46 PAUMACARIU and adhika recorded for uvvariya in the Dešīnāmamālā are rather special. For in literature 'left behind', 'escapcd' is the most com- mon meaning and in PC, itself uvvariya (5 11 3, 14 7 5) and samuovariya (15 5 3) are used in the senses 'escaped' 'saved', 'left as a remainder". We need not, therefore, understand by Tribhu- vana's use of that word that the matter contained in his supplement to PC, was unacceptable to or rejected by Svayambhū. The argument that Tribhuvana gives a special name Sesa or Paümacariya-sesa to his supplement to PC. appears to have some weight. Except in the second colophon stanza of the 84. Sandhi where the general title Rāmaevacariya is used, in all the Sandhis composed by him, Tribhuvana invariably calls his contribution by the special name, Paümacariyasesa and in the colophons of Sandhis 83-90 this title is mentioned no less than eighteen times. As con- tasted with this his additions to RC. are not given any special name. Again it is significant that this Paümacariya-sesa is described by Tribhuvana as 'the crest-jewel of the Paümacariya" while in another stanza' it is stated: “Thus is finished (samatta) the charming Paüma- cariya; the same, when completed by Tribhuvana, is now thoroughly finished (parisamatta)' where the contrast between samatta and parisamatta appears to be intentional. But there are very weighty arguments for believing that PC. could not have been considered by Svayambhū also as complete with the 82. Sandhi. Ravişeņa's Padmacarita was the main source for Svayambhū's PC. The latter borrows ideas and expressions from the former and the general plan and pattern of PC., so far as its subject matter or contents are concerned, are cast after those of the Padmacarita. As noted previously, the Padmacarita mentions seven broad topics (adhikaras) of the Rāmāyaṇa narrative as recognised and handed down by the Jain tradition. They are Sthiti, Vamsa- samutpatti, Prasthāna, Samyuga, Lavaņāňkuśa-sambhūti, Bhavokti, Parinirvști. These are enumerated by Vimalasūri,' and Tribhuvana too refers to this fact. And the Rāma-story as narrated by Ravi- şeņa and Vimalasūri actually bears this out. But the 82 Sandhis of PC.--the portion composed by Svayambhū-covers up only the first five out of the seven topics. The last two topics cannot be said to be unessential or digressive as is suggested by Premi because they are recognised by tradition and are actually found in the source-work of PC. No reason is forthcoming for their omission by Svayambhū. Secondly, if PC. was according to Svayambhú com- plete with 82. Sandhi, where is its colophon that ought to have been written by Svayambhū? So long as we cannot find any satis- factory explanation for these facts, it would be quite unsafe to assume that PC. was complete as it was left by Svayambhū. From the fresh mangala stanzas found in the beginning of the 23. and the 43. Sandhi it follows that the composition of PC. was twice interrupted. The fresh mangala is indicative of some lapse of time preceding the resumption. (1) In two colophon stanzas of RC. (Appendix 1, 66-67) samaniya 'completed' and not something like ista or adrta is used as a complement to uvvariya. (2) Appendix I, 23. (3) Appendix I, 31. (4) Appendix I, 50. (5) Padmacarita, I 43. (6) Paümacariya, I 32. (7) Appendix 1, 56.
