Indian Antiquary Vol 41

SR No.: 032533
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Richard Carnac Temple, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar
Publisher: Swati Publications
Publication Year: 1984
Total Pages: 320
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 39 MB

Page 278

274
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[DECEMBER, 1912.
restriction is still to be made on tiu priority herein assigned to the Rámdyana, our general concluisiona aro absolutely definite and the present article will always retain its value as a collection of the best proofs in favor of Tulasi Dasa's having largely and directly utilized Valmiki's poem.-L. P. T.]
Nándpurdnanigamdgamusammatam yad Rdmaya ne nigaditam kvacid anyato 'pi 1 avantahsukhiya Tulasi Raghundthagáthdbhashanibandham atimailjulam dtanoti 117 11°
In the above stanza in the Sanskrit introduction to the Rámacharitamanasa Tulasi Dása himself informs his readers of the sources from which he has drawn. In fact he does here avow most explicitly that he has derived from the Randyana, and partly also from other works, all the matter that was conformable to the Puranas and to the Holy Scriptures. Leaving aside for the present the question how far the words kvacid anyato 'pi should be extended, the fact remains that in the above passage Tulasi Dasa himself does quote the poem of Valmiki as his chief source, and does declare clearly that he has drawn from it the bulk of that material which he has brought into harmony with his own spiritual ideas and clothed in a pleasant form of poetry. Such is after all the meaning hidden in that testimony, which on the other hand gives us but superfluous information, for every diligent reader of the Ramacharitamanasa would reach for himself the same conclusion. Tulasi Dasa has followed the path formerly trodden by Valmiki, placing his feet upon the very footmarks left by his great predecessor.
If looked upon superficially, such an assertion will no doubt strike one as the absurdest paradox. A bottomless abyss lies between the two poems: in each one breathes a different air, sees different people living in a world quite apart; the impressions which each makes on the mind of its readers are so unlike that one cannot see at a glance anything but a fancied dependence of the one upon the other. But one must not ignore that objective facts, not oesthetic impressions, are the best criterion for settling any question regarding the dependence of any one work upon another; and it is in the light of that positive criterion that our assertion is to be viewed. The fact is that, as far as Rama's life is concerned, the thread of the narrative is mainly one and the
1 At the moment of revising the proofs of the present article, I am kindly informed by Sir G. Grierson that Bhalbhadra Prasad Sakul of Ballia, U. P. and three other pandits are publishing an edition of Tulast Disa's Ramacharitamanasa, together with another poem of the same title in Sanskrit Slokas, which bears such an exnot correspondence to it, that it must Decessarily be concluded that one is a translation of the other. Sir G. Grierson. has neon the Aranyao and Sundaranda of this edition, and has found that both the versions are practioally line for line the same. The editors consider the Sanskrit version to be the original one, basing their opinion on what Talat Dasa himself says in the introduction to the Hindi poem concerning the origin of the story, and partioularly on the passage, in which he states that he heard the story from his guru, but owing to his being but a obild, he could not understand it, and only afterwards, when he understood it better, he put it down in bhash:
maith puni nija guru sana sunt katha su Sakura-kheta samujhi nahlia tasa balapana taba ati rahoum aceta .... tadapi kaht garu b&rahim bera samujhi pari kachu mati-anus
bhAkh-baddha karabi main sof more mana prabodha jehi hoti (1, 30-31) The editors promise a fall account of the Sanskrit MS. in the preface to the Balakanda. "Till then-writes Sir G. Grierson-we must wait in patience." That one version is a translation of the other is perfectly certain, but which is the original it is impossible, at present, to say. The impression conveyed to my mind is that it is the Sanskrit version that is the translation, as it is not so compact as Tulant Disn. The author has to fill up his slokas with unnecessary words to make them agree with the Hindi. But, on the other hand, it may be argued that Tulasi Dasa took & Sanskrit original and improved it by condensing it. In the latter case, it is this Sanskrit Ramacharitamanasa that we ought necessarily to consider as the first, and perhaps the only, source of the Hind! poem. But, even so, our general conclusion that Talaat Dasa's poem is chiefly based upon the Ramayana would by no means be impaired. The only difference would be that the correspondence of the former to tho latter ought to be explained simply as consequence of Talasi Disa' baving translated a work that was chiefly based upen Valmiki, not as having been intentionally brought about by Tulasi Dasa himself.
The present and all following quotations from the Ramacharitamanasa are taken from the edition of the काशी नागरी प्रचारिणी सभा, प्रयाग, १९०३.