Rama - The story of a history
Proof by absence
 ‘The Ramopakhyana in the Mahabharata does not contain many of the important details that are found in Valmiki Ramayana in its present form. And, therefore, obviously,’ concludes J L Brockington, of whom we have been discussing in our last post, ‘these missing details in the Ramopakhyana were deftly inserted into the text of Valmiki, much later, certainly later than Mahabharata.’ It is his conclusion that the Mahabharata must have been composed when Valmiki Ramayana was undergoing its changes – or ‘evolution’, as it is called – in the second stage (of the five stages that Brockington has broken the process of evolution into) and this must have been roughly around the first century BC. To quote him, “Most probably the Ramopakhyana was composed around the middle of the second stage, in perhaps the first century BC.”
He then enlists some of the details that are not narrated in the Ramopakhyana of Mahabharata. “The Ramopakhyana in fact contains no reference to several of the more obvious additions of the second stage, for example Dasaratha's account of his slaying of the ascetic youth (though mentioning Dasaratha’s death), Bharadvaja’s entertainment of Bharata’s army, Jabali’s and Vasistha’s speeches to Rama, Sita meeting with Anasuya, Valin’s accusation of Rama and his reply, Hanuman’s killing the sons of Ravana’s ministers and Rama’s first encounter with Ravana, to name only the most prominent episodes and thus the most likely for inclusion,” he says. That is to say, for example, since Ramopakhyana does not mention anything about the first war of Rama with Ravana, this could not have been there in the ‘original’ version of Valmiki and that this particular scene must have been ‘created’ by some later bard and has thus found its place in the Valmiki Ramayana in its present form.
 This conclusion has a serious implication. Though the researcher does not mention it explicitly, exclusion of this scene from what is proposed to be the ‘original rendition’ of Valmiki, one would have to take out, deprive Rama of the highly commendable, extremely righteous, wonderfully generous gesture, restraining himself from persisting in his fight against Ravana when he stands without his chariot, any of his weapons or anyone of his army, alone, saying, “I know you stand agonised through (continued) fighting. (Therefore) depart (for the present), O king of the rangers of the night! Re-entering Lanka and resting (awhile), sally forth (again), (duly) mounted on a chariot and armed with a bow, then (remaining) seated in your car, you shall witness my strength.” (Valmiki Ramayana, Yuddha Kanda, Canto 49, Sloka 143)
This is one scene which Kamban has beautifully rendered in Tamil. It is a very famous and oft-quoted line.
‘pOrukku indru pOi naaLai vaa.’ Since you have lost your all and stand alone without weapons, go back now. Take rest and come back tomorrow. Let us resume the war after you rest and rejuvenate. And if this ‘first war’ is brushed aside as ‘interpolation’ simply because Ramopakhyana in the Mahabharata does not mention it, you are depriving Rama of one of his most splendid qualities – observing restraint in the battlefield against his sworn enemy, when the latter was defenceless, helpless and was most vulnerable.
Without hinting at this implication, Brockington simply moves on, “It does allude to episodes which it is reasonable to infer have been elaborated rather than inserted – such as Sita’s spirited rejection of Ravana before he seizes her – but always in a way that is consistent what may be expected to have lain behind the present expanded version.” That is, a few scenes were, of course, narrated by Valmiki; but going by what the Ramopakhyana says, it only leads us to infer that such episodes as Sita’s highly spirited response to Ravana when he sheds his Sanyasi make-up and begs for her love, were not ‘so spirited’ when Valmiki composed his epic; but were elaborated by later hands, bards reciting the story to the masses have worked up the words of Sita, and have elaborated – added their own slokas – to the ‘original’ of Valmiki. However, such elaborations, he suggests, have been done very well, and in consistence with the ‘original’ so that the ‘elaboration’ does not stand out and allow itself to be detected easily.
And then he drops the bomb. “To cite just one significant example, it refers to the arrival of the trio at Sarabhanga’s hermitage but not to Indra’s previous arrival, which seems to form part of the process of enhancing Rama’s status culminating in his identification of an avatar.”
We have narrated this scene at the hermitage of Sarabhanga, when discussing Sita. (See:
Being a human and
also What remains – a
glimpse). This is one of the strong points that underlines the idea that Valmiki did perceive his Rama as an avatar, beyond Bala Kanda (that is, even if it is accepted that the assumption the whole of the Bala Kanda – along with Uttara Kanda – is taken as an interpolation, where the concept of ‘avatar’ is presented in what constitutes the ‘core book’ that Brockington argues about. He brushes this scene aside pointing to the absence of this ‘presence of Indra’ at the hermitage of
Sarabhanga.
Hmm. What else?
|
