INTRODUCTION Sources of the Pa üma cariu. In the very opening stanza of the first Sandhi of PC. Svayambhū declares that he has taken on hand to narrate the Rama-tory after keeping in view the Arşa. The colophons of all the Parvans of Ravişena's Padmacarita begins with iti Arşe Ravişenācārya-prokte Padmacarite. This makes it clear that Svayambhu's reference per- tains to that work. And this is endorsed by PC. 1 2 9 where we are told that Kavirāja Svayambhū has embarked upon such a vast theme through the favour of Acārya Ravişeņa. In the same Kadavaka Svayambhū also gives, following Ravişena, the tradition through which the Rāma-story that was being narrated by him was handed down: from Vardhamāna to Indrabhūti, Dharma and Prabhava down to Kirtidhara, to Anuttaravāc and thence to Ravi- şeņa. Ravişeņa gives also the name of Jambu and the last two are given by him as Kirti and Anuttaravāgmin. Ravişena, while giving his tradition says that his present effort of composing a Rāma-epic was made consequent upon the written (likhitam) work of Anuttara- vāgmin. Now to any one who even casually compares Vimalasūri's Paümucariya with Ravişena's Padmacarita' it is as plain as the day-light that one of them is simply a recast of the other and there is no difficulty in granting the claim of originality, as is done by Premi, to Vimalasuri. Ravişena's Sanskrit work is but an enlarged recast of the Prakrit Paümacariya, some of the alterations be ng necessitated due to the difference of medium and to the fact that Vimalasūri was a Svetambara, but Ravişena, a Digambara. The enlargements chiefly centre round the descriptive and dogmatic- didactic portions. In extent Vimalashri's epic is 10,000 Granthă- gras, that of Ravişeņa 18,000 granthāgras. It requires no elaborate comparison to show that the enlargements apart, Ravişeņa's work is but a slavish imitation of that of Vimalasuri. Indeed very few cases from the field of our ancient literature can be cited as a parallel to such thorough and continuous verbatim borrowing, when we make necessary allowance for the difference in the linguistic and metric mediums. Does this mean that Vimalasuri and Anuttara- vägmin were one? On the other hand though Svayambhū expressly states to have followed Ravişena and even though we keep out of consideration the alterations forced by the difference in religious belief and literary medium, a close and critical comparison of the Padmacarita and the Paümacariu leaves us very favourably impressed as to Svayambhū's originality and poetic powers. As a rule he holds to the thread of the narrative as found in the Padmacarita, but other- wise also the theme even in its very minor details was fixed by tradition and permitted no significant variation. But many a time he parts company with Ravişeņa, summarily treats or altogether rejects or rehandles certain topics or waxes eloquent over others that were barely touched in his model, according as it suits his artistic sense. Parallel passages of PC., RP. and VP, are given in Appendix III. One broad tendency that is clearly discernible in Svayambhu's handling of his material is that he is primarily interested in recount- ing the narrative in an attractive manner. This aim is responsible for applying scissors to everything that is flagrantly digressive and for giving only passing attention to the side-episodes. Of course, these observations are to be assessed keeping the diffuse and accom- (1) Premi, 1942, 272-292.
