Indian Antiquary Vol 41

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 279

DECEMBER, 1919. TIE RAMACHARITAMANASA AND THE RAMAYANA
275
same in both the poems: Tulasi Dasa derives from Valmiki all the particulars of the story, shortens or amplifies them as he likes, explains them according to his creed, clothes them in a new fashion, but hardly ever alters their objectiveness, their succession, their historical value. One might be induced to think Tulasi Dasa firmly believes in the historical trustworthiness of the Ramayana and therefore makes it a point not to mistake the truth, at least so far as that truth does not strike too openly at his ethical and religious ideas. This is why Tnlasi Dâsa retains some particulars, which were quite in accordance with the reduntant epical style in Valmiki' poem, but seem mere, and even strange, superfluities amidst the babitual conciseness of the Ramacharitamanasa. This is why Tulasi Dasa always applies the greatest attention to giving unicuique suum; i.e., to attributing every action or speech, however insignificant it may be, to the very persons whom Válmiki bas representeil as authors thereof. This is why Tulasi Dasa always makes it a point never to alter the succession of events and goes so far in his scraples that he never fails to replace by a short allusion any episode or important passage of the Ramdyana, to which he could not give room in his poem.
This general rule of fidelity to his source finds its greatest exception in Tulasi Dasa's sixth books, where the succession of the facts is wholly subverted, the particulars of one combat are cften mistaken for those of another, and the deeds of one champion are attributed to another; but in this case the exception does not weaken the rule and can be easily explained, if we only suppose that Tulasi Dasa could not always find his way amidst the bewildering intricacy of Valmiki's Yuddhakanda and often lost bimself in the labyrinth of events, which supposition is greatly corroborated by our own practical experience of the difficulty of thoroughly mastering by Leart the subject of this most intricate book, though nowadays the scholar can reckon upon bandier editions and greater helps, than were available to the mediaval poet,
But, leaving aside the Lankakanda and the few other divergencies from Valmiki, which are interspersed in the other books of the Ramacharitamanasa and not always without a reason, the fact remains of Tulasi Dasa's strict fidelity to the historical and chronological data in the narrative of the Sanskrit Ramayana; a fidelity of such a nature that, were there no other testimony, it would perhaps be sufficient to show that Tulasi Dasa, whilst writing, always
This rulo admits of a few exceptions, which are mainly found in the Balao and Ayodhyakanda. I quote the throo which are the most striking in the above two books :
(i). Tulas! DAsa places Rama Jámadagoya's episode immediately after the breaking of the bow and conse quentiy before Daçaratha's arrival at Mithill. [Válmiki represents it as taking place during Daçaratha's and Rama's return to Ayodhya);
(ii). Tulasi Dasa makes Vigvamitra start from Mithild along with Daçaratha and sojourn in Ayodhyå for many days. It is in Ayodhya that Vigvamitra's story is related by Vasishtha and Vamadera. (Valmiki makes Viçvamitra start from MithilA before Daçaratha and has his story told in Mithild itself by Catapanda):
(iii). Tulant Disa makes Guba cross the Gangå along with the three exiles and accompany them one or two atagos further. (Valmiki makes Rama dismiss Guha and Sumantra before crossing the Gang).
It is most likuly that alterations in the order of succession, like the above, crept into the R.C.M. from some of the other sources, which were utilized by Tulasi Dasa. But that is not porhaps the case with all alterations of that kind. Take the following example: In the R.O.M. Lakshmana hears of Elma's banishment only as late as IT, 70, 1-2, namely after the permission given Siti to follow her husband into the oxilo. Now it is simply absurd that Lakshmana, Rama's inseparable companion, should have heard the news later than the eitisons, whose grief had boon described by Tulas! Disa long before. It is obvious that Tulant Disa, in his overdrawn laconism had quite forgotten to make any mention of Lakshmaņa at the proper place, and had to repair is omission when he had to relato how Rama, after giving Sits his consent, gave it to Lakshmana too.
* The first half of the Balao and nearly the whole of the Uttarakanda, as they have no correspondent in the Ramdyana, but are a more addition to Rama's life, are of course beyond the scope of the present artiolo.
Possibly the change in the title of the book from Yuddha to Lankakanda was not without its roagon,