Ādi Kavi Vālmīki
- In Book Reviews
- 12:30 PM, Nov 26, 2021
- Neela Ranganathan
“The Rāmāyaṇa is among the greatest literary works of the world. In India, it is the source of all literature, the form of all Dharma……”
It follows from these words of Prof S. K Rāmachandra Rao that if we don’t know the Rāmāyaṇa, we don’t know India. Yet, apart from the Amar Chitra Katha, TV serial, and family pujas -if one is fortunate, we don’t learn the epic in schools and are hardly stirred to read this important foundation of our culture. This little book Ādikavi Vālmīki, in Kannada, by Prof Rao is an indispensable introduction to the Rāmāyaṇa. It is part of the Birla Foundation series, published by the Bhāratīya Vidya Bhavan, introducing great Sanskrit literary works to contemporary Indians. In the author’s words,
“The Upaniṣads, the Bhagavat Gītā, Bādarāyaṇa Sūtras and other Śāstra Prasthānas, stand at a dignified distance, providing succour to those who can go near them. But the Rāmāyaṇa comes to the help of all, like a perennial guiding light illuminating the lives of everyone, at all times.”
But, for many serious pursuers the road to this light that is the Rāmāyaṇa gets stymied. On one side, is the traditional reverence for Rāma as an Avatar, where the lofty peaks of Bhakti are indeed enthralling but are silent on the problematic parts of the epic. On the other side, is the loveless abyss with “scholars” and even some popular media flinging epithets of misogyny, patriarchy etc. This book articulates and answers the problems many of us have with the Rāmāyaṇa and inspires us to read it. This article is an attempt to present some crucial points the book makes.
Folk origins of the Rāmāyaṇa
According to Prof Rao, some scholars say, it was in the 7th century B.C, that Vālmīki composed this epic poem based on an already popular folklore of Rāma. From then on, and by 5th century A.D. the Rāmāyaṇa underwent several changes and attained its current form of 7 kāṇḍas (chapters) in 24,000 shlokas. Prof Rao presents several interesting observations to help us recognize these changes.
The Bāla kāṇḍa (first chapter) calls the Rāmāyaṇa as Ṣaṭkandāni – “of 6 chapters”. The Yud'dha kāṇḍa, the sixth chapter, ends logically with the phala śruti which is a traditional ending to a literary work describing the effect of reciting it. The Uttar Rāmāyaṇa starts again after this, Prof Rao says, in an unnatural way disturbing the flow of the work and not matching the other chapters in style. Interestingly, the traditional pārāyaṇa /recitation of the Rāmāyaṇa ends with Rāma’s coronation at the 6th chapter itself.
Further, the Bāla kāṇḍas says Rāma is an Avatar and it has the story of Vālmīki and other upakatās making many scholars wonder if these parts are by Vālmīki himself. Except the Uttar kāṇḍas the other kāṇḍas do not have the upakatās. Dasharatha’s Aswamedha, the birth of Rāma, etc that are part of the Bālakāṇḍa are not referenced anywhere else in the Rāmāyaṇa. For example, the Bāla kāṇḍas says Lakṣmaṇa married Ūrmiḷā and brought her to Ayōdhyā. But curiously, there is no mention of Ūrmiḷā when Lakṣmaṇa follows Rāma to the forest.
““When later Śūrpanaka tries to seduce Rāma, he says, “why don’t you approach my brother, he is not married yet,”- would Rāma lie even in jest?””
Prof Rao concurs with scholars who say that, if we ignore the later additions, we can see the original form of the Rāmāyaṇa. The Ayōdhyā kāṇḍa, Araṇya kāṇḍa, Kiṣkinda kāṇḍa and Sundara kāṇḍa seem to have remained as they are –having a narrative which flows unobstructed without unrelated insertions.
Rāma as the ideal human being
Importantly to Prof Rao, this original form shows that, Vālmīki regards Rāma as a human being and never goes overboard in his descriptions to impose a Godhood on him.
““Doesn’t Vālmīki get Rāma to say, “Ātmānām mānuṣam manye” ……. I am but a mere mortal”?”
This is an exhortation to the uprooted, to begin reading the Rāmāyaṇa as the story of a literary hero who walked the path of dharma, whose magnanimous qualities and exceptional response to challenges made him an ideal man. These are the very reasons for which he became venerated inspiring countless writers and saints in countless tongues. This approach eases many of the sceptical questions that some of us tie ourselves in knots over. At present, we extend an openness towards Shakespeare that we deny Valmiki!
Uttar kāṇḍa and Agniparīkṣā
Much to my relief, these two most problematic portions of the Rāmāyaṇa, are categorically denounced by Prof Rao.
“The Uttar kāṇḍa is a bundle of lies that would put Vālmīki to shame. Whoever wrote and added this to the Rāmāyaṇa has no sense of propriety. It makes him (the brave hero with a character worthy of emulation) do things that he is not capable of and ought not to be doing. It is evident that in the ancient popular Rāma’s story Uttar kāṇḍa did not exist.”
Many scholars claim the Uttar kāṇḍa took form after the 4th century AD and is influenced by the Padma purana. It is not found in the Rāmāyaṇa translations in the Chinese and Java languages which happened before the 3rd century. The Garuda purana and Skāṇḍa purana do not have the Uttar Rāmāyaṇa or the Agniparīkṣā episodes. The author enumerates several distortions that support this view.
After Rāvaṇa dies in the Yud'dha kāṇḍa his story reappears in detail in the Uttar kāṇḍa and so does the birth of Hanumān. There is no connection between this and Rāma’s story even in style or narration. The story of Lava and Kuśa too, the author adds, is certainly a later addition. Kushilava-s is the name given to wandering bards in Sanskrit. It is these entertainers who took the Rāmāyaṇa to the masses in every corner of the country adding their own music, flavours, and folktales from the local culture. In the Uttar Rāmāyaṇa, when people hear the recitation of Rāma’s story by Lava and Kusha, they remark, “An age-old story has come back to life again!” indicating that the Rāmāyaṇa was already a popular story for several generations, by the time of Vālmīki.
Prof Rao is unequivocal that the disturbing episode of Sīta’s Agniparīkṣā, does not align with the grace of Rāma’s character, nor of the epic. “That Rāma would doubt Sīta’s chastity and ask her to choose someone else is unacceptable and shocking to anyone!” Whoever is familiar with the characters of Rāma and Sīta and their love for each other, would find this unbelievable.
““While instigating Rāvaṇa against Rāma, Akampana says, “You will not be able to kill Rāma in battle, but if you kidnap his beautiful wife, he will die of a heartbreak on his own.””
““That Sīta enters the fire and then Brahma reminds Rāma, “She is Lakshmi, and you are Vishnu in human form”, is laughable. There is a phala ślōka added here underlining that it is a later addition.””
Historical background to the Rāmāyaṇa
“Was Rāma a historical figure?”, is not asked by the Indian mind but by western thinkers, says Prof Rao. To the Indian mind Rāma has always been, an ideal man, an Avatāra puruṣa worthy of worship, emulation, and the role model of an ideal family life. History and culture of the period invariably get woven into the epic and this part of the book dispels many common fallacies.
“Our people consider the Rāmāyaṇa as poetry and the Mahābhārata as Itihāsa, leading some western scholars to think that the Mahābhārata occurred while the Rāmāyaṇa is imaginary. But tradition never questions the occurrence of Rāma Rāvaṇa Yud'dha……Vālmīki may have taken poetic liberties with the story of Rāma, but that Rāma walked the earth, was never in doubt. There are several independent narratives of the story of Rāma, including the Buddhist text Daśaratha jaṭakā”.
Rāma of the Ikṣavāku dynasty, belonged to the Āryāvarta, the region above the Vindhyās, where the Vedic religion had taken root and the Ikṣavākus were its leading figures.
The Rākṣasas, despite poetic exaggerations, were of human nature too. “When Rāvaṇa was killed, it was only one head that fell!” The Rāmāyaṇa shows the Rākṣasas as practitioners of Tantra, and worshippers Shiva. Practices such as cannibalism! excessive drinking and promiscuity, naturally put them at odds with the Vedic traditions and clashes were common. “Rāvaṇa kills Kubera’s emissary and asks his Rākṣasas to eat him!...... Tataki tried to eat Vishwamitra himself!” And it was then that Vishwamitra sought the help of Rāma and Lakṣmaṇa to protect the rishis.
But the Rāma-Rāvaṇa battle was not a culture war. Rāvaṇa himself was a voluntary follower of the Vedic religion, performing the Vedic rituals sincerely. Vālmīki portrays him with dignity, as a brave warrior, a Mahānubhāva, who did not know who Rama was until instigated by Śūrpanaka. He fell because he left the path of dharma and joined hands with adharma. That the Rākṣasas were described as dark skinned did not mean they were not beautiful – Rāvaṇa is “sundara”, and his wife Mandodari is “surasundari”, - a celestial beauty.
The Vānaras, who were forest people living below the Vindhyās, helped the princes of the north who were unfamiliar with the south, locate Sīta. That they were forest folk, loving drink and dance did not mean they were without culture. - “Let’s not forget that Hanumān, a singer, pundit and an astute minister was a Vānara.”
Conclusion
Prof Rao’s love for the Valmiki Ramayana helps us appreciate why this epic has inspired a whole civilisation. What greater gift can be given to an Indian than the access to the fountain head of Indian culture, that is the Rāmāyaṇa?
There are, of course many ways to approach the Rāmāyaṇa. As Prof Rao himself tells us – some of these arguments presented are contested bitterly- “like the Mahābhārata war”. Some scholars argue that the Uttar Rāmāyaṇa is indeed the original work of Vālmīki and so on. Read the Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa and decide for yourself, is Prof Rao’s gentle nudge.
Image provided by the author.
Comments