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 281

DECOMBER, 1912.) THE RAMACHARITAM ANASA AND THE RAMAYANA
277
2. The episode of the blind anchorite's son, whom Daçaratha killed in his youth, is thus alluded to in passing by Tulasi Dasa : tapasa-andha-sapa sudhi di Kausalyahiri sabu katha sundi ll II, 155, 4 ;
3. Sugriva's detailed narration to Rama of Valin's feats on the Dandubhi asura and the seven palm trees (C, IV, 11) is omitted by Tulasi Dasa and the mere statement is made instead that Sagriva showed Rama Dundabhi's bones and the palm-trees : Dundubhi-asthi tala dekhardye IV, 8, 12a.
Many examples of this kind, as well as others, could be easily drawn from the Rimacharitamanasa as further arguments in favour of Tilasi Dasa's strict fidelity to the Rámuyana, but it would be superfluous to dwell any longer apon this point here, as the reader will find plenty of such arziments in parallel passages quoted later on. Having thas set the general rule that Talasi Dâsa, as far as possible, closely follows Vâlmiki's data without altering them, it remains to formulate exceptions and to ascertain out of what motives, extrinsic or intrinsic in the poet's mind, these have sprung. In what cases does Tulasi Dasa alter Valmiki's narrative ? and why?
As regards a good many of the alterations we can give these questions a prompt and most positive answer. Tulasi Dasa does not write as objectively as Valmiki did. On the contrary, there is a moral ideal to which all his poetry is subjected, and a particular result which he wishes to bring out by means of his poem. He bas to relate facts in such a way as to convince his readers of Rama's divinity and to inspire them with faith and devotion. No wonder then that he alters Válmiki's facts, when these do not prove conformable to the tenets of his creed, as in that case alterations were an impelling necessity and quite justifiable from his particular point of view. This accounts for the total disguise of Râma's personality from the haman in the divine; the continual effort towards exalting his greatness and enhancing his virtues ; the omission or justification of all the particolars which would seem unbecoming to his majestic power; the exaggeration of the devotional feelings of all the people, who surround him or happen to come in contact with him, and the promotion to the rank of Rama's fervid votaries of all those who in the Ramayana either do Rama some great service (Hanumat, Sugriva, etc.), or, being his enemics, refrain from fighting against him, be it out of righteousness (Vibbishana), or be it out of fear (Maricha, Kalanemi). Particulars incompatible with the principle of Rama's divinity are not always silently passed over by Tulasi Dasa, but in some, indeed in most cases, they are maintained, but softened or explained as being mere illusions brought about by the Lord's mdhd; and this is another argument in favour of our assertion, that Tulasi Dasa as far as he can avoids altering the source. In some other cases, where both Rama and Laksbmaņa are concerned, unbecoming particulars are attributed to Lakshmana only. The same is the case with Sità, who-just as Helena never went to Troja according to Stesichoros' palinode-never went to Lanka, but was absorbed by the Fire, leaving on earth a void image of herself, and was given back by the Fire pure and untouched to Râma, after his victory over the rikshasas. Sita's repudiation and her being swallowed by the Earth, her mother, are quite naturally wanting in the Ramacharitamanasa. • There are other alterations, which are of a different nature and are not so easy to explain. In many instances it is difficult to make out why Tulnsi Dasa has varied Valmiki's narrative
Let me add only the remark that such & Gorrospondence of the two pooms to one another is all the moro signifionnt, inasmuch as Tulast Dess is by no means & poet wanting in imagination, so that he would not bavo hesitated to overstep the limits laid down by Valmiki, had he deemed it permissible and wise.
• To confine myself to a single example of facts of this kind, I may oito Kishkindakinda, 10, 4 and following where Tulasi Dasa maintains the partioular of Vklin's reproaching Rama for having killed bin by treachery, bat takes care to justify it by the romark: "VAlin, thongh full of affootion in his heart, yet with his mount uttered harsh words ..."