana, so it is suggested that Valmiki may have been post-Kaladasa,
i.e., after the fifth century. Moreover, in Raghuvamsa, Rama's capital is not
Ayodhya, but Saketa. (Raghuvamsa, 13, 62).
Kunhan seems to have made a grave mistake
here because Raghuvansa indeed mentions Ayodhya as an alternative name for
Saketa. (Raghuvansa 15/60). It can be said that Kalidasa used both names while
writing his epic. C. V. Vaidya, however, says that Kalidasa had the Ramayana
written by Valmiki before him, as Kalidasa has sometimes used verses from the
Ramayana in Raghuvamsa as they are. However, it is difficult to determine the
origin of which verse was written first. Also, Kunhan is wrong because Kalidasa
uses both the names, Saketa and Ayodhya. It is most likely that Kalidasa must have
known that the ancient name of Ayodhya was Saketa, but Valmiki may have used
the current popular name Ayodhya due to the Gupta royal patronage, thus trying
to divinize the Gupta capital, Ayodhya. Many different stories in Raghuvamsa
are not to be found in the Ramayana, so Kalidasa may have written his epic with
his imagination by using story versions not used by Valmiki. In short,
different dates of the Ramayana have been estimated as 5th century
BC to 6th century AD, but most scholars opine that the period of
writing of Ramayana should be between 3rd century AD and 5th
century AD. And that is as close to the truth as the available evidence
suggests.
During the Gupta period, a tendency among
authors in India emerged to seek the authentification of the Vedas. Those who
did not accept the authority of the Vedas used to be called atheists, no matter
whether the author believed in the existence of the god or not. Therefore, most
of the writers tried hard to show that their writings originated from the Vedas
or had the sanction of the Veda. Although the characters Rama-Ravana-Sita of
the Valmiki Ramayana do not appear anywhere in any of the Vedas, there is a
characteristic tendency in the Ramayana to show the Vedic sages or their
namesakes as contemporaries of Rama. Although this is the creativity of the
poet, the religious intention behind it is not to be hidden.
Case of Ayodhya
Important evidence we have to consider is
that Ayodhya is given as the capital of the Kosala kingdom in Valmiki Ramayana,
but the most overlooked fact is that the name Ayodhya is not as ancient as it
is thought. The original name of the city of Ayodhya was Viniya or Vinita, and
it is known from the 3rd century BC Jain text
"Jambuddivapannati" that the city was founded by the first Jain Tirthankara
Rishabhnatha. Later, this city also got the name Ikkkhagu. Then some centuries
before the 6th century BC, the city was named Saketa (Sageya or
Saeya)). It also has been discussed by scholars that the Saketa was an
independent city and the Ayojjha was another city that existed in Buddha’s
time. Saketa, not Ayodhya, was called one of the six great cities of India. 10
It is significant here that the name Saketa appears most prominently in
Sanskrit, Buddhist, and Jain literature, not Ayodhya.
The name Ayodhya has been borrowed from the
Atharvaveda, where Ayodhya is used as a spiritual metaphor. अष्टचक्रा नवद्वारा देवानां पूरयोध्या। तस्यां हिरण्ययः कोशः स्वर्गो ज्योतिषावृतः।। Thus states
Atharvaveda. This metaphor does not indicate a city of people but of gods.
Saketa, a word without etymology, must have been renamed with the borrowing
Atharvan mythical name Ayodhya sometime later than the 2nd century
AD.
In the fourth chapter of the Buddhist
literature “Samyuktnikaya,” we find mention of Ayodhya, but this Ayodhya is not
on the banks of Sarayu but on the banks of the Ganges. The name Ayodhya also
appears in Pali Tripitaka and Attakatha, and it is also mentioned that it was a
city located on the banks of the Ganga. An important point is that the Chinese
monk Yuan Chwang, who came to India in the sixth century, also mentioned that
he entered Ayodhya by crossing the river Ganges. Though Cunningham states that
the Ayodhya of Yuan Chwang was different than the present Ayodhya, Watters
tries to say that Chwang could have mistaken the Sarayu River for Ganga. In the
footnote, Watters tells us that there are serious difficulties in identifying
Yuan Chwang’s Ayodhya with Saketa of Fa-hsien and Ayodhya of other writers. 11
This does mean that there were two cities with common names during the sixth
and seventh centuries. The Ayodhya across Ganga might have been devastated by
the aggressors or deserted by the residents of the city and thus forgotten, and
the same name was applied to Saketa in the later course of the time.
The proof from various ancient sources
informs us that Ayodhya on the southern banks of the Ganges and Saketa on the
banks of Sarayu were two different cities. That is, the name Saketa for the
present Ayodhya was still popular from the sixth century BC to the sixth
century AD, even though it was parallelly named Ayodhya after the second
century AD. It is not mentioned anywhere that the Saketa city was known
as Ayodhya anytime before the 6th century BC. Patanjali also
mentions in his Mahabhashya 'Arunat Yavana: Saketam, Arunat Yavana:
Madhyamikam,' about the Greek invasion in the second century BC. He does
not use the name Ayodhya in this important context.
Though some scholars propose that the Saketa
was a suburb of the deserted Ayodhya at that time, this seems mere a
conjecture and not a fact. Kushan Emperor Kanishka, while counting the
provinces he ruled over, recorded the names of the cities in the Rabtak
inscription, which belongs to the second century AD. The inscription’s fourth
to sixth lines read as under-
"In the year one, it has been
proclaimed unto India, unto the whole realm of the governing class including
Koonadeano (Kaundinya < Kundina) and the city of Ozeno (Ozene, Ujjain) and
the city of Zageda (Saketa) and the city of Kozambo (Kausambi) and the city of
Palabotro (Pataliputra) and so long unto (i.e. as far as) the city of
Ziri-tambo (Sri-Champa)."
Though some scholars like Kishore Kunal try hard
to convince readers that the Ayodhya name for Saketa was in use since ancient
times and that the city was never abandoned, this is a forceful conjecture that
cannot stand on evidence. 12
The 2nd-century epic poet
Ashwaghosha was also a resident of Saketa Nagari. The name Ayodhya for Saketa
does not seem to have come into existence even then. Saketa was also a
politically important city. If Valmiki had ever lived during this period, from
the 6th century BC to the 2nd century AD, he would have
used the current famous name Saketa and not Ayodhya. This means that the name
Ayodhya had not come into existence till then. The Chinese pilgrim of the early
5th century, Faxian, mentions the city of Sha-Che he visited.
Cunningham identifies Sha-Che with Saketa since the traveler immediately after
visiting this city visited Sravasti in the Kingdom of Kosala, which was 8
yojanas away from Sha-Che. The distance given by Faxian matches the geography
of Saketa and Sravasti. This means that in the early fifth century, the Saketa
name was also in public use.
The name Saketa is mentioned in ancient Jain,
Buddhist, Greek, and Chinese records. Epic Paumchariya also mentions Saketa,
not Ayodhya. But later, the name Saketa completely fell out of use as the name
Ayodhya was retained during the Gupta period, when the Gupta emperors
Kumaragupta (5th century AD) and Skandagupta shifted the capital of
the Gupta Empire from Patliputra to Saketa. Whether it was renamed after
shifting the capital or was in use since Gupta’s made Saketa (Ayodhya) the
capital of Kosala province is uncertain, but this period cannot go beyond the 3rd
century AD.
During the reign of Emperor Narasimha
Gupta (sixth century AD), due to the conquest of the Huns, the capital of
Ayodhya was shifted to Kanauj. Ayodhya's political importance declined again.
In all probability, Valmiki may have been
born when Saketa was named as Ayodhya and was made the capital of the Gupta
Empire. Since the Guptas were patrons of the Vedic religion, it can be said
that Valmiki used the contemporary popular name Ayodhya in a glorified form. If
this is the case, the period of Valmiki will fall somewhere between the 3rd
and 5th centuries AD. Since the purpose of the Valmiki Ramayana was
to propagate Vedic religion, it is possible that Valmiki took this opportunity
and inspiration to use the Rama story for his epic.
Public temples
An important piece of evidence is the mention
of the temples and chaityas in the Ayodhya Kanda (Sarga 71, verses 40-42-43) In
Hinduism, the practice of building public temples has a very late origin.
People would worship idols in their homes, or the idols would be kept
arbitrarily under the auspicious trees in the open. These descriptions can be
found in the Gatha Saptashati of Hala Satvahan, belonging to the first century
AD.
We find the first evidence of an undecorated
small Shiva temple inscribed on the Oudumbara coin belonging to the first
century BC. Maybe because Chaitya and Viharas of Jain and Buddhists inspired
Hindus to build public temples. Vedic religion was never idolatrous, though
because of the converts to their fold, they too started building Vaishnava
temples during the Gupta era. Kautilya's Arthashastra of the 3rd
century AD contains descriptions of many city temples. (Arthashastra,
2.4.17-18) This does mean that by the 3rd century AD, public temples
arose abundantly. Due to the prevalence of Jainism and Buddhism, the number of
Chaityas was also very large. Mentions of chaityas and temples also point to
Valmiki's Ramayana as a composition of the Gupta period, as earlier the temples
were scarce, not abundant.
Zodiac signs
Another important piece of evidence is the
zodiac signs appearing in the Ramayana. According to Valmiki, Rama’s horoscope
informs us that Rama was born on the Tithi of Chaitra Shukla Navami and
Punarvasu Nakshatra, when the five planets were in their highest positions.
Thus, the Sun was at 10 degrees in Aries, Mars at 28 degrees, Jupiter at 5
degrees in Cancer, Venus at 27 degrees in Pisces, and Saturn at 20 degrees in
Libra. (Baal Kanda 18, verses 8, 9).
It is now proven that the Indians took the
zodiac signs from the Greek astrologers. The first planetary horoscope came to
us from the translated book "Yavanjataka" in the second century AD.
“This is said to be the method of determining the strength or weakness of the
signs and planets according to the teaching of the Greeks; they say that, of
the complete set of influences in horoscopy, there is an enormous
number..." (Chapter 1/92. The Yavanajataka of Sphujidhvaja) The whole idea
of the horoscope based on the Greek method was introduced by this translation.
Indians did not use the zodiac signs in horoscopes accurately before the 2nd
century AD, but the mentioning of the birth of Rama at an auspicious time "when
five planets were in the highest position..." only appeared after
Greek astrology was properly introduced. The approximate date of the
Yavanajataka is given by David Pingree as 150 AD. Some scholars consider this
book to be a later translation. 14 That is, this date with accurate
planetary positions based on zodiac signs can never be earlier than the second
century AD.
If we assume that the spread of the
Yavanajataka and acceptance of Greek astrology may have taken at least a
century, it would be clear that the Ramayana was composed after the third
century. Even if Balkanda is considered to be an interpolation of later times,
many scholars believe that this Kanda was expanded based on the story already
written by Valmiki. The argument is that the Ramayana cannot be complete
without the essential core of the story, i.e., the birth of Rama, his
childhood, and his training in Ayodhya; hence, a portion of the Balkanda must
have been composed by Valmiki, which may have been re-composed by adding some
stories. However, we cannot be certain whether the horoscope based on planetary
position was given by Valmiki.
Problems of Sanskrit
The problem of the origin of various
languages has not yet been solved. Misconceptions and linguistic egotism also
rule over modern scholars. Sanskrit is commonly considered the mother of
Indo-European languages and is often touted as the language of the gods. This
misconception has caused a serious problem in determining the timeline of
Indian Sanskrit literature precisely. Any chronology based on a wrongly
conceived timeline is bound to fail. Vedic language, which is a mixture of Old
Persian and Prakrit, is far different from Sanskrit. Many scholars now agree
that Sanskrit evolved gradually from the 3rd century BC to the 2nd
century AD from Prakrits. The various stages of this evolution are supported by
numismatic and inscriptional proofs. At any rate, considering Sanskrit
literature more ancient than Prakrit literature is going to distort the actual
timeline of Indian literature.
The earliest evidence of written non-standard
Sanskrit comes from the Girnar Hill 20 line and now damaged inscription of King
Rudradamana belonging to 150 AD. The evidence of what can be somewhat called
Sanskrit is the Hahitabada Ghosundi inscription, estimated to be of the 2nd
to 1st century BC. The Ghosundi inscription is broken, and many
words have been lost. Some Sanskritized Prakrit words have been read from it.
From the inscriptional and numismatic evidence of five hundred years, from the
third century BC to the second century AD, it seems that the Sanskrit language
gradually evolved from the Prakrit language. 15
In the second century AD, however, primary
Sanskrit developed with the flavor of Prakrit, and its literary use also began.
It is unfair to the history of language to say that Sanskrit existed earlier,
because, that is not the reality.
Pandit Hargovindas T. Seth says,
"Sanskrit was not created from the Vedic language but from the Prakrits of
Madhyadesa. The Vedic language is also influenced by the regional Prakrits. The
Tadbhava words in Prakrit did not come from Sanskrit to Prakrit but
gradually changed from the ancient Prakrit itself and were adopted as such in
Sanskrit." 16 After Epical Sanskrit was developed, Panini's
Grammar came into existence in the 3rd century AD to normalize the
newborn Sanskrit language, which took a long time to spread among the Vedic
society.
Winternitz has also confirmed this view. He
says that according to Buhler, there is reason to believe that, from the
inscriptional evidence, the Sanskrit language was modified by the grammarians
from the Prakrit languages of North India and then gradually spread over
India.... The language of the epics and Puranas was a minor adaptation of the
vernaculars. Not a single epic was written in classical Sanskrit. Therefore,
many scholars believe that the Ramayana, Mahabharata, and Puranas were
originally written in Prakrit and later translated into common Sanskrit. 17
It is, however, an exaggeration to state that
the Ramayana and Mahabharata were originally written in Prakrit and then
translated into semi-developed Sanskrit. It would be closer to the truth to
state that these epics were created by mixing elements of Vedic religion with
newborn Sanskrit, which sought to develop based on popular poetry, myths, folk
tales, legends, and epics readily available in Prakrit languages.
In short, linguistically, the period of
Ramayana writing cannot go before the third century BC, as the language was not
yet developed and formalized till then. Madhav Deshpande states that since the
epics were written in a language that was based on Prakrits, they were not
unintelligible to the common masses. Further, he states that now scholars do
not accept that the Prakrit languages are daughter languages of Sanskrit;
rather, the Prakrits may not be mother languages of Sanskrit, but they
certainly have the position of elder sister and that from Vedic times the
Prakrits existed in parallel. 18
Herman Jacobi states that the language of the
Ramayana is “vulgar Sanskrit” or “inferior language.” This was only natural
because, when Valmiki wrote his epic, Sanskrit was not yet grammatically
standardized. It essentially used a modified form of the Prakrits spoken in the
area of his residence. He used many words from local Prakrits in modified form
that do not occur in Sanskrit, or even if they do, the meanings in which they
are used are entirely different from those intended by the author of the
Ramayana. Large numbers of non-Paninian forms are used in Valmiki’s Ramayana. 19
From the above analysis, it will be realized
that, under any circumstances, the period of the Valmiki Ramayana cannot go
earlier than the 3rd century AD. The Ramayana was written between the 3rd
and 5th centuries AD. The Valmiki Ramayana, though a wonderful
epic, cannot be as ancient as thought by the scholars who stick to the
traditional hypothetical views.
Paumchariya: The first epic on Rama
story
Paumchariya (Sanskrit-Padmacharita), an epic
in Maharashtri Prakrit, was written by Vimal Suri. The purpose of writing this
epic is to propagate Jainism the way Valmiki used the Rama story to promote
Vedic religion. However, Valmiki's Ramayana and Paumacharya's narratives differ
significantly. The sources of the Rama stories Vimal Suri used are more
independent and ancient than what Valmiki used for his epical work. 20
The problem with Sanskrit literature is that the authors rarely give dates for
their writings, hence, to determine their dates, we have to depend on many
factors, which can often be proved to be easily wrong and misleading.
However, in Prakrit literature, it is almost
customary to give the time of the written works to some extent, and this epic
is no exception.
Since the date of Mahavira Samvat was given
by the epic poet Vimal Suri himself when he wrote this poem, it is very easy to
determine the date with certainty of this epic.
Prakrit literature is older than Sanskrit
literature, and its abundance is also significant. At the time when
‘Paumcharya’ was written, the distinction between Shwetambar and Digambar was
not clear and sharp, as no sectarian differences appear in the epic. Hermann
Jacobi has expressed the view that the Jain Maharashtri Prakrit in this poem is
of archaic style and is not grammatically fully developed. 21
The poet himself states in this epic that to
write the present poem, he has taken the support of the folk literature passed
on by oral tradition and composed this poem in the Gatha meter. (Paumacharya,
Chapter I.) This means that no other written poetry or epic existed at the time
of his writing. Though the poet expresses his dissatisfaction over the
contradictory and illogical narratives given by other poets, he does not
mention Valmiki or any Sanskrit writing. That is, even Valmiki's Ramayana was
not composed at the time when Vimal Suri wrote his epic. No (Prakrit or
Sanskrit) epic had been written before “Paumacharya” on the life of Rama,
though the character of Rama was made famous by various poets through singing
the stories of his life.
The poet writes about when this poem was
written,
“Pacheva Ya Vasaya Dusama Tis Varis Samjutta
I
Veere Siddhi Uvgave, Tao Nibandha Im
Chariyam II”. (Paumchariyya)
That is, Vimal Suri himself has recorded that
this poem was written 530 years after Mahavira's death. The date of Mahavira's
death is believed to be 526 BC. If the year 530 Veera Samvat is converted to
the Christian era, it is 4 AD and has to be considered as the year of
Paumcharya's writing.
According to Herman Jacobi, Mahavira's death
should be dated to 467 BC. If this estimate is accepted, the period of writing
of Paumcharya comes to 64 AD. Leumann accepts the year AD 4 while Winternitz
accepts the year AD 64. 22
Pandit Hargobind Seth asserts that the epic
dates back to the first century AD. 23
Pandit Premi has also stated that Veer Samvat
530, i.e., AD 4 given by Vimal Suri, is correct. 24
However, Jain tradition accurately confirms
the date 527 BCE of Mahavira’s death. Even if this date is considered to be
accurate, the writing of this epic cannot go beyond 7 AD.
Moreover, this poem was written before the
time when the Shwetambara and Digambar sects were formed and split radically
because this epic includes the recognition and characteristics of both sects.
From this, it also seems that the epic was written in the early first
century AD. 25
Some scholars, like Jacobi, have expressed the
opinion that since zodiac signs are also mentioned in Paumachariy, this epic
might have been written after the 3rd century AD. According to
Jacobi, “Since some of the planets appear under Greek names in Paumcharya, this
poem must have been written after the introduction of the Indians to Greek
astrology, i.e., after the third century.” (Modern Review, 1994)
This argument does not hold because the
information about the zodiac signs in the Paumacharya is inaccurate, and hence
it must have come from hearsay. Prof. Abhyankar states, “The information about
zodiac signs in this book is wrong. If it is true, the poet's astrological
knowledge is surprisingly poor, as the poet shows the distances of Venus and
Mercury from the Sun to be 60 and 120 degrees, respectively. 26 An
esteemed poet using the wrong horoscope can only happen when he has no accurate
knowledge of Greek astrology. Yavanjataka was not translated then, so the poet
could not possess accurate knowledge of Greek astrology. The poet did not
correct the mistake because he believed the information flowed to him from the
Greek colonies of the northwest.
But Vimal Suri's mistake regarding
Hanumanta's horoscope was corrected in Ravisena's Padma Purana, a Sanskrit
translation of Paumachariy, of the seventh century.
This only means that during the time of Vimal
Suri, comprehensive knowledge of Greek horoscopy was unavailable, and by the
seventh century, accurate knowledge was available, hence, Ravisena corrected
the mistake in his translation.
Moreover, Ravisena strongly attacked the
Vedic sacrificial institution since Vedicism had gained a prominent position in
society and sacrificial rituals were abundantly common. However, in the first
century AD, Vedic rituals were insignificant, hence, Vimal Suri, though he
mentions sacrifices, does not criticize them with much vigor and does not
consider Vedic religion as a rival.
During Vimal Suri's time, contemporary
Prakrit literature shows that Vedic religion was insignificant then. There is
no mention of Vedic Brahmins even in the Prakrit poetry collection “Gatha
Saptashati” of the first century AD. The editor of Gatha Saptashati, S.A.
Joglekar, states in his introduction, “....Brahmans are not mentioned anywhere
in Gatha Saptashati.....there is no trace of Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and
Shudra, class or Varna in Gatha Saptashati. There are occupations in society,
but they are not classified into castes.....The sacrificial institution, which
is considered to be the core of Aryan culture, is ridiculed here....Perhaps Brahmins
were very few in the kingdom of Satavahanas..." 27
It is also significant here that Paumcharya
is also an epic poem of the first century AD, and this poem also uses the Gatha
meter that has been used by Gatha Saptashati like many other Prakrit epics and
poems. The social conditions appearing in Gatha Saptashati are almost identical
to the descriptions of society in Paumchariya.
The objection to the date given by the poet
himself is challenged based on the Greek words like Yavana, Suranga, etc. that
appear in the Paumcharya epic also. However, the mention of these words to
determine the date of the epic is baseless because these words had become
common since the time of Emperor Ashoka (3rd century BC), as he has
mentioned many such words in his inscriptions. Alexander's invasion took place
during the reign of Chandragupta Maurya (4th century BC). Therefore, words like
Yavana (Yona) and Suranga appearing in the ‘Paumcharia’ of
the first century cannot come as a surprise. Let us not forget that there were
Greek colonies in northwest India for at least a few centuries, and the cities
called Alexandria were also established. The North Indians were intimately
familiar with Greek culture. Diplomatic relations were also established with
the Greeks in the times of Chandragupta Maurya. Therefore, the mention of
Yavanas in this epic does not help prove wrong the epic poet himself, who has
mentioned the date of his writing of the epic.
The same has to be said about the word Dinar
because the Kushan period book "Angavija" not only mentions foreign
people like Yavana, Shakas, and coins like Dinar but also mentions the temples
of Greek deities like Aphrodite in North India. Excavations at Mathura have
yielded many Jain images and inscriptions of the Kushana period, but most
surprisingly, the existence of any Vedic deity is not to be found in any
inscription or coinage till the first century BC. From the first century BC
until the second century AD, only two inscriptions have been found that mention
sacrifices or Vedic deities in Prakrit and not Sanskrit. This evidences that
though the Vedic religion existed in the Kushana period, there is no proof to
show its prominence or royal/public acceptance of this religion.
In inscriptions, we find the names of gods
and goddesses of indigenous folk religions (Hindu, Baudha, and Jain) like Uma,
Kumar, Shiva, Visakha, etc. in the inscriptions and Tantric
iconography on the coins, but there is no slightest Vedic iconography to be
found on any coin or mention of Vedic religion and mention of their gods in any
inscription before this time. From this, it seems that Vedic religion did not
gain any patronage from local kings or feudal lords, nor was it popular among
the people.
Earlier, there were just three inscriptions
about sacrifices. The Naneghat inscription of the Satavahana era is in Prakrit,
Ghosundi inscription of the 2nd to 1st century BC, while
the Ayodhya inscription of Dhandeva is in Prakrit-influenced Sanskrit. This
means that not only was the Vedic religion not acceptable, but the Sanskrit
language was also under development. Therefore, it becomes illogical to say
that there was an epic composition in the Sanskrit language until this time.
The Vedic religion succeeded in gaining royal
patronage only during the Gupta period, barring the short period of Pushyamitra
Shunga, and Vedic sacrificial rituals received momentum only after the 3rd
century AD. Valmiki wrote his epic during this time when it was felt necessary
by the Vedic community to propagate their religion through the popular
indigenous characters of antiquity. Rama was a suitable character through whom
Valmiki tried to establish antiquity and glorify Vedic values. Vimal Suri did
this in the early 1st century to propagate the Jain value system and mythology,
and Valmiki most probably followed Vimal Suri to do the same to promote his
religion.
Paumchariya is an epic of 118 chapters.
Rama, Lakshmana, and Ravana are equivalent figures and show a close
relationship with the Jain tradition. In the third chapter, there is a dialogue
between King Shrenik and Gautama Ganadhara in which the poet explains that this
epic was written to remove the inconsistencies in the various versions of Rama
stories prevalent during his time. It is significant here that the mention of
other poems and stories comes in the plural form, and he does not refer to any
single epic. This makes us certain that the Valmiki Ramayana did not exist
then, i.e. in the first century AD.
Although Vimal Suri's Rama story and
Valmiki's composition have some similarities, there are many drastic
differences. Vimal Suri also has to give the primary credit for restoring
heroism to Ravana. Vimal Suri's approach is more generous and friendly.
Obsessed with proving the superiority of the Aryas, Valmiki viewed the Vanaras,
Yakshas, Ravana, etc. as mere animals or demons (i.e., the Anaryas) in a
prejudiced light. But Vimal Suri, who came from the noble Saman culture, had no
reason to look at all of them with enmity or despise, so it has to be said that
his portrayal is more realistic than that of Valmiki.
We can see from the Valmiki Ramayana that
Valmiki (or interpolators) looked at the Saman culture in a blasphemous manner.
To show that Rama is an archaic figure, Valmiki contemporaries, the sages
mentioned in the Vedas with Rama, have also shown the hermitages of these Vedic
sages scattered all over the subcontinent to show that Vedic religion was
spread all over the country. It can also be called natural, as the aim was to
create religious supremacy through the epic.
Considering the story of Paumcharya, this
poem preserves the archaic and independent tradition of the threads of the
storyline. Though Manu is mentioned in later Jain literature, the original term
of the Jains, Kulkar, is used in this poem. According to the ancient Jain
scriptures, Kulkars are those who taught mankind new ways of living with
wisdom. The Kulkara terminology used in this epic also indicates the antiquity
of Paumchariya. The use of “Manu” in place of "Kulkara," an
equivalent but not identical term, is used by Jain authors of late times.
However, ancient Jain literature is devoid of the term Manu.
While determining the antiquity of poetry, we
have discussed the questions of Saketa and Ayodhya. Saketa, or Saketpuri
(Saeypuri), is an ancient name and is used everywhere in Paumacharia. (E.g.,
Paumcharya, Chapter 4, Gatha 54.) That is, it is clear that this poem was
written long before Saketa was renamed Ayodhya in the Gupta period.
From the above discussion, it can be seen
that Paumcharya in Jain Maharashtri Prakrit, composed at the beginning of the
first century AD, is the first epic on the life of Rama, and in that sense,
Vimal Suri is the first poet. The Valmiki Ramayana was written between the 3rd
and 5th centuries AD, and though it is poetically superior, it
cannot be considered the first epic of Rama’s life.
However, the reasons why this mistake
happened should also be understood.
From the very beginning, it has become the
practice of Vedic thinkers and scholars to consider whatever is in Sanskrit as
ancient. As the Ramayana itself gave the impression that Rama and Valmiki were
contemporaneous, it was illogical to imagine that Valmiki was as ancient as
Rama. As the Vedic sages are actively involved in the Ramayana, the belief that
Rama, Valmiki, and this epic are of the Vedic period or antiquity was
strengthened. When the idea that Rama belonged to Tretayuga was
baseless, a slight correction was made: though Rama couldn’t have been a
personality of such a remote past, and the writer Valmiki would have
imaginarily involved himself in his epic, the time of writing Ramayana could
not be assumed to be as old as Tretayuga, but must belong to the
pre-Buddha era.
Since the date of composition is not given in
the Ramayana, while determining the date, scholars used hypothetical
assumptions without considering the evidence. A mythic hypothesis that Sanskrit
is an archaic language is widely used, and the Ramayana is also placed in the
archaic category. It was also recklessly and wrongly assumed that the Prakrit
languages were derived from Sanskrit. Even in the times of Rigveda, Prakrit
languages were extant, states a scholar like Madhav Deshpande. 28
Hence the erroneous assumption that the
Valmiki Ramayana is ancient and Paumcharya is modern, as is firmly believed.
But normally, based on baseless assumptions, people do not try to think that
reality could be far different than what they think. Sanskrit was formalized
only after Panini wrote the grammar “Ashtadhyayi” in the third century AD, and
later on, classical Sanskrit literature began to appear. Had Panini been
ancient, as normally assumed, it would have influenced the Sanskrit of the
Ramayana, but this is not the case. The timelines assumed by traditional
scholars are based on hypothetical assumptions, which cannot be a reality. The
language of the Ramayana belongs to this transitional period, with mixed
influences from both semi-developed Sanskrit. Moreover, Valmiki was considered
a poet of ancient times because of the mention of Ayodhya in it, it was
erroneously assumed that Ayodhya was an ancient name and Saketa was a later
name. This grave mistake has harmed the history of Indian literature, which we
should take note of.
In short, the conclusion of this paper can be
summed up as ‘Paumcharya’ is the earliest epic of Rama, while the Valmiki
Ramayana is an epic written some centuries later.
-Sanjay Sonawani
References-
1. The Society of the Ramayana by Anand
Guruge, Abhinav Publications, 1991, p. 7,8.
2. The History of Indian Literature, by A.
Weber, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co, 1904, p.192.
3. A History of Indian Literature, Volume 1
By Moriz Winternitz, University of Calcutta, 1927, p. 476, 517.
4. Buddhist India by T.W. Rhys Davis, Motilal
Banarasidass Publishers, 1997 page 183.
5. A History of Indian Literature, Volume 1
By Moriz Winternitz, University of Calcutta, 1927, p., 509.
6. Ramkatha aur Loksahitya, Lt. Jai Narayan
Kaushik, Hindi Book Centre, New Delhi, 1996, p. 8.
7. The Rāmāyaṇa of Vālmīki: An Epic of Ancient India by
Robert Goldman, Princeton University Press, 1984, pp 20-22 and J. L.
Brockington (1998). The Sanskrit Epics, BRILL, pp. 379.
8. The Riddle of the
Ramayana, C.V. Vaidya, Meharchand Lachhmandas, 1972, pp. 21-23.
9. Ibid P. 5.
10. Buddhist India, by T. W. Rhys Davids,
Motilal Banarasidass Publishers, 1997, p. 39.
11. On Yuan Chwang’s Travels in
India, 629 – 645 AD, Vol. 1, by Thomas Watters, London Royal Asiatic Society,
1904, p. 354.
12. Ayodhya Revisited by Kishore Kunal, Ocean
Books Pvt. Ltd, 2016, p. 7-9.
13. Fa-Hien’s Record of Buddhistic Kingdoms
translated by James Legge, Oxford, 1886, page 54.
14. The Date and Nature of Sphujidhvaja's
Yavanajātaka Reconsidered in the Light of Some Newly Discovered Materials Bill
M. Mak Kyoto University.
15. History of Pali and Prakrit
Languages, Sanjay Sonavani, Chinar Publishers, 2020.
16. Paia-sadda-mahannavo (A Comprehensive
Prakrit-Hindi Dictionary by Pandit Hargovind Das T Sheth, p. 57.
17. A History Of Indian Literature,vol.1, by
Winternitz, M., 1927, Univercity of Calcutta, pp. 15, 44.
18. Sanskrit aani Prakrit Bhasha by Madhav
Deshpande, Shubhada Sarasvat Prakashan, 1995.
19. Ramayana- A Linguistic Study
by Satya Vrat, Oriental Publishers and Book Sellers, 1964, pp 6, 176-177.
20. Forward to Paumchariy, edited
by Shri S. C. Upadhyaya, R.P. Kothari & Co., 1934, p-21-22.
21. Some Ancient Jaina Works, By Hermann
Jakobi in Modern Review, December 1994.
22. A History Of Indian Literature,vol.1, by
Winternitz, M., page 514, Vol. 2, University of Calcutta, 1927, page 478.
23. Paia-sadda-mahannavo (a Comprehensive
Prakrit-Hindi Dictionary, Vol. 4, by Pandit Hargovind Das T Sheth, p. 13.
24. Jain Literature and History, 1956, p- 13.
25. Paumachariy, Forward,
edited by Shri S. C. Upadhyaya, R.P. Kothari & Co., 1934, p-21-22.
26. Ibid. p. 28.
27. Gatha Saptashati, edited by
S.A. Joglekar, Padmagandha Prakashan, 2012, p. 218, 220,
28. Sanskrit aani Prakrit Bhasha by Madhav
Deshpande, Shubhda-Saraswat Prakashan, 1995.
