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

Abstract

This paper investigates the complex causal relationships within Jain narrative literature (prathamānuyoga/dharmakathānuyoga), specifically focusing on the examination of the Sītā abandonment narrative across Prakrit, Sanskrit, and Apabhramsha textual traditions. By employing textual analysis and philosophical interpretation, the study explores the intricate causative mechanisms in narratives by Vimalasūri, Raviṣeṇa, and Svayambhūdeva. The paper addresses critical research questions examining the multifaceted nature of causality: the root causes of Sītā’s abandonment, the identification of precursory causal signs like dreams, cravings during pregnancy and omens, an analysis of Sītā’s philosophical response to her circumstances, and the complex interplay between external and internal instrumental causes (bahiraṅga- and antaraṅga-nimitta-kāraṇa). Through rigorous textual comparison and philosophical analysis of the Paümacariyaṃ, Padmapuraṇa, and Paümacariü, the study reveals that Jain narrative literature predominantly employs instrumental causality as its primary explanatory framework. The paper demonstrates how external and internal instrumental causes interplay, and explores the role of Sītā’s bad or good karma in shaping her narrative trajectory. The paper contributes to the ongoing scholarship on Jain narratives by analyzing causality in religious narratives, offering philosophical insights into narrative causation, providing an interdisciplinary perspective that bridges literary analysis with philosophical interpretation, and illuminating the ways Jain narratives employ causality to explain complex human experiences and ethical dilemmas, ultimately revealing how narrative structures reflect deeper metaphysical and philosophical concepts within the Jain textual tradition.

1. Introduction

The Rāmāyaṇa, the tale of Rāma, stands as one of the most enduring and widely celebrated narratives in the Indian subcontinent, transcending religious, cultural, and geographical boundaries. Over millennia, it has inspired a vast corpus of literature, with Hindu, Buddhist, and Jain traditions each reimagining the story through their distinct doctrinal and philosophical lenses. While Valmiki’s Sanskrit Rāmāyaṇa is widely regarded as the foundational epic, subsequent retellings in texts such as the Mahābhārata, Brahmā-Purāṇa, Padma-Purāṇa, and regional adaptations across Southeast Asia—from Java to Sumatra—attest to its fluid and pluralistic legacy.

Cort (1993) and Jaini (1993) challenge the traditional view that Jain authors merely modified Valmiki’s Rāmāyaṇa for religious purposes, arguing instead that both Jain and Hindu traditions likely drew from earlier oral narratives, each shaping the story through their distinct cultural frameworks. While Vimalasūri’s version (dated to approximately 473 CE)1—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 altered or omitted in Valmiki’s version, as evidenced in their contrasting portrayals of Rāma and Rāvaṇa—where Valmiki presents divine and demonic figures, the Jain tradition offers humanized characters, potentially reflecting an older, non-Brahmanical narrative understanding. Cort (1993, p. 190) argues that neither version claims absolute historical priority, suggesting that “Jainization” in Jain Rāmāyaṇas parallels “Brahmanization” in Hindu versions, with both traditions adapting earlier narrative materials to align with their respective theological and philosophical frameworks.

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. The Ratnakaraṇḍa Śrāvakācāra establishes that prathamānuyoga encompasses narratives dealing with ultimate truth (paramārtha), the four pursuits of life, biographical accounts, and chronicles of the sixty-three illustrious personalities (triṣaṣṭi śalākā puruṣas), while also incorporating discussions of merit (puṇya) and the three jewels (ratnatraya).2 Scholars like Jaini (1979, p. 78) and Kapadia (1941, p. 57) acknowledge its importance, with H. Jain (1962, p. 127) highlighting its place as one of five sections of the lost Dṛṣṭivāda, establishing a quasi-canonical status that Cort (1993, p. 186) identifies as a common legitimizing strategy in Indian religious traditions.

Two distinct textual traditions emerge in Jain Rāmāyaṇa literature. The first, stemming from the Paümacariyam (PCV) and Padmacarita (PCR) texts, represents the more widely recognized version. The second, found in Guṇabhadra’s Uttarapurāṇa (chp. 67–68), offers an alternative framework that, while less widely circulated, maintains its own significance within the Jain literary corpus (Bulke 1962, p. 65). As Premi (1956, p. 282) suggests, these parallel narratives likely developed independently through different guru traditions.

Jain adaptation of the Rāma narrative presents distinctive characteristics that set it apart in the broader landscape of Indian religious literature. Unlike the Buddhist tradition, which primarily views Rāma as a reincarnation of Buddha, the Jain tradition integrates the characters of the Rāma narrative into its fundamental religious framework through the concept of triṣaṣṭi mahāpuruṣas (sixty-three great personalities).3 Within this system, Rāma (Padma), Lakṣmaṇa, and Rāvaṇa are not merely adherents of Jain dharma but occupy significant positions as the eighth Baladeva, Vāsudeva, and Prativāsudeva, respectively (Bulke 1962, p. 63; Kulkarni 1990, p. 12).4

The study of Jain narrative literature reveals a sophisticated process of adaptation that goes beyond mere religious conversion of stories. As Cort (1993, p. 190) notes, while the Jain versions of the Rāma narrative constitute one of the most extensively studied areas of Jain literature outside the Āgamas, certain aspects remain understudied5—particularly the examination of Sītā’s character and the application of causality in these narratives. This article examines how Jain authors implemented their distinctive understanding of causality within these narratives, focusing on Sītā’s abandonment across Prakrit (Paümacariyam), Sanskrit (Padmapurāṇa), and Apabhramsha (Paümacariu) versions of the Rāmāyaṇa, analyzing both how characters comprehend and articulate causality within the narrative framework (particularly Sītā’s philosophical response to her circumstances) and how the broader narrative structure reflects and reinforces Jain causal frameworks. Through these dual lenses, the article illuminates how Jain authors skillfully wove their philosophical understanding of causation into both content and structure, creating a sophisticated theological–narrative framework that demonstrated Jain philosophical principles through storytelling. The comparative analysis of different linguistic versions provides insights into how this causal framework was maintained and developed across different temporal and linguistic contexts while preserving its essential philosophical underpinnings, thus filling a significant gap in the scholarly understanding of both Jain narrative literature and the philosophical dimensions of character development within these texts.

2. Jain Theoretical Framework of Causality

In Jain philosophical discourse, cause (kāraṇa) is defined as the determining factor (niyāmaka hetu) in relation to an effect (kārya).6 Every effect necessarily requires the cooperation of two distinct types of causes: the internal cause (antaraṅga kāraṇa), known as the material cause (upādāna kāraṇa), and the external cause (bahiraṅga kāraṇa), termed the instrumental cause (nimitta kāraṇa).7

The material cause represents the fundamental substance that undergoes transformation to manifest the effect. According to Digambara Jaina sources, as elaborated by Śāstrī (1979, p. 75) and Bhārilla (2007, pp. 2–6), material causes are further categorized into two distinct types: the ever-present (trikālī) and the momentary (kṣaṇika). The ever-present material cause maintains its essential nature throughout the transformative process; it is the fundamental properties or characteristics that define an entity, while the momentary material cause encompasses two crucial aspects: the immediately preceding mode (anantarapūrva-kṣaṇavartī-paryāya) and the aptness of that particular moment (tat-samaya-yogyatā). According to Jain metaphysics, there is a continuous flow of modification within a substance or attribute, in which the immediately preceding mode is the cause of the immediately succeeding mode. This means that the current state of a substance or attribute is the result of a series of transformations that have occurred over time, with each transformation being caused by the previous state.8 The aptness of that particular moment (tat-samaya-yogyatā), another subtype of material cause, refers to the ability of a mode to exist at a particular moment in time.9 The mode itself, with its inherent potential to exist at that specific instant, serves as the momentary material cause of its manifestation

The instrumental cause, while not directly participating in the transformation, provides essential external conditions that facilitate the effect’s manifestation. In other words, that which itself does not result in effect, but which can be accused of being favorable in the origin of the effect, is called the instrumental cause. It is systematically classified into internal instrumental (antaraṅga-nimitta) and external instrumental (bahiraṅga-nimitta) causes.10 This categorization reflects the Jain understanding of the varying degrees of causal influence in the manifestation of effects (Figure 1).

In the case of a pot, the clay itself, with its inherent properties of malleability and formability, serves as the ever-present material cause (trikālī-upādāna). This means that the essential nature of the clay remains constant throughout the process of shaping and molding it into a pot. The clay’s ability to undergo transformation without losing its fundamental identity makes it the underlying substance from which the pot emerges. As the potter (instrumental cause) molds the clay (material cause), each particular state of the clay at any given moment can be considered a momentary material cause (kṣaṇika-upādāna). The specific arrangement of clay particles and the precise degree of shaping at each instant contribute to the continuous transformation of the clay into the desired form of the pot. The disappearance of one state of the clay gives rise to the emergence of the next state, with a new arrangement of particles and a closer approximation to the final form of the pot. The aptness of the moment (tat-samaya-yogytā) refers to the suitability of the clay’s state at a particular instant to be transformed into the pot, while the potter, wheel, stick, etc., functioning as the instrumental causes (nimitta kāraṇa), facilitate this transformation.

While applying this framework of causality to the soul–karma relationship, karma exhibits a sophisticated dual causality in relation to the soul’s transformation. As transformed material atoms, karma acts as a material cause (upādāna) for its own modifications. Simultaneously, it functions as an internal instrumental cause (antaraṅga-nimitta- kāraṇā) influencing the soul’s transformative states. This demonstrates how a substance can serve both as a material cause for its own effects and as an instrumental cause affecting other substances. This causal framework is completed by external instrumental causes (bahiraṅga-nimitta-kāraṇā)—the various external conditions and entities that contribute to the transformative process. This understanding of causation illuminates the intricate relationship between karma and the soul, exemplifying how Jain philosophy integrates metaphysical principles with ethical considerations.

3. Comparative Study of Sītā’s Abandonment Narrative

This section examines the narrative treatment of Sītā’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 poet11 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 represent the first major Jain narrative compositions in Sanskrit and Apabhramsha, establishing a significant chronological and linguistic progression in the development of Jain Rāmāyaṇa traditions.

The episode of Sītā’s abandonment by Rāma spans multiple chapters in each text: chapters 92–95 in the PCV, 95–98 in the PCR, and the 81st sandhi in the PCS. A comparative analysis of these three versions, presented in tabular form below with English translations (

Table 1. Reveals significant textual relationships between PCV, PCR & PCS narratives of Sītā’s abandonment.

PCV	PCR	PCS
Sītā experiences a prophetic dream (92.1–5)	Sītā experiences a prophetic dream (95.1–10)	Sītā experiences a prophetic dream (81.1.2–10)
During pregnancy, Sītā expresses a desire to visit Jain temples (92.11–28)	During pregnancy, Sītā expresses a desire to visit Jain temples (95.24–57)	During pregnancy, Sītā expresses a desire to visit Jain temples (81.2.1–10)
Sītā’s right eye twitches—an ill omen during a public gathering (93.1–13)	Sītā’s right eye twitches—an ill omen during a public gathering (96.1–25)	Sītā’s right eye twitches—an ill omen during a public gathering (81.3.1–5)
Citizens inform Rāma about rumors (lokāpavāda) circulating regarding Sītā (93.14–29)	Citizens inform Rāma about rumors (lokāpavāda) circulating regarding Sītā (96.26–52)	Citizens inform Rāma about rumors (lokāpavāda) circulating regarding Sītā (81.3.6–10)
Rāma discusses with Lakṣmaṇa; dismisses his suggestion against abandoning Sītā (94.1–19)	Rāma discusses with Lakṣmaṇa; dismisses his suggestion against abandoning Sītā (97.1–44)	Rāma discusses with Lakṣmaṇa; dismisses his suggestion against abandoning Sītā (81.6–8.4)
Rāma orders Kṛtātanvadana to to escort Sītā away (94.33–77)	Rāma orders Kṛtāntavaktra to to escort Sītā away (97.47–134)	Rāma orders Kṛtātanvadana to escort Sītā away (81.8.5–11)
King Vajrājaṅgha of Puṇḍarīka provides refuge to Sītā (95.1–68)	King Vajrājaṅgha of Puṇḍarīka provides refuge to Sītā (98.1–105)	King Vajrājaṅgha of Puṇḍarīka provides refuge to Sītā (81.14–15)

).

The analysis of these three Jain Rāmāyaṇa versions reveals significant textual relationships and narrative alignments. While the PSV and PSR generally share similar content, with some variations, all three versions maintain remarkable consistency in their core storyline, particularly in their treatment of Sītā’s exile. This unified approach to the narrative suggests a common underlying tradition, though each version exhibits its own distinct characteristics in how it develops the story. As we will examine in detail, these versions demonstrate both striking similarities and notable differences in their narrative techniques and specific storytelling approaches, despite their shared foundational elements. Furthermore, each text explores the karmic dimensions of Sītā’s abandonment through detailed accounts of her previous births, with these narratives appearing in chapter 103 of the PCV, chapter 106 of the PCR, and chapter 84 of the PCS, respectively. This parallel treatment of Sītā’s past lives underscores the texts’ shared emphasis on karmic causation as a central theme in explaining her exile.

3.1. Sītā Experiences a Prophetic Dream

The prophetic dreams of Sītā serve as a crucial narrative device across all three Jain Rāmāyaṇa versions, functioning as both a literary foreshadowing and a theological framework for her impending exile. These dream sequences, while maintaining core similarities, demonstrate significant variations in their details, interpretations, and narrative implications across the texts. The first dream sequence presents an intriguing case of linguistic and interpretative complexity. In this dream, Sītā witnesses creatures entering her mouth, described using the term “sarah” in Prakrit12 and Apabhramsha13 and śarabha in Sanskrit.14 However, the Hindi translations of these texts interpret this creature in markedly different ways: as aṣṭāpada (a fabulous animal of eight legs), siṃha (lion), or gajendra-śiśu (baby elephant).15 These varying interpretations significantly impact the dream’s symbolic meaning while maintaining its core function as a prediction of Sītā’s future sons as powerful.

The second dream sequence reveals even more substantial variations across the texts, particularly in its narrative treatment and symbolic interpretation. In the PCV and PCR, Sītā herself is depicted falling from the puṣpaka vimāna, a self-moving aerial vehicle. Both texts interpret this as an inauspicious omen, though their responses to this negative portent differ significantly. The PCR takes a more proactive approach by prescribing ritual solutions, specifically recommending that Jina worship in temples as a remedial measure to counteract the potential negative effects. In contrast, the PCV acknowledges the ominous nature of the dream but continues with the narrative without suggesting specific remedial actions through Rāma.16

The PCS presents a notably different version of the second dream, both in its content and interpretation. In this version, instead of Sītā falling, it is the elephant babies who fall from the puṣpaka vimāna, and they enter into the Sītā’s mouth. This significant alteration in the dream’s content allows for a completely different interpretative framework. Rather than viewing the fall as an inauspicious omen, Rāma interprets it positively as a symbol of the future emotional bond between himself and his sons.17

These variations across the texts reveal evolving approaches to the Rāmāyaṇa narrative within the Jain tradition. The shift from negative to positive dream interpretation in the PCS, particularly regarding the falling motif, suggests an attempt to reframe the narrative in a more optimistic light. However, when examining the subsequent events in the story—specifically Sītā’s exile and separation from her family—the ominous interpretations presented in the PCV and PCR appear more aligned with the narrative’s trajectory. The negative portent of falling from the puṣpaka vimāna directly foreshadows Sītā’s eventual banishment and the emotional turmoil that follows, making these earlier interpretations more narratively cohesive with the story’s development. The variations nonetheless demonstrate the adaptability of the core narrative, showing how different authors could maintain the essential elements while adjusting the details and interpretations to align with their specific theological and literary objectives. This textual flexibility allowed authors to experiment with different interpretative frameworks while preserving the fundamental narrative structure of the Jain Rāmāyaṇa tradition.

3.2. Sītā Expresses Desire to Visit Jain Temples

In all three Jain versions of the Rāmāyaṇa, a particularly significant narrative emerges centered around Sītā’s desire to visit Jain temples, which becomes a pivotal moment in the epic’s trajectory. During Sītā’s pregnancy, when Rāma inquires about her wishes, Sītā expresses a profound spiritual yearning to worship and pay obeisance to the Jina (enlightened beings in Jainism) across the earth. Her pure and devotional desire deeply pleases Rāma, who then issues a royal decree encouraging widespread worship, and both Rāma and Sītā engage in devout worship of the Jina.18

This episode carries exceptional significance in Jain Rāmāyaṇa narratives for its dual narrative function. Initially, it serves as a crucial device that enables common citizens to interact directly with Rāma, providing them an opportunity to inform him about the circulating rumors regarding Sītā and his royal lineage. These temple visits facilitate these interactions in a way that appears natural and unforced within the story’s context. However, the narrative soon reveals a more complex dimension as it unfolds into a carefully orchestrated strategy employed by Rāma in response to the lokapavāda (public rumors).

Rather than directly confronting Sītā with the disturbing public opinions and accusations, Rāma employs a more nuanced approach. He specifically utilizes Sītā’s genuine religious desire to visit Jain temples as an opportunity to orchestrate her abandonment in a way that would initially appear innocent to her. The text presents this as a calculated decision where Rāma encourages Sītā to pursue her devotional wishes by visiting Jain temples, knowing that this journey would provide the circumstances for her eventual abandonment in the forest. This approach is specifically designed to prevent Sītā from immediately comprehending the true nature of her situation. By framing her departure within the context of a religious pilgrimage, Rāma ensures that Sītā would leave the palace without suspicion or resistance, unaware of the actual circumstances and public accusations that had precipitated this decision. This narrative choice in the Jain version adds a profound layer of psychological complexity to the traditional exile story, presenting Rāma’s actions not as a straightforward banishment but as a carefully orchestrated plan that uses Sītā’s own spiritual devotion as the means of her exile.

3.3. An Ill Omen During a Public Gathering

Sītā experiences an ominous twitching of her right eye during a public gathering with Rāma. The three texts handle this incident differently, revealing distinct approaches to interpreting and responding to omens in the Jain tradition.

The simplest treatment appears in the PCS, which merely notes Sītā’s recognition of this sign, connecting it to a previous occurrence that had caused her departure to the forest with Rāma and Lakṣmaṇa. However, the PCV and PCR explore the incident’s implications more deeply, particularly through Sītā’s consultation with her companions.19 These companions offer four distinct philosophical perspectives, representing the breadth of Jain thought: One emphasizes karmic inevitability, suggesting that consequences must run their course. Another takes a fatalistic stance about predetermined events. Another one offers comfort through faith in Rāma’s devotion. The last one proposes active spiritual intervention through śāntikarma (peace-making rituals) practices, including saṃyama (self-restraint), tapa (austerity), dāna (charitable giving), and pūjā (worship), etc. Sītā’s response proves particularly significant in the PCV and PCR. Rather than passively accepting the omen, she chooses to organize dāna and actively promotes religious participation. Both texts illustrate how proactive spiritual engagement represents an ideal response to inauspicious signs, rather than a mere acceptance of fate.

3.4. Citizens Inform Rāma About Rumors (Lokāpavāda)

In this episode, citizens approach Rāma to share their concerns about public rumors (lokāpavāda). The nature of these interactions varies notably across different versions of the text. In the PCV and PCR, the subjects approach Rāma with considerable trepidation, first seeking abhaya dāna (the promise of fearlessness or immunity) before voicing their concerns. In contrast, the citizens in the PCS demonstrate greater forthrightness, addressing Rāma directly without such hesitation, stating plainly that they have come to raise matters he has overlooked.20

Before raising their concerns about Sītā, the citizens first acknowledge broader issues affecting public discourse. They then present their central concern: widespread speculation about Sītā’s prolonged captivity in Rāvaṇa’s domain and Rāma’s decision to accept her return. Invoking the ancient principle of “yathā rājā tathā prajā” (as the king, so the people), they express deep concern about how this precedent might influence societal behavior.

The deteriorating moral fabric of society manifests differently in the PCR and PCS texts, with both versions highlighting not just rumors but actual behavioral changes in society. According to the PCR text, people have become increasingly unrestrained (svacchandī), with powerful individuals now engaging in egregious conduct: as the text states, “Powerful men with evil intentions are now forcibly abducting the young wives of weaker men. Some men, after abandoning their virtuous wives and causing them great distress, later bring them back home through intermediaries when they themselves suffer from separation.”21 The PCS version presents an even more direct criticism: “Immoral women are openly consorting with other men, justifying their behavior by referring to Sītā’s stay in Rāvaṇa’s house and the implied consequences thereof.”22

This troubling discourse profoundly affects Rāma, who finds himself torn between his deep love for Sītā and his responsibility to address public opinion. The situation leads him to contemplate both his dynastic obligations and the nature of the feminine character, leaving him in a state of evident internal conflict.

From an analytical perspective, this episode illustrates several crucial themes in dharmic literature: the tension between personal devotion and public duty, the power of public opinion in shaping royal decisions, and the complex interplay between private morality and public governance. The varying approaches to Rāma across different versions—from fearful supplication to direct address—suggest evolving interpretations of the relationship between ruler and subjects in different historical contexts. Furthermore, the citizens’ invocation of Sītā’s situation as a precedent for social behavior highlights the ancient Indian understanding of leadership as a moral exemplar, where royal conduct serves as a template for broader social norms. The episode also reveals the patriarchal assumptions underlying classical Indian society, particularly in its treatment of women’s honor as a matter of public concern and debate.

In Hemacandra’s Jain Rāmāyaṇa, the story of Sītā’s banishment appears in a significantly modified form. According to this account, after Sītā became pregnant, Rāma’s three other wives grew increasingly jealous of her. At their insistence, Sītā drew a picture of Rāvaṇa’s feet, while declaring that she had never actually looked at Rāvaṇa himself. The co-wives then showed this drawing to Rāma and spread rumors about it throughout the kingdom via their servants. Shortly thereafter, citizens approached Rāma to discuss the growing public scandal regarding Sītā. That same night, Rāma disguised himself and wandered through the city, where he personally overheard the public criticism directed at him because of Sītā. As a result, the following day, he ordered that Sītā be abandoned in the forest (Bulke 1962, p. 696). Plau (2018, p. 85) also highlights that Hemacandra includes a section where a repentant Rāma unsuccessfully searches for Sītā in the forest, demonstrating his regret over the banishment.

3.5. Rāma Discusses with Lakṣmaṇa

The accounts of Rāma’s consultation with Lakṣmaṇa show notable variations across different versions, though they share core thematic elements. In the PCV and PCR, Rāma summons Lakṣmaṇa to discuss the public rumors concerning Sītā. Others accompany Lakṣmaṇa, contributing to the discourse about these widespread allegations. Upon hearing these accusations, Lakṣmaṇa becomes intensely angry, ready to take violent action against those spreading such rumors. However, Rāma calms his brother’s fury and expresses his deep concern about the situation.

Rāma reflects on the illustrious Ikṣvāku dynasty, advanced by great rulers like Ṛṣabhadeva and Bharata, lamenting how this situation threatens to tarnish their ancestral legacy. In the PCR version, Rāma makes a particularly poignant admission: while he knows Sītā to be pure, he cannot bear the public censure.23 He explicitly states that despite Sītā’s innocence, the ongoing scandal has become unbearable. Following this, Lakṣmaṇa offers a thoughtful analysis of the public’s malicious nature, but Rāma expresses regret about having retrieved Sītā from Rāvaṇa’s domain. The narrative takes a darker turn when Rāma orders the bringing of Kṛtātanvadana. When Lakṣmaṇa protests against abandoning Sītā, Rāma firmly declares his decision final and demands Lakṣmaṇa’s silence. The PCR version includes Rāma’s stark declaration that he will abandon Sītā in a desolate forest, leaving her fate to chance.24

The PCS version opens differently, beginning with Lakṣmaṇa’s anger. Here, he directly criticizes the citizens, pointing out their ingratitude toward the Ikṣvāku dynasty’s long history of benevolent rule, noting how they fail to respect even their sovereign. This version emphasizes the breach of loyalty between ruler and subjects.25

A common thread running through all three versions is Rāma’s overwhelming concern with dynastic reputation. His decision to abandon Sītā stems not from any conviction of her guilt or innocence, but from an absolute determination to prevent any blemish on his ancestral legacy. Despite Lakṣmaṇa’s repeated attempts to dissuade him, Rāma remains resolute in his decision, prioritizing dynastic honor above personal considerations. This episode powerfully illustrates the complex interplay between public opinion, royal duty, and personal relationships in ancient Indian governance. It shows how even a ruler as mighty as Rāma felt compelled to sacrifice his personal happiness to maintain public faith and dynastic reputation, highlighting the sometimes tragic consequences of dharmic leadership.

3.6. Rāma Orders Kṛtātanvadana to Escort Sītā Away

When Rāma summons Kṛtātanvadana (referred to as Kṛtāntavaktra in the PCR), the citizens become apprehensive, wondering what transgression might have prompted this unusual summons. Rāma instructs him to escort Sītā to the forest under the pretext of fulfilling her expressed desire to visit a Jaina temple, and then to abandon her there. Kṛtātanvadana carries out these orders, conveying this premise to Sītā, who then boards the chariot after seeking forgiveness from the temple deities.26

The PCR version specifically explains why Sītā travels alone: Rāma had explicitly forbidden any accompaniment. During her journey, according to the PCR, Sītā encounters two ill omens: a distressed crow perched on a withered tree, repeatedly moving its head and making discordant sounds, and a grieving woman with trembling hair who appears before her, weeping. However, Sītā, focused on her anticipated darśana of Jinendra, chooses to disregard these portents.27

Upon reaching their destination across the Ganga where Sītā is to be abandoned, Kṛtātanvadana stops the chariot and begins to weep. When Sītā inquires about his distress, he reveals the complete truth: Rāma’s decision was driven by public censure, despite Lakṣmaṇa’s repeated protests. He informs her that she now stands without the protection of family—neither parents nor brothers. Upon hearing this, Sītā falls unconscious. Upon regaining consciousness, she asks about Rāma’s whereabouts, hoping for a final glimpse, but learns he is far away.

Sītā then entrusts Kṛtātanvadana with a message for Rāma: while he may have abandoned her due to public opinion, he should never abandon samyak darśana (right faith, according to the PCR) or jin darśana (as mentioned in the PCV), as these are more valuable than even the kingdom itself. She adds that there will always be critics, and advises Rāma to protect his subjects dutifully, serve his associates, friends, and sages, conquer his anger and pride, and not grieve over their separation. She also seeks his forgiveness for any faults that may have occurred during their long association.28 (Figure 2).

In all three versions, Kṛtātanvadana departs, cursing his duty.29 However, the PCS version differs notably: the citizens and family members are aware of Sītā’s departure and are deeply grieved.30 In this version, the charioteer (unnamed) provides no explanation to Sītā, simply stating that he does not understand Rāma’s motives.31 Furthermore, Sītā sends no message back to Rāma, unlike in the other versions. As Sītā contemplates the reasons for her fate, she encounters King Vajrajhaṅgha, marking a turning point in her journey.

This episode powerfully illustrates Sītā’s unwavering spiritual devotion and nobility of character even in the face of abandonment.

Figure 2. This mural in the pravacana hall of Pandit Todarmal Smarak Trust (Jaipur, Rajasthan, India) depicts three sequential events from the Jain Rāmāyaṇa: Rāma’s distress from public allegations against Sītā, Sītā’s subsequent pilgrimages,32 and her eventual abandonment in the forest, where she sends her message to Rāma.

Figure 2. This mural in the pravacana hall of Pandit Todarmal Smarak Trust (Jaipur, Rajasthan, India) depicts three sequential events from the Jain Rāmāyaṇa: Rāma’s distress from public allegations against Sītā, Sītā’s subsequent pilgrimages,32 and her eventual abandonment in the forest, where she sends her message to Rāma.

3.7. King Vajrājaṅgha of Puṇḍarīka Provides Refuge to Sītā

While traveling through the forest to procure elephants, King Vajrājaṅgha of Puṇḍarīka inquires about an unexpected delay in his journey. At that moment, he hears the sound of a woman weeping. The versions differ in how the king interprets these sounds: in the PCV, he discerns through his intuitive knowledge (nimitta jñāna) that the voice belongs to Sītā.33 However, in the PCR, he more plausibly deduces that the voice belongs to a virtuous, pregnant woman of noble birth, without specifically identifying Sītā.34 This latter version aligns more naturally with the narrative flow, as he later asks Sītā to introduce herself.35

When the king approaches and inquires about her identity, Sītā provides a comprehensive account of her lineage, including both her maternal family and her marriage into the Ikṣvāku dynasty. She relates the recent events that led to her current circumstance, weeping as she narrates her story. The king responds with spiritual counsel grounded in Jaina philosophy, advising her against āarta dhyāna (sorrowful meditation) and explaining the nature of the soul’s wandering through saṃsāra. He suggests that their meeting in this remote forest is due to the fruition of her past meritorious deeds (puṇya), as he had come there specifically to acquire elephants.

Throughout this encounter, the king is portrayed as deeply spiritual and devoted to Jaina principles. This characterization appears deliberately crafted to explain the subsequent development of their relationship: Sītā accepts him as a brother, with the PCR version having her suggest that they must have shared a sibling relationship in a previous life.36 The king, in turn, accepts her as his dharma sister. The PCS version portrays these events more directly: it involves celestial beings who were concerned about Sītā’s predicament and deliberately arranged her meeting with the king. Subsequently, these deities praised the king’s virtuous character for treating Sītā with respectful detachment as a sister, rather than being influenced by her beauty.37

This episode serves multiple narrative purposes: it establishes Sītā’s safety, introduces a crucial character who embodies Jaina virtues, and demonstrates how righteous behavior can transcend conventional social boundaries. The emphasis on Jaina philosophical elements suggests this version’s origins in a distinctly Jaina literary tradition.

4. Analysis of Causes in Sītā’s Abandonment

Bulke’s (1962, pp. 689–90) comprehensive analysis of Sītā’s abandonment across Indian Rāmāyaṇa narratives reveals that while many versions lack the abandonment episode entirely, those that include it attribute various causes. These include lokāpavāda (public censure), the washerman incident, and the presence of Rāvaṇa’s portrait. The above analysis of the PCV, PCR, and PCS demonstrates that in these Jain versions, lokāpavāda serves as the cause of Sītā’s abandonment. Bulke (1962, p. 703) suggests that the lokāpavāda narrative likely evolved into the more specific washerman episode in later traditions.

Indian Rāmāyaṇa narratives also present indirect causes related to previous lives and karmic connections. Some versions maintain that only Sītā’s shadow was abandoned to preserve Rāma’s ideal character. This multiplicity of explanations demonstrates how the narrative of Sītā’s abandonment developed different dimensions across various traditions. In the PCV, PCR, and PCS, beyond lokāpavāda, Sītā’s abandonment is attributed to karma from her previous life.38 While other Indian Rāmāyaṇa narratives cite indirect causes such as a sage’s curse, the separation of a pair of birds, or Vālmīki’s boon,39 the Jaina versions specifically frame the narrative within karmic causation rather than through curses or boons.

All three versions share a powerful cautionary tale that illustrates the karmic consequences of false accusations and harmful speech. They recount how in her previous life as Vedavatī, Sītā falsely accused a monk named Sudarśana of impropriety when she saw him speaking with his sister, an āryikā named Sudarśanā, in a garden. This false accusation led to public disrespect of the monk, who then took a vow of fasting until his name was cleared. When Vedavatī’s face became swollen due to this transgression, she admitted her falsehood in front of everyone and sought the monk’s forgiveness.

The texts draw a clear moral conclusion: because Vedavatī had falsely maligned the sibling pair, she faced similar false accusations in her life as Sītā. However, just as she eventually cleared the false accusation in her previous life, she also proved her purity (through the fire ordeal) in her life as Sītā. This karmic explanation exemplifies how Jaina versions interpret events through the lens of cause and effect rather than curses. The narrative concludes with important teachings about speech and accusation: one should never speak words that might bind one to sin, one should not speak of others’ faults even if they are true, and concealing others’ faults is considered a great virtue (upagūhana) of right faith. These principles underscore the Jaina emphasis on ethical speech and karmic responsibility.

The Jaina narratives present a sophisticated understanding of Sītā’s abandonment through the lens of karmic causality. They establish that the primary cause of her exile stems from karma accumulated in her previous lives. This karmic debt manifested as public censure (lokāpavāda), which ultimately led to her banishment. The inevitability of these karmic consequences was presaged by several inauspicious omens that preceded the actual events: Sītā’s dream of falling from a celestial vehicle, the twitching of her right eye, and her encounters in the forest with an agitated crow and a woman with disheveled hair.

However, the narrative also demonstrates the positive workings of karma through her encounter with King Vajrajhaṅgha of Puṇḍrikapura. This fortuitous meeting, as the king himself acknowledges to Sītā, represents the fruition of her meritorious karma (puṇya).40 Applying the principle of karmic causality more broadly, we can trace these positive outcomes to several sources of merit: her genuine repentance in her previous life, her mindful reflection upon experiencing the prophetic omens in her current life, and the spiritual merit generated by her desire to visit Jaina temples. The power of this accumulated merit becomes particularly evident when considering her circumstances. Although both Kṛtātanvadana and Rāma believed they were leaving her to certain death in the wilderness,41 her meritorious karma instead brought her a dharmic brother in the king. Under his protection, she not only survived but flourished, eventually giving birth to her two sons in safety and comfort.

This interplay of negative and positive karmic consequences illustrates the Jaina understanding of karma as a complex web of cause and effect, where past actions create both challenges and opportunities in one’s current life. The narrative thus serves not only as a story of suffering and redemption but as a teaching on the inexorable workings of karma and the possibility of transformation through spiritual merit.

5. Sītā’s Causal Understanding of Her Situation

Throughout the three Jain Rāmāyaṇas, we observe Sītā’s sophisticated understanding of causality in numerous instances. As elucidated in the preceding section, Jain ācāryas attribute the cause of Sītā’s abandonment to her own previously bound karma rather than to Rāma or public opinion, who serve merely as external instrumental causes. This causal understanding is consistently reflected in Sītā’s own perspective across all three Jain Rāmāyaṇas.

In the PCR, when Sītā experiences a prophetic dream of falling from a puṣpaka vimāna, she immediately recognizes it as an inauspicious omen and engages in dharmic activities. Similarly, when her eye twitches—another portentous sign—she responds by immersing herself in religious practices, as documented in both the PCV and PCR. These incidents demonstrate her intuitive awareness of impending adversity, which she attributes solely to karma.42 To mitigate the effects of karma or improve her thoughts, she deliberately performs dharmic duties.43

When Sītā communicates with Rāma through Kṛtātanvadana in the PCV,44 she explicitly mentions that Rāma abandoned her due to the fruition (udaya) of her previous karma. In all three versions—the PCV, PCR, and PCS—after being left by the charioteer, Sītā contemplates the cause of her condition, providing an excellent illustration of her understanding of causality. She reflects that Rāma bears no responsibility for her circumstances; rather, these events represent the consequences of her own karmic actions.45

Subsequently, in all three versions, she contemplates the specific causes of her karmic bondage, suggesting that in a previous existence, she must have slandered someone (āvarṇavāda) or separated a pair of birds. The PCR presents the most comprehensive examination of potential causes, incorporating and expanding upon the reflections found in the PCV and PCS. In the PCR, Sītā considers that she might have falsely accused someone (mithyā doṣa), broken a vow (vrata bhaṅga), shown contempt toward others (tiraskāra), or separated various pairs of birds—including ruddy shelducks (cakavā-cakavī), swans (haṃsa-haṃsī), pigeons (kapota-kapotī), or cuckoos (kokila-kokilā). Ultimately, she contemplates the possibility that her current suffering stems from criticizing or slandering ascetics (muni nindā).46

In all these reflections, Sītā contemplates two distinct causal relationships: the cause of her public defamation and the cause of her separation from her husband. She considers that speaking ill of others (doṣa) has led to her own defamation, while separating birds has resulted in her separation from her husband.47 Here, Sītā not only reflects on the immediate cause (karma) of her situation but also explores the underlying causes that generated that karma. According to the narratives, her criticism and slander of ascetics indeed appear to be the correct causal factors. While the texts address the causality behind the public accusations against her character, they notably omit any comprehensive discussion regarding the karmic causes that necessitated her separation from her spouse.

Jain karma theory elaborates on the causes of karmic influx (āsrava). According to Umāsvāti, causing suffering to oneself, others, or both leads to the influx of unpleasant-feeling (asātā vedanīya) karma.48 Sītā’s experiences—whether public criticism or Rāma’s abandonment—resulted from the influx of unpleasant-feeling karma that she had bound in previous lives by slandering a monk (muni) and a nun (āryikā). This arrangement aligns perfectly with Jain karma theory, and Sītā’s understanding consistently reflects these principles.

One aspect of accepting karma theory is not attributing blame to others. When one’s own karma has matured, there is no purpose in assigning fault to others. Moreover, when one must inevitably experience the consequences of self-bound karma, what benefit is there in lamenting? Such weeping only leads to the binding of new karma.49 This perspective is evident in all three versions of the text. After Sītā successfully completes the fire ordeal (agni parīkṣā) and Rāma apologizes, requesting that she remain with him, the now-detached Sītā responds: “Rāma, do not grieve unnecessarily. This is neither your fault nor that of the public. It is entirely due to the negative karma accumulated over hundreds of births that has destroyed virtue (dharma).”50

In this response, she assigns no blame to Rāma, to those who slandered her, or to Kṛtātanvadana, who abandoned her in the forest—she attributes everything solely to her own karma. Thus, Sītā’s understanding of cause and effect (kāraṇa-kārya) perfectly aligns with karma theory and the Jain model of causality.

6. Conclusions

The three Jain Rāmāyaṇa narratives—the PCV, PCR and PCS—share a fundamental storyline despite their variations. Common elements include Sītā’s prophetic dreams, her desire to see the Jina, her right eye twitching when citizens approach Rāma, her exile due to public scandal, and her encounter with the king who offers sanctuary. While the core narrative remains consistent across versions, each author has adapted the story according to their understanding and purpose, emphasizing certain elements while subordinating others or introducing novel components such as omens like the crow and the open-haired woman in the PCR.

When examining causality within Jain narratives, particularly regarding Sītā’s abandonment, two distinct manifestations emerge. First, there is the author-constructed causality that propels the narrative forward. Second, there is character-perceived causality, where figures within the story contemplate and articulate causal relationships. In Sītā’s case, both forms are evident—her defamation of a monk and nun in a previous life created karma that manifested as her own defamation and subsequent abandonment by Rāma.

These narratives reveal a complex web of nested causality. Sītā’s previously bound karma (cause) resulted in her present defamation (effect), which then served as a cause leading to her forest exile (effect). Additionally, because her abandonment was predetermined by karma, she experienced preliminary omens such as falling from the puṣpaka vimāna in dreams, her twitching eye, and encountering inauspicious signs like crows and women with disheveled hair. This causal framework encompasses both negative and positive karmic influences—while her past negative actions led to abandonment, her virtuous acts and spiritual devotion (cause) resulted in divine protection in the dangerous forest (effect). As a character, Sītā herself contemplates why such events are happening to her, concluding that her present circumstances must be the result of past actions. Through this reflection, she considers karma and its binding mechanisms. The narratives thus present a complex causal web that indirectly illuminates sophisticated Jain karmic principles such as nidhaṭṭi-nikācita (irrevocable karma) and apakarṣaṇa-saṅkramaṇa (karmic transference) (Figure 3).

In analyzing these causal relationships, we can distinguish between external instrumental causes (bahiraṅga kāraṇa)—such as public scandal or Rāma’s decision—and internal instrumental causes (antaraṅga kāraṇa), represented by the fruition of Sītā’s karma. These distinctions, which are aspects of nimitta (instrumental cause), form the primary causal framework within these narratives, demonstrating that Jain storytelling typically emphasizes instrumental causation. This analysis reveals that Jain authors do not merely narrate stories but convey their metaphysics and ethics through narrative. The entire account illustrates worldly vicissitudes, demonstrates Sītā’s karmic cause–effect relationships, and encourages dharmic engagement. The benefit of this causal framework is that it directs individuals to look inward rather than outward, focusing on one’s own karmic responsibility rather than blaming others.

Despite differences in narrative style, language, writing period, and emphasis, the three Jain Rāmāyaṇa versions maintain consistent intentions and causal models, all emphasizing internal instrumental causation over external causation. Future studies might explore when and why material cause predominates in Jain narratives, why it appears less frequently, and how causality functions in Guṇabhadra’s alternative Jain Rāmāyaṇa tradition.