Causality in Jain Narratives: Teaching Dharma Through Karma by Sītā’s Abandonment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors This is a commendably written article. However, it is noted that the manifestation of Jainist doctrines (specifically, the concept of causation) within the narrative of Sītā's Abandonment in the Jain-oriented Rāmāyaṇa appears to be a rather self-evident aspect. To enhance the originality of this work, it is recommended that the author conduct a comprehensive review of prior academic investigations into the Sītā's Abandonment narrative in Jainism, along with the broader body of research on the Jain version of the Rāmāyaṇa. Such a review would effectively foreground the novel contributions of the present study.​ Furthermore, to deepen the argumentative depth, incorporating comparative analyses with relevant plot elements and the implicit doctrinal underpinnings in alternative versions, namely the Buddhist and Hindu renditions of the Rāmāyaṇa, would be highly beneficial. This approach would enable a more profound exploration of the subject matter and strengthen the overall scholarly value of the research.

Author Response

Comment one- This is a commendably written article. However, it is noted that the manifestation of Jainist doctrines (specifically, the concept of causation) within the narrative of Sītā's Abandonment in the Jain-oriented Rāmāyaṇa appears to be a rather self-evident aspect. To enhance the originality of this work, it is recommended that the author conduct a comprehensive review of prior academic investigations into the Sītā's Abandonment narrative in Jainism, along with the broader body of research on the Jain version of the Rāmāyaṇa. Such a review would effectively foreground the novel contributions of the present study.

Response one- I have consulted Clines' 2022 work and Plau's 2018 thesis on Sita Charitra for the review of Sita abandonment. However, there isn't much substantial material on this specific topic in these sources. Is there any other particular source that the reviewer is expecting me to look into?

Furthermore, I've removed the phrase "in Ramayan narrative" in the title of my paper, which might confuse readers into thinking I'm examining all work on the Jain Ramayan. My focus is specifically on examining the Sītā abandonment narrative across Paümacariyaṃ (Prakrit), Padmapuraṇa (Sanskrit), Paümacariü (Apabhramsha). I have also added the comparison with Hemacandra’s Rāmāyaṇa  at 328. 

 

Comment two- ​Furthermore, to deepen the argumentative depth, incorporating comparative analyses with relevant plot elements and the implicit doctrinal underpinnings in alternative versions, namely the Buddhist and Hindu renditions of the Rāmāyaṇa, would be highly beneficial. This approach would enable a more profound exploration of the subject matter and strengthen the overall scholarly value of the research.

Response two- In the fourth heading of my article, starting paragraphs are dedicated to comparing alternative versions of the Rāmāyaṇa across Hindu traditions. This section specifically highlights the philosophical differences between Jain and Hindu traditions in their treatment of the narrative. While I have provided this comparative perspective, exploring these differences in greater depth would require another full-length article. The current analysis serves to contextualize the Jain interpretation while maintaining focus on my primary research objective of examining the Sītā abandonment narrative across the specified textual traditions.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well-written essay with a strong logical flow examining differences among Jain texts of the Ramayana. I have a few suggestions.

First, the flow chart you present in Figure 1 is a very helpful visualization. At the end of your essay, in section 5 or 6, I would recommend presenting a Figure 3 in which you revisit this flow chart, but now label it with the causes and elements of Sita’s journey as you have just described them in your essay (potentially with multiple charts to see how the different texts address these points). This visualization will tie your analysis of Sita’s abandonment to the underlying causal relationships in a way that will bring things home for your reader in a powerful way.

Second, I’d recommend keeping in mind that this journal casts a wide net in terms of specialization, and offer occasional clarification for those readers who, as scholars of religions but not necessarily Jainism, might need some context on major figures within the history.

At 39, for example, in a few words please clarify Vimalasuri’s status as a Jain monk credited with the earliest distinctively Jain text of the Ramayana, so readers can easily place Vimalasuri in context with Valmiki.

At 48, your reader could also benefit from 1-2 word definitions of the terms prathanamānuyoga and dharma-kathānuyoga, that clarify their prevalence within Digambara and Śvetāmbara as distinct traditions within Jainism.

At the beginning of section 3, I would clarify a couple of points on the three texts that you analyze here to help your reader place them in context with each other – namely the dates these texts were composed, geographical location (if regional variations in Jain thought might affect their composition), and relationship to different practices schools of thought within Jainism.  

At 518, for grammatical purposes – “One aspect of accepting karma theory is…”

Author Response

Comment one- First, the flow chart you present in Figure 1 is a very helpful visualization. At the end of your essay, in section 5 or 6, I would recommend presenting a Figure 3 in which you revisit this flow chart, but now label it with the causes and elements of Sita’s journey as you have just described them in your essay (potentially with multiple charts to see how the different texts address these points). This visualization will tie your analysis of Sita’s abandonment to the underlying causal relationships in a way that will bring things home for your reader in a powerful way.

 

Response one- Thank you so much for pointing this out. I have included a figure three at the sixth heading at 605.

 

Comment two- Second, I’d recommend keeping in mind that this journal casts a wide net in terms of specialization, and offer occasional clarification for those readers who, as scholars of religions but not necessarily Jainism, might need some context on major figures within the history. At 39, for example, in a few words please clarify Vimalasuri’s status as a Jain monk credited with the earliest distinctively Jain text of the Ramayana, so readers can easily place Vimalasuri in context with Valmiki.

Response two- I have edited it- . While Vimalasūri's version (dated to approximately 473 CE)[i]—authored by the Jain poet credited with composing the Paümacariyam, the earliest extant distinctively Jain Rāmāyaṇa— differs from Valmiki's, these differences may preserve elements from ancient oral traditions

 

[i] While the colophon claims an earlier date in the Nirvāṇa era, linguistic and historical evidence—including references to Dinaras, Śrīparvatīyas, and political conditions around Daśapura—suggests it was actually composed in the 5th century CE, likely around 473 CE when properly converting from the Vikrama Era, not the Nirvāṇa era as traditionally claimed. For More details for Vimalsurī’s sect, date and his works see, Chandra 1970, p. 04-17.

 

 

Comment three- At 48, your reader could also benefit from 1-2 word definitions of the terms prathanamānuyoga and dharma-kathānuyoga, that clarify their prevalence within Digambara and Śvetāmbara as distinct traditions within Jainism.

Response three- I have added- In Jain literature, these narratives fall under prathamānuyoga (Digambara, "first exposition" or "primary teachings") or dharmakathānuyoga (Śvetāmbara, "exposition of religious narratives"), reflecting the distinct terminological frameworks of these two major Jain traditions.

Comment Four- At the beginning of section 3, I would clarify a couple of points on the three texts that you analyze here to help your reader place them in context with each other – namely the dates these texts were composed, geographical location (if regional variations in Jain thought might affect their composition), and relationship to different practices schools of thought within Jainism. 

Response four-I have added the relevant information at the beginning of the third heading like- This section examines the narrative treatment of Sita's abandonment across Prakrit, Sanskrit, and Apabhramsha literary traditions, focusing specifically on three significant texts: Vimalasūri's Paümacariyaṃ (PCV, composed c. 473 CE in Prakrit by a Jain poet[i] in northwestern India), Raviṣeṇa's Padmapuraṇa (PCR, 676 CE, written in Sanskrit by a Digambara poet), and Svayambhūdeva's Paümacariü (PCS, c. 800 CE, composed in Apabhramsha by a Digambara poet from Karnataka). These texts represent distinct temporal, linguistic, and sectarian developments within the Jain literary tradition. The PCV holds the distinction of being the earliest extant Jain narrative text in Prakrit, while the PCR and PCS represents the first major Jain narrative composition in Sanskrit and Apabhramsha, establishing a significant chronological and linguistic progression in the development of Jain Rāmāyaṇa traditions.

 

[i] Although traditionally associated with the Śvetāmbara tradition in scholarly literature, Vimalasūri's sectarian affiliation remains unconfirmed. In the Paumacariyam, he does not explicitly identify with any particular Jain sect. Textual evidence within the work presents a mixed picture, with certain elements aligning with Digambara practices, others with Śvetāmbara traditions, and some deviating from both established doctrinal frameworks. This ambiguity makes it problematic to definitively categorize the author within either major sectarian group, suggesting a potentially more fluid sectarian landscape during the text's composition. See, Chandra 1970, p. 04-09 & Premi 1956, p.282-283. 

 

Comment Five- At 518, for grammatical purposes – “One aspect of accepting karma theory is…”

Response Five- Added- One. at 563.