Archive for ‘Literature’

  |   Newer Entries »
September 12, 2008

The Hoax Called Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam – 2: Panchatantra and Kautilya

by Sarvesh K Tiwari

In the previous part, we had gleaned through hitopadesha to understand the message of the ancient AchArya of politics about ‘vasudhaiva kuTumbakam’, encapsulated in a pair of satirical fables. Far from coming as an ideal or a recommendation, the shloka there was made to come from a shrewd subversionist, the lesson being that one has to exercise discretion from unwittingly trusting such brotherhood-preachers, and that the price for befriending and sheltering the wrong kind under the influence of such unconditional brotherhood, is nothing less than self-destruction. In the present part we continue our excursion into other primary saMskR^ita sources, in particular pa~nchatantra and chANakyan literature, to understand the total meaning and context of vasudhaiva kuTumbakam.

vasudhaiva kuTumbakam in pa~nchatantra

While developing the textbook of hitopadesha, nArAyaNa paNDita had the benefit of referring to, besides other sources, the most widespread repository of fables ever composed on planet, the great pa~nchatantra. In the preface of hitopadesha, nArAyaNa paNDita acknowledges that he composed hitopadesh by “extracting” from pa~nchatantra and the other texts:

“पञ्चतंत्रात्तथान्यस्मात ग्रन्थाद्कृष्य लिख्यते” (हितोपदेश १.९)

Many scholars have convincingly demonstrated that hitopadesha is a contextualized eastern recension of an earlier southern recension of pa~nchatantra.

Now, this amazing and fairly ancient work of AchArya viShNusharman, pa~nchatantra is probably the single most traveled, widespread and translated work of the ancient world, and dateable with fair certainty back to the late mauryan period, of around third century before CE. The place of its composition is a matter of debates, and varying opinions place it from Kashmir to Nepal to South India. Beyond any doubt however is that soon after its composition, it got transmitted amazingly to almost all the contemporary major civilizations. As a result, fairly ancient derivations of pa~nchatantra are found under various names in a number of languages, notably in Pehlavi and Persian, Syriac and Turkic, Greek and Latin, Hebrew and Arabic, Tibetan and Chinese. Several of the traditional fables of Europe such as those in Pilpay’s, Aesop’s, Grimm’s and of Persian-Arabic literature are indebted to pa~nchatantra for their origins.

hitopadesha not only inherited from pa~nchatantra the marvelous structure of looping tales, and plots of fables, but also various shloka-s in exact verbatim, and this includes the one of vasudhaiva kuTumbakam too. In aparIkshita-kArakam, the fifth tantra of pa~nchatantra, AchArya viShNusharman records it in a fable known as ‘siMha kAraka mUrkha brAhmaNa kathA’, and assigns VK to come from a declared fool. To understand the attitude of this nIti-text towards VK, a condensed version of that fable is presented below:

“Once upon a time there lived a group of four young brAhmaNa friends in some nondescript village. Three of these were fools, although very erudite and deep gone in learning of shAstra-s. On the other hand the fourth one was altogether lacking in shAstra-learning, but fairly intelligent.

The learned members of this group once contemplated upon the merits of moving to a city where they could put their scholarship to better use. After all, what good was all the learning if it did not yield them wealth and fame? The idea was approved unanimously and the group at once took off towards a large city at a fair journey’s distance.

While going forth on their way, the oldest of the scholar-fools expressed his opinion that it was futile for the un-erudite one to join the excursion. Although the intelligence of that fellow was not in doubt, it was useless in absence of any formal learning, he said. The second scholar-fool agreed too and suggested that the uneducated one should rather return back to their home-village.

However the third scholar-fool was more generous who reminded the party that although worthless, the fourth one was their childhood friend and therefore they ought to allow him in sharing their exploits. It is at this juncture in the story, that this third fool recites the shloka of vasudhaiva-kuTumbakam, and convinced the other two scholar-fools, to let the uneducated one remain in the party. And on they went.

Upon going a little further the travelers came upon a decaying carcass of some creature been long dead. Seeing that, the learned members immediately decided to put their learning to test by making the dead creature come alive.

The scholar-fool number-one used his knowledge in gathering and properly reassembling the skeleton according to its accurate anatomy. The number-two successfully applied his formulae in adding organs, flesh, and skin. Our VK-reciting third one then began his experiments of breathing prANa into it to finally resurrect it.

At this point the fourth fellow, the intelligent though uneducated one, interrupted them. ‘Friends, wait a minute,’ warned the intelligent one, ‘listen, this dead-body appears like that of a lion, and you people want to bring it to life. Surely, my learned friends, if you resurrect the lion, it would put our own lives into grave danger. Therefore, for the sake of our lives better let the beast remain as safely dead as it now is, and move on to our destination.’

But the VK-reciting stupid-scholar wouldn’t listen to these words of common-sense and the warning was shrugged aside.

At last seeing the scholars foolishly bent upon performing the suicidal act, the wise one at once climbed the tallest tree he could locate nearby. As anticipated, the VK-reciter successfully resurrected the lion, and no sooner did the lion come alive, it devoured all the three foolish brAhmaNa-s. Only the uneducated one, having wisely climbed the tree, escaped the sorry fate of their shAstra-knowing friends and returned home lamenting for the unnecessary and foolish ends of his mates, especially the kind-hearted but naive VK-reciting one.”

This is the story inside which vasudhaiva kuTumbakaM finds a place in pa~nchatantra.

Surely if nArAyaNa paNDita had made some rather acidic use of VK in satires of hitopadesha, viShNusharman did not display much regard for it either when he first declared this character a mUrkha, an idiot, and then had this idiotic character recite the shloka of vasudhaiva kuTumbakam. In the argument of this foolish brAhmaNa which he delivers to convince his other friends about letting the fourth friend continue in the party, quoting this shloka seems quite unnecessary or even grossly irrelevant. It does appear likely that the shloka was deliberately inserted in the dialog by viShNusharman to be made to come from a foolish character, the lesson being that un-erudite commonsense is far superior to impractical adherence to shAstrIya-learning.

Furthermore, the great viShNusharman leaves no room for any doubt about his attitude towards VK, when he lets its preacher, a declared fool already, perish by his own stupidity, meeting the same end as that of the VK-reciting Jackal of hitopadesha who was slain by subuddhi the Crow, the realist hero.

We now have ample reasons to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that both the textbooks on nIti-education – pa~nchatantra and hitopadesha – are very critical of the tendency of unconditional application of vasudhaiva kuTumbakaM in the realm of worldly matters. Their message about VK is loud and clear. One: the brotherhood-preaching that VK represents, is a popular instrument of subversion; two: gullible are often seen foolishly seized by it; and three: both are destroyed.

vasudhaiva kuTumbakam and kauTilya’s artha-shAstra

Both of these textbooks of nIti, pa~nchatantra and hitopadesha, transmit many popular shloka-s to their students, quoting from several original sources such as itihAsa-purANa-s and earlier nIti-literature. One of the authors whom both predominantly quote is viShNugupta aka chANakya or kauTilya. In fact, in the preface of pa~nchatantra, right in the first two lines, viShNusharman reverently acknowledges kauTilya as a foremost luminary of politics and humbly proposes himself to be in the same line of intellectual succession, besides acknowledging that pa~nchatantra is written by viShNusharman after studying entire artha-shAstra of chANakya:

मनवे वाचस्पतये शुक्राय पाराशराय ससुताय
चाणक्याय च विदुषे नमोस्तु नयशास्त्र-कर्तृभ्यः ||
सकलार्थशास्त्रसारं जगति समालोक्य विष्णुशर्मेदम
तन्त्रैः पञ्चभिर एतच्चकार सुमनोहरं शास्त्रं ||
पञ्चतन्त्र (१, २)

Having fulfilled his mission of establishing the mauryan Empire and stabilizing it as its Prime Minister, kauTilya is said to have retired to southern India where he dedicated long years in collecting and editing various extant sources on the matters of polity and economics, and compiling a unified compendium along with his own contributions as arthashAstra. As we know, in even farther ancient India, all the knowledge used to get appended into the common body of shAstra-s, and the growing size of that knowledge must have, after a point, become exceedingly hard to manage. Therefore at some point in history, we start noticing that Hindus started to divide the common shAstra-s into independent shAstra-s for each realm of life – viz. dharma-shAstra-s, artha-shAstra-s, kAma-shAstra-s etc. We even notice the emergence of shAstra for niche subjects such as nATya-shAstra for dramatics, and pAka-shAstra for cookery and so on.

kauTilya’s work should therefore be seen in this context as a window through which we can understand the political philosophy of ancient Hindus, not only of kauTilya but also of even earlier than him. Indeed, in preparing arthashAstra, he consulted all the important sources from at least five distinct schools of politics then prevailing (mAnava, bArhaspatya, aushanasa, pArAshara, and AmbhIya) and quotes in arthashAstra from the works of not less than thirteen individual authors of past whom he refers by name: bhAradvAja, vishAlAksha, pArAshara, pishuna, kauNapadanta, vAtavyAdhi, bAhudanti-putra, kAtyAyana, kaNi~Nka-bhAradvAja, dIrgha-chArAyaNa, ghoTaka-mukha, ki~njalka, and pishuna-putra. Here it is important to highlight that kauTilya has quoted the opinions of these earlier authors not only where he agreed with them, but also where he radically disagreed. Under various topics, he first quotes them, and then expresses his personal agreement or disagreement along with an explanation.

Even as the preceding paragraphs might have appeared like a digression from our subject of vasudhaiva kuTumbakam, but it was indispensable to establish first the background of kauTilya’s arthashAstra, and to show that although the various works of all of those individual authors are not extant anymore, kauTilya’s artha-shAstra alone, gives us a single source to understand the authentic political thought process of Hindus as propagated by several ancient AchAryas of nIti. Having said this, not only the verse of vasudhaiva kuTumbakam is missing in artha-shAstra, but in fact the sentiment is very incompatible with what they thought of state policy.

If unconditionally applied in the realm of statecraft as a pivotal hinge, VK manifests itself as it has done, in a state with pusillanimity and diffidence as its operating principles, and banal bhai-bhai rhetoric as its anthem. It summarily stands for a Soft State with minimalistic governance leaning towards an organized milder anarchy. And kauTilya has nothing but contempt for such a state.

Contrary to such romanticist-anarchic tendencies, kauTilya is a realist and his worldview of basic human nature and society is grounded in perceivable hard realities. He does not consider ‘brotherhood’ is the core of the state-principle but ‘Power to punish the wicked’. In the first book of artha-shAstra kauTilya states, ‘अप्रणीतो हि मत्स्यन्यायम उद्भावयन्ति बलीयान, अबलम हि ग्रसते दण्डधर अभावे’: that (far from being a family) human society in its very basic nature is like a group of fishes in water, where mightier ones devour the weak, unless a chastising rod is exercised. And therefore the danDa, the chastising rod and power and willingness to wield it, are at the core of the statecraft. Artha is the very purpose of the society he says, by dharma that is achieved, and only daNDa sustains it.

In this worldview he is joined by bhIShma, (whom kauTilya refers as kauNapadanta), expressing the same opinion to the eldest pANdava in the sixty-seventh chapter of shAnti-parvan. Manu too expresses a similar opinion, “यदि न प्रणयेत राजा दण्डम दण्ड्येश्वतन्द्रितः जले मत्स्यानिवाहिंस्यान दुर्बलान बलवत्तराः” (मनुस्मृति ७.२०): If the state would stop un-wearisomely exercising the chastising rod on those deserving to be chastised, the wicked would kill the meek like fish do in water.” So these AchArya-s are abundantly clear that if the upholders of the state absolve themselves of their primordial duty, under VK-belief or otherwise, of exercising the daNDa, then there will be no kuTumbakam but only a matsya-nyAya.

Unlike the world-a-family model, kauTilya’s arthashAstra also holds that wickedness and enemies are always going to be around and therefore a firm discretion is needed in the matters of statecraft. Identifying the enemies of the country and not hesitating to crush them relentlessly, is an essential part of the duties of statesmen to maintain a sustainable order. Just sample a few of kauTilya’s utterances: Like sandalwood does not abound every forest, like each elephant does not carry a mANikya, remember this that not everyone is a gentlemen (CND 2.9); By various means, one should protect one’s own people and hurt those of the enemy (AS 14.3); My Lord, follow the rule that there should be no delay in putting down the enemy, even a very strong confederacy of the wicked people. Never be tiresome or hesitate in applying full force against them (AS 5.4).

So, I believe we can move on by saying that at least in kauTilya’s opinion, the operating guideline of statesmen holding the duty-rod of the state is not to preach the romantic anarchy of ‘vasudhaiva kuTumbakam’, but a very realistic distinction between the friend and foe, and an unhesitating suppression of the inimical forces is needed for a sustainable peace in society.

vasudhaiva kuTumbakam in other works of kauTilya

Besides artha-shAstra, there are some other collections that carry the name of chANakya, and contain hundreds of aphorisms popularly attributed to him. Some popular compendiums that carry the name of chANakya include: laghu-chANakya, vR^iddha-chANakya, chANakya-nIti-darpaNaM, chANakya-nIti-shAstra, chANakya-nIti-shataka, chANakya-rAja-nIti-shAstra, chANakyaM, chANakya-shatakaM, chANakya-nIti-vyavahAra-sAra-saMgraha, chANakya-sUtrANi, and rAja-nIti. A few in this list are published, while the most are in manuscript form in various libraries around the world.

Of the above list, the first four – laghu-chANakya, vR^iddha-chANakya, chANakya-nIti-darpaNaM, chANakya-nIti-shAstra – are certainly very widespread, as their manuscripts have been found from a diversity of places as distant as Tamilnadu and Nepal, Gujarat and Bengal, Rajasthan and Karnataka. These four therefore are fairly ancient collections containing as it seems, ‘the other’ sayings from the pen of chANakya himself. For the rest, it appears more sensible that the later composers might have added the luminary’s name to enhance the credibility and popularity of their own products.

Coming back to vasudhaiva kuTumbakam, of all the secondary collections of chANakya’s sayings, vasudhaiva kuTumbakaM is found in only one single manuscript of vR^iddha chANakya, in the Tanjore recension, in addition to a certain version of chANakya-nIti-shAstra. In all other widespread manuscripts and sources on the rest of the compendiums of chANakya’s aphorisms, VK is simply non-existent just like in artha-shAstra, suggesting a later interpolation by some scribes in these two individual manuscripts, quoting from some other sources.

Ludwig Sternbach had done a signal work in collecting and analyzing all the different sources of chANakya’s sayings to compose a unified single compendium of his authentic original aphorisms. He employed a very sound statistical technique to scrub the interpolations. Using this methodology, vasudhaiva kuTumbakaM appears to be a later interpolation coming from some other non-chANakyan source. Sternbach has also demonstrated various other aphorisms popularly thought to be of chANakya to actually be coming from earlier texts like mahAbhArata, showing how those have crept into chANakya’s compendiums, suggesting interpolation.

Above all, when the authentic line of thought of chANakya, as represented by artha-shAstra, is brought into consideration, it becomes an impossibility that he would ever recommend VK as a guideline for statecraft or a policy cornerstone for society.

Credit for that innovation is safely with the wise politicians of modern India.

Concluding Part: The Hoax Called Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam – 3: poetics, vikrama-charita and upanishada

Posted in Commentary, Culture, History, Literature, Scripture, Tradition | 11 Comments »

Tags: , ,
July 30, 2008

On Rama Setu in padma purANa

by Sarvesh K Tiwari

Representing the Union of India in the Supreme Court, Senior Attorney Fali Nariman has stated the following in the Court: “the Padma Purana states Lord Rama broke the bridge after rescuing Sita. And according to the Hindu faith, something that is broken cannot be worshipped” and “This is why nobody has till date declared it a monument.”

This statement prompted us to look into the original sources and examine the claim made by the Union of India.  The below note summarizes our findings.

1. padma purANa is one of the eighteen main purANas, a mahApurANa of vaiShNava category, and is listed as second in that list. It is also counted among the six of this list that are considered to be of predominantly sAttvika content (the other five being viShNu, nArada, bhAgavat, garuDa and vArAha). This purANa comprises of fifty-five-thousand shloka-s and is therefore one of the lengthiest.  There are four main recensions of this purANa available. The most commonly found is the northern one in devanAgarI, and is widely printed and circulated by several publishers like Geeta Press Gorakhpur etc. The other major recension is from the southern sources, and an 1883 edition of Vishvanath Narayan Mandalika printed from Pune in the Anandashram Sanskrit Series in four volumes represents this recension. Another edition from the southern recensions, primarily from certain karNATaka and Andhra manuscripts is edited by Kshemaraj Srikrishnadas Shreshthin and printed from Mumbai. Finally, another primary recension with quite a lot of differences and of fair antiquity is the eastern recension available in Bengali script. The most complete version of this being the manuscript preserved in the National Library Kolkata, while two other manuscripts are available in the Asiatic Society of Kolkata and these display quite some differences with other recensions and slight differences with each other as well.

2. The arrangement of sections in this purANa itself and their sequencing is a matter of difference between these different recensions. The eastern one has six khaNDa-s in the following order: i) sR^iShTi-khaNDa ii) bhUmi-khaNDa iii) swarga-khaNDa iv) pAtAla-khaNDa v) uttara-khaNDa, and vi) kR^iyA-yoga-sAra. The VN Mandalika edition has a different list and sequence: i) Adima-khaNDa ii) bhUmi-khaNDa iii) bramha-khaNDa iv) pAtAla-khaNDa v) sR^iShTi-khaNDa, and vi) uttara-khaNDa. In the second southern recension the Kshemaraj edition, chapters are similar to the eastern version, but after sR^iShTi and bhUmi khANDa are arranged bramha-khaNDa, pAtAla-khaNDa and uttara-khaNDa omitting as it would seem the swarga-khaNDa. However a closer examination would show that the swarga-khaNDa of one recension is in reality what has been split into two independent khaNDa-s by the others: the Adim-khaNDa and bramha-khaNDa. kR^iyA-yoga-sAra likewise is but an appendix in the uttara-khaNDa as well. With that said, the most common book-arrangement appears to be the one mentioned in the eastern recension minus the kR^iyA-yoga-sAra as a separate book.

3. The dating of padma purANa, like many other scriptures is a matter of debates, but most scholars now agree for this to go back at least as far back as the 4th century of CE. We are of the opinion that it might be dating back ever earlier than this, but as it does not concern us for the present purpose, we shall skip that discussion.

4. We should however mention in the passing that some of the contents of the padma-purANa, interestingly but not surprisingly, have been used as the base matter for some major classical saMskR^ita literature. The primary references used by the legendary kAlidAsa in his works, has been a subject of intense research. Haradatta Sarma has convincingly demonstrated that while composing raghuvaMshaM, kAlidAsa should have relied upon padma purANa more than on vAlmIki’s rAmAyaNa for the itihAsa-content. [1] Likewise, ample research now shows that kAlidAsa should have also had the benefit of referring to this purANa, more than the mahAbhArata, for the skeletal story behind his masterpiece abhij~nAna shAkuntalam.

5. ‘padma purANa’ is also the title of an important jaina saMskR^ita scripture, written by jaina scholar AchArya raviSheNa in the 6-7th century of the CE, adaptation/recension of which are found in prAkR^ita as ‘pauma-chariya’ by vimalasUri and in apabhraMsha tongue as ‘pauma-chariu’ by swayaMbhU. The subject matter of all of these jaina texts is the legend of rAma whom they have revered here as padma. There are some intriguing similarities between rAma’s story in the padma purANa of vyAsa (the one of our focus in this note), and the padma-purANa of jaina recension, including the peculiar coincidences in the flow of the narrative, in spite of the huge differences they display in the specifics. However we shall leave it for future to explore this connection between the jaina and hindu padma-purANa-s further.

6. The story of rAma finds an important coverage in the padma purANa, and occurs in two different books: the sR^iShTi-khaNDa as well as pAtAla-khaNDa. rAma-setu finds narration in both of these books as well. The story is generally the same as in vAlmIki’s rAmAyaNa but differs dramatically in the details. pAtAla khaNDa provides a very unique story about how the vAnara senA crossed the sea and reached the coast of laMkA. In some recensions of the sR^iShTi-khaNDa, rAma is described to be trifurcating the setu on request from vibhIShaNa. The text is generally the same in the referred recensions and editions, ignoring some scribal mistakes, and in one particular devanAgarI recension this mention is missing altogether.

7. pAtAla-khaNDa, contains one hundred and seventeen chapters and among these is a lengthy section titled shiva-rAghava-saMvAda spanning over several chapters and containing a dialog between rAma and mahAdeva. The 116th chapter of this section is known as purAkalpIya-rAmAyaNa-kathanaM and contains jAmbavanta’s narration of the rAmAyaNa’s events. In this section is this strikingly unique description of the enterprise of crossing the sea by the vAnara senA:

{(219) Now, I am going to relate (to you) the efforts (made) towards crossing the sea. (220) Then rAma said, I would worship Lord shaMkara and appeal to him about our predicament, and then we shall do as guided by him. Saying this, he started praying to mahAdeva. (221 is a beautiful hymn containing several names of maheshwara, which rAma uttered to invoke him). (222, 223) mahAdeva then appeared to rAma with all his attributes. (224) rAma saluted mahAdeva with joined palms and prayed to him again in the daNDavata posture. (225) parameshvara then addressed rAma promising him the desired boons. (226) rAma replied to mahAdeva: ‘O shambhu, only give us the means to cross this sea so that we may reach laMkA’. (227) (hearing this,) shambhu then answered: ‘This is my bow ajagavaM. It immediately takes any shape as desired (by its wielder). Take this and climbing through it you can overcome the sea and reach laMkA’. (228- Then intent upon this course, rAma invoked that ajagavaM, (229) and when the bow appeared, rAma worshipped it. (230) Shiva then handed it over to rAma, (231) and rAma threw the bow across the ocean. (232) rAma, lakShamaNa and the entire senA of as numerous vAnara-s as six-parArdha [2] fulfilled their objective (of crossing the ocean) by climbing that bow. (233) Seeing those vAnara-s approaching the shore though the bow, (234) and alarmed by the force of the vAnara-s, a rAkShasa coast-guard by the name of atikAya immediately approached rAvaNa.}

Besides this particularly striking description, there is no further mention of the rAma setu in pAtAla-khaNDa.

8. Earlier in the sR^iShTi-khaNDa, is this another unique mention of rAma setu in the fortieth chapter known as vAmanapratiShThA (in some recension thirty-fifth chapter, and in some missing altogether). The background of the mention is that after winning the war at laMkA and fulfilling his objectives there, rAma is readying to return back to ayodhyA along with his entourage by using the puShpaka vimAna offered by vibhIShaNa. Before departing, rAma has entrusted the rAkShasa kingdom to vibhIShaNa and when insisted by vibhIShaNa, he has given him instructions about conducting the empire and some interesting orders to recover and restore a certain mUrti-s of vaiShnavI and of vAmana which were commissioned earlier by bali the great dAnava emperor. In this context is the following dialog recorded between vibhIShaNa and rAma in the vAmanapratiShThA chaper of the sR^iShTi-khaNDa the first book of the padma-purANa:

{(130) Hearing this from rAghava, vibhIShaNa responded to him. ‘All that you have ordered shall be obediently executed, O rAghava. (131) (However,) O Lord, this sacred setu of yours could be used by all the people of the world to approach (into laMkA) and therefore should be obstructed. (132) What control do I have in this matter O deva, but this is a need of mine.’ Hearing these words uttered by the best rAkShasa, The Scion of Raghu (133) took in his hands the missile kArmukaM, and breached the setu in the middle at two places over a length of ten yojana, (134) therefore dividing it into three parts with a one-yojana gap on the either side. Then approaching the shore-forest, he worshipped mahAdeva the Lord of umA. (135) There he established The Three- Eyed mahAdeva by the name of rAmeshwara. rAma, the Great Prince then prohibited the God sAgara, (136) that the Southern Sea should neither thunder there, nor flow across. Issuing his prohibitions this way, rAma then sent off the God sAgara. From the sky then emitted the following AkAshavANI. (137) Spoke rudra: O rAghava, you have auspiciously established me here. O Brave One, so far as the worlds remain, so far as the earth is intact, (138- till then I shall reside myself at the Setu, O Scion of Raghu! Hearing these nectar-like words uttered by mahAdeva himself, rAghava the Hero then spoke in these intelligent and sweetest words. (rAma humbly salutes devadeva and sings a hymn in his praise which spans over shloka-s 139 to 147. shloka 148 is a comment by sage pulatsya in praise to this hymn. In shloka-s 149-151, rudra speaks again, praising the deeds of rAma.) (152) O raghunandana, to this place created by you whichever man comes and even (merely) glances at it in the sea, (153) (even if) he be an extreme sin-fallen, all their sins would get destroyed, O rAma. The wicked crimes as heinous as brAhmaNa-slaying etc., even these (154) would be released here by mere darshana, no doubt.}

9. In conclusion, we can only say that the statement made by the Attorney in the Hon’ble Supreme Court that according to padma purANa: a) rAma “destroyed” the setu; and b) setu can no more be an object of worship; – are both absolutely inaccurate if not downright false.   Very unambiguously, the referred recensions of the padma purANa state that rAma trifurcated the setu for the sake of protecting laMkA, and at the same time he and lord mahAdeva invested spiritual powers into setu as a place of worship forever. Till this word remains, and till the earth is intact – “yAvajjagadidaM, yAvaddharAsthitA” are this purANa-s own exact words.  As to “therefore, nobody has declared it a monument”, since the Attorney is referring to padma purANa, in which lord mahAdeva himself has declared it a unique sacred place of worship, releaser of the sin and crime, and abode of his own – this remains and would remain a sacred monument for Hindus; and Union of India can do little about it.

Notes:
[1] Haradatta Sarma, “Padmapurana And Kalidasa”, Calcutta Oriental Series, 1924.

[2] parArdha is the largest measure of count. One parArdha is measured by number of mortal days in the span of 50 bramha-years (and would equal “one hunderd-thousand-billion” according to mahAbhArata).

References:
1. Scanned pages (# 1028 and 1029) from the southern recension 1 of the purANa, edited by Vishvanath Narayan Mandalika, Anandashram, 1894, Pune.
Anandashram1Anandashram2

2. Scanned pages from the southern recension 2 of the purANa, edited by Khemraj Srikrishna Das Shreshthi, 1867, Sri Venkateshwar Mudranalaya Mumbai.
mumb1mumb2

3. Complete text of sR^iShTi khaNDa of the northern recension, where this reference mentioned in point #8 could not be located: http://is1.mum.edu/vedicreserve/puranas/padma_purana_1srishti.pdf

4. Complete text of the pAtAla khaNDa of the northern recension, in which the section mentioned in the point # 7 can be located: http://is1.mum.edu/vedicreserve/puranas/padma_purana_5patala.pdf

Posted in Culture, Literature | 6 Comments »

Tags:
May 23, 2008

On Hindu Theatrics, bhavabhUti and rAma setu

by Sarvesh K Tiwari

From astronomy to legal system, music to statecraft, linguistics to mathematics, medicine to architecture, metaphysics to politics, and from the art of war to the science of love: apparently not much escaped the ancient Hindus without being committed into the human knowledge in form of the most profound and erudite thesis upon the subject. The world of theatrics and dramatics was no exception. Ancient Hindus evolved a most intricate and detailed theory about performing arts, and centuries before the rest of the world would have any inkling to the subject, they wrote down a complete philosophy of dramatics.

A detailed handbook of drama called nATya shAstra was brought forth by bharatamuni at some ancient point in time, exact dating of which is not known to us today, but speculated by many to be in range of 5th century before the CE to 3rd century after.[1] And even then, it appears to have been built upon the foundation of even earlier works.[2] This elaborate thesis comprising of over six-thousand shloka-s spanning over thirty-seven (or thirty-six [3]) chapters, covers every aspect of theatrics in its finest details – from the nature of the script and costumes to the language of the dialogs, the kind of music to be played and the lyrics, the qualities of and the do-s and don’t-s for the actors, guidelines for the directors, recommendations on the shape and size of the stage and the auditorium, duration of the play, recommended number of acts in a play, when should the play be performed… and a lot more.

Dramatics was obviously an important part of life in Hindu society not only for its entertainment value, but also as a major instrument of public education and means of social discourse for the entire society. bharatamuni explains in nATya shAstra, that the very purpose for which drama was invented (or descended from bramhA as he says) was public education, and especially to provide the fourth varNa and women access to learning and knowledge. [4] (this would of course fly in the face of those mlechCha Indologists and their Indian protégés, who insist that performance of drama in Hindu society was limited to the exclusive elite audiences with knowledge of saMskR^ita. [5])

Springing from the solid bedrock of this profound theory of theatrics, countless plays were produced and enacted in the public theaters of India over centuries, and demand of drama by the society was met with nourishing and plentiful supply from a galaxy of several brilliant play-writers… shUdraka, danDI, kAlidAsa, bhAsa, harSha, bhavabhUti… to name a few.

Let us turn to bhavabhUti, who occupies a unique place in the world of the Hindu drama, even though the number of plays written by him is miniscule compared to the works of other literati of his time. Despite being small in volume, bhavabhUti’s plays stand out for a remarkable finesse of language; and indeed as some of the best examples of the eloquence in the spoken-saMskR^ita, so much so that there is probably no writer who came up to bhavabhUti in his wonderful command of saMskR^ita, its fluency and elevation of diction. His plays also stand out for representing a careful balance of all the rasa-s, including interestingly his liking for the genre of bhayankara one – horror – which is otherwise generally ignored by the other dramatists. bhavabhUti followed the established framework and norms set forth by the nATya-shAstra of bharatamuni, even as he experimented with many a novel techniques of language and alaMkAra-s.

He was born in the 8th century vidarbha, in the house of nIlakaNTha udumbara, a taittirIya kAshyapa brAhmaNa – to these details he himself attests. His given name was shrIkanTha, and he went on to became a genius play-writer as a protégé of the king yashovarman who ruled from kannauj between CE 725 and 752.

Now, as we mentioned earlier, the very philosophy of Hindu nATya was to not only provide a cheerful and jolly entertainment to public on occasions but also depict rich ethical values and learning. To achieve this, many dramatists built their themes upon the prevailing social traditions and popular tales, with which audiences were already familiar, drawing often from mahAbhArata, purANa-s, rAmAyaNa, and particularly from the latter.

bhavabhUti was no exception. bhavabhUti, like kAlidAsa before him, chose to render in drama the popular saga of rAmayaNa. Of the three known works of bhavabhUti, mAlatI-mAdhava is a fictitious romantic love story mired in royal intrigues, while the remaining two – uttara-rAma-charita (“the story of rAma’s later life”) and mahAvIra-charita (“the story of the highly courageous one”) – are the dramatic narratives of the life of rAma.

This also reflects how popular the saga of rAmAyaNa must have been, back in bhavabhUti’s time as much as earlier during the time of vAlmIki, or as popular it is amid the Hindus of present time too. On the popularity of the saga of rAmAyaNa, swAmI vivekAnanda had aptly commented: “Rama, the ancient idol of the heroic ages, the embodiment of truth, of morality, the ideal son, the ideal husband, the ideal father, and above all, the ideal king… and what to speak of Sita? All our mythology may vanish, even our Vedas may depart, and our Sanskrit language may vanish for ever, but so long as there will be five Hindus living here, even if only speaking the most vulgar patois, there will be the story of Sita present.” [6]

bhavabhUti’s dramatic narratives of rAma’s life, while not straying too far from the main storyline of vAlmIki rAmAyaNa, still make clever innovations of format, to make the script suitable for the requirements of theatrics and an effective staging before audiences.

One good example of this is how bhavabhUti presents the episode of setu-bandhana in his play mahAvIra-charita. Unlike vAlmIki who could afford to describe that complex tale in a direct narration, bhavabhUti is obviously concerned more about the effective staging of the scene in a theater. And the original format, as in vAlmiki’s narration, would make it very challenging for the play-director to present that scene before audiences. Imagine the trouble to the director in depicting a scene involving a large number of actors in vAnara’s role carrying large rocks throwing into a thundering ocean… and the bridge progressively coming about… and army then crossing over, and so on.

Therefore, to the directors rescue, bhavabhUti makes use of a clever literary work-around. He presents the story of setu construction to the audiences not directly, but through a dialog between rAvaNa and his noble wife mandodarI. In this episode which occurs in the sixth act of mahAvIra-charita, mandodarI would narrate the tale of setu-construction to her husband.

Let us now turn to how he presents the script of this scene, and may be, enjoy with our imagination how more than a millennium back this scene would have been enjoyed the then audiences.

~.~
(Picture a stage with a background depicting a palace-balcony overseeing the lush gardens, and rAvaNa standing in the center, apparently lost in thoughts of how to win over the sItA’s heart.)

Entry of mandodarI with a maid.

Maid (speaking in prAkR^ita): Here, Queen, here is the silver staircase for you to climb.

Mandodari (climbing the stairs while looking at rAvaNa, addressing audiences in prAkR^ita):
Why! Isn’t that our Ten-Headed Emperor himself! (then looking more directly at him as she reaches closer – ) Alas! Why does he gaze towards ashoka vATikA!! (now with sorrow in her voice – ) Why! Even during the times of invasions by enemy, does Emperor remain indifferent like this? (finally reaching near rAvaNa, addresses him – ) Victory to the Ten-Headed Emperor! jedu jedu mahArA.a dasakandharo!!

rAvaNa (as if fixing his posture): Why! mandodarI? (and sits down to the left)

mandodari (also sits down): mahArAj, what did you decide?

rAvaNa: about what?

mandodari: About the enemy army’s invasion.

rAvaNa (with sarcastic surprise): Why! Enemy! enemy’s army!! Invasion by enemy’s army!!! All the strange stuff you tell me today devi!

(changes tone for this ode: – )
That me — who in battlefield could hold two enraged elephants with two hands —
and then with the other four, block the dikpatI-s coming from all the four directions —
Mighty blows of indra’s vajra etc. were only good enough to leave slight bruises upon the skin of whose chest —
that me — now has got some enemy! Surely, an amusing thing I hear today!
(back to normal tone) so be it! Let us hear that too devi, say, who is that?

mandodarI: Followed by all the vAnara-s, marching ahead of sugrIva, matched in step by his younger brother, that son of dasharatha — rAma — so I hear.

RavaNa: a mendicant with a younger brother, devi!! So, what to speak of him! he would have gone away by now.

mandodari: Emperor! Better to be careful from this group. and there is more –
Encamping on the sea coast, rAma invoked sea-God. When he did not turn up – then –
(falling back to saMskR^ita, sings this ode -)
He then deployed certain prayoga-s of weapons, by which, in less than half a moment –
Entire water started revolving in a vortex, and also turned as red as blood –
The alligators began to fall unconscious, and the shells of tortoises started rupturing-
All creatures indeed of the ocean became unconscious, conch shells started exploding with thundering sounds.

rAvaNa (indignantly): So what?

mandodari (back to prAkR^ita): Emperor! After that, hounded by the arrows of rAma, Sea-God came forth from the waters, and falling to the shelter of rAma’s feet, told Him the path of how to cross over the ocean. And I hear further, that the Courageous One has even got that path constructed.

rAvaNa (quipping sarcastically): Very well! Let us then also hear devi, how is that path constructed!!

mandodari: Emperor! They are constructing a bridge by using the mountains brought by thousands of vAnara-s.

rAvaNa: devi, you have been conned by someone! This ocean knows no limits. The mountains found in the entire continent of jambU, and even those of all other continents too, would surely not be able to fill even a part of this ocean!!

Besides, by calling him brave and courageous you make a misjudgment about our own courage! Careless about the streams of blood flowing from the veins of our severed heads – nay! – smiling with the eyes filled with the tears of joy – had we performed our offering of our heads at the feet of Lord shiva. He, who pleased with us had accepted such our offering, that Lord Shiva himself is witness to our courage!!!”

mandodari: Emperor! Please do not dismiss this without paying a serious thought. This construction of setu is a unique event! By the earlier puNya-s of a certain vAnara, it seems even the stones are floating at the surface of the water!!!

rAvaNa (shaking his head in denial): To this stupidity of women – that stones can float over water – what can be said!!! What more to say devi than this:

(sings this ode — )
about our knowledge of scriptures, knows bhamhA himself, the propagator of vedA-s,
about our command, knows indra himself, the commander of Gods,
about our strength, knows vajra, and about our glory the whole world,
about our power knows mount kailAsha; and what is more —
about our courage knows none other than shiva Himself —
whose holy feet we had lavishly washed with our own blood!

(thundering sounds from the background)

mandodari: Emperor! Protection! Protection! (acts to be terrified, looks at him in fear)

rAvaNa: devi! Fear is baseless.

===(In the background, chorus makes more clear noises this time that inform the audience that rAma-lakshamaNa with sugrIva’s army have arrived at the gates of laMkA.)===

As the curtains would fall in a few more dialogs and the scene comes to an end, imagine now a vidUShaka probably appearing in front of the crowds to entertain them with his antics, amid the applause (or booing) from the audience. Behind the curtains the manager and his staff would get busy to hurriedly re-arrange the stage for the next scene – which happens to be a scene of a council meeting in the court of rAvaNa. That discussion should be of good interest to war-historians, since it provides many hints about how garrison was managed in event of a siege in near-abouts of 7-8th century India. The scene also provides many a details about prevailing social customs and etiquettes – sugrIva is mentioned walking behind rAma, while lakshamaNa is mentioned walking by his side; mandodarI’s extremely respectful conduct of an argument without really being argumentative with rAvaNa, and so on.

One would also easily notice that the characters of mandodarI and the maid are speaking in prAkR^ita, while rAvaNa responds in saMskR^ita. Therefore, the bilingual dialog is a significant hint that not only the characters but also audiences understand both the languages. Also notice, how mandodarI falls back to saMskR^ita at times, particularly to sing the odes, and then such transitions between the two tongues are sudden yet perfectly natural.

To understand this intriguing yet interesting usage of saMskR^ita-prAkR^ita bi-lingual dialog, we need not go any farther than nATya shAstra itself, in which bharatamuni spends one complete chapter upon the nature of language to be used in the dialogs. In the seventeenth chapter known as bhAShA-lakshaNaM, he describes in intricate details how prAkR^ita must be utilized along with saMskR^ita in the drama. Here in fact, he begins by describing the details of prAkR^ita tongue, and explains the forms of root words and etymology by examples. It is here, that he lays down the thumb-rule about choice of tongues for different characters.

By default, saMskR^ita is to be used for higher and medium types of characters, whereas minor characters should speak prAkR^ita. However, even for the higher and medium ones, if a character is illiterate, “intoxicated by prosperity”, “depraved in mind with poverty”, he should be assigned dialogs in prAkR^ita. Likewise, for those in disguise, jaina ascetics, children, persons possessed by evil spirits, ladies, men of feminine qualities, low-lives, intoxicated ones – for these the language should be prAkR^ita. saMskRita on the other hand is appropriate for sannyAsI-s, bauddha monks, and brAhmaNa-s of ukSha and shrotriya varieties. [7]

Therefore, bhavabhUti is following this edict of nATya shAstra, when he makes mandodarI speak in prAkR^ita. But then why does he make her switch occasionally to saMskR^ita as well?

The answer is, he does so to follow another finer edict of nATya shAstra. That is explained explicitly by bharata muni, that the queens, courtesans and female artistes should speak in devavANI depending upon the situation, particularly when describing something of a technical subject matter such as war, politics, diplomacy, or astrology etc. So, we know why mandodarI switched occasionally to saMskR^ita, when talking to rAvaNa about enemy’s invasion.

To conclude our note, let us finally turn again to rAma setu which is mentioned at one more place by bhavabhUti in mahAvIra-charita. In the seventh act, this scene is about rAma, sItAdevI and lakshamaNa returning back to ayodhyA from laMkA in the pushpaka vimAna. sItAdevI gets the aerial view of rAma setu and in her amazement, she inquires her brother-in-law about it as follows:

सीता : जो अम्हाणं जेट्ठससुरेहिं किदनिम्माणो त्ति वुड्ढपरंपराए सुणीअदी। एदस्य मज्झेवि किं एदं दूरप्पसारिदं धवलंसुअं विअ अहिणवतिणच्छण्णासु भूमिसु दीसइ।
sItA (in prAkR^ita): I have heard that ancient tradition, that this massive flood in ocean came into existence by efforts of our Great-Grand Fathers-in-law. [8] Now, even in the heart of that ocean, what is that thing, which is shining as if a bright strip of cloth spread over greenery?

लक्षमणः : देवि!
सोत्साहं धृतशासनैः सकुतुकैवृक्षौकसां नायकैः
दिक्पर्यंतधराधरेन्द्रशिखराण्यानाय्य निर्मापितः।
कल्पांतावधिवन्दनीयमहिमा लोकस्य सेतुर्नवः
कीर्तिस्तम्भ इवायमार्यचरितस्याम्भोनिधौ लक्ष्यते ॥

lakshamaNa: devi!
That, which was constructed by those great vAnara heroes cheerfully —
By bringing the rocks from the great mountains in all the directions —
That new Bridge whose fame is to remain till the last day of this universe —
Behold that! that Pillar of the Glory of our Arya!

Now imagine the approving applauses from the audience while would fill up the theatre in the eighth century India.
~.~

Notes

[1] Manmohan Ghosh dates him to 5th century BCE. AB Keith dates him to 200s of the CE.

[2] pANini, the great grammarian of the sixth century BCE, records in aShTAdhyAyI that shilAli and kR^ishashva compiled naT-sUtra-s : पाराशर्यशिलालिभ्या भिक्षुनटसूत्रयोः(aShT.4.3.110). Unfortunately this compendium is not found so far. bharatamuni himself acknowledges the earlier AchArya-s of dramatics, mentioning them by name: shilAli, kR^ishashva, dhUrtila, shANDilya, vAtsya, kohala and sadAshiva. Further, abhinavagupta mentions padmabhU as another earlier AchArya, and dhana~njaya mentions drohiNI and vyAsa too to have been pre-bharat masters of theatrics. — quoted from ‘Bhavbhuti ki kratiyo ka Natyasastriya vivechan’ by Ashok kumar Dubey, 1999, Allahabad University Press.

[3] “Whether there are thirty-six chapters in the nATya shAstra or thirty-seven – This debate has been going on since long time. Even in the twelfth century, the great savant AchArya abhinavagupta too was burdened with this dilemma. In his commentary on nATyashAstra, known as abhinavabhAratI, he writes in the preface that, ‘I begin now commentary upon the thirty-six chaptered nATya shAstra.” However in the end of his commentary he says, ‘Thus completes the thirty-seventh chapter’. Today there are two versions of manuscripts of nATya shAstra: one containing the thirty-six and the other thirty-seven chapters”. — quoted from Hindi book ‘bharat aur unakA nATyashAstra’, Braj Ballabh Mishra, 1988, Publisher: Uttar Madhya Kshetra Samskritik Kendra, CSPSingh Marg Allahabad.

[4] नेमे वेदा यतः श्राव्याः स्त्रीशूद्राद्यासु जातिषु। वेदमन्यत्ततः स्रक्ष्ये सर्वश्रव्यंतु पंचमं॥
धर्म्यमर्थ्यं यशस्यंच सोपदेश्यं ससंग्रहं। भविश्यतश्च लोकस्य सर्वकर्मानुदर्शकं॥ (nATyashAstra 1.14)
bharatamuni narrates that the drama descended from bramhA as a fifth veda, just like the earlier four veda-s descended from Him. However unlike the rest of the four veda-s, study of which was denied to the women and shUdra-s, the very purpose of the fifth one – nATya – was for being of utility to everyone, including especially these sections, for education and instruction into the right ways of dharma, besides spreading happiness, enjoyment and merriment in the society.

[5] Professor Horace Wilson, ‘The Dramatic System of the Hindu’, 1830s: “The Hindu Theatre is distinguished from every other by a most remarkable peculiarity ; it is not in the vernacular tongue ! … The explanation of this peculiarity is to be found in the constitution of Hindu society — not only the highest offices of the state, but the highest branches of literature, being reserved for the privileged tribes, or Brahmans. … The Brahmans in the boxes had it all to themselves; and some even of them may have had no great share of Sanscrit. Even among them, as Prof Wilson says, but a small portion could have followed the expressions of the actors so as to have felt their full force, and the plays of the Hindus must therefore have been exceedingly deficient in theatrical effect.”

[6] Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda

[7] Dr. S. Kalyanaraman has considered nATya shAstra an important source of historic information on Indic linguistic studies. Commenting upon this subject of bharata-recommended choices for language, he writes: “While discussing the choice of Samskr.ta and Prakr.ta, Bharata notes that Sanskrit should not be employed to those (characters) who are intoxicated by prosperity, depravd in mind with poverty and those who are illiterate even though they belong to the uttama type. (Abhinavagupta gives the example of Arjuna in the disguise of Br.hannala_ for the last type). For those who enter in disguise, Jaina monks, mendicants and wandering ascetics, the Prakr.t language may be employed. So also for children, persons affected by evil spirits, ladies, those possessing feminine qualities, persons of low characters, intoxicated ones and mendicants who professed religious marks, the language should be Prakr.t. (18.38-39). Wandering ascetics, sages, Buddhist monks, uks.as (consecrated Brahmins), s’rotriyas (learned Brahmins) and those who wear religious marks should be assigned the Sanskrit language. For the queen (consecrated as Maha_devi_), courtesans, female artistes, Sanskrit should be employed depending upon the situation. The queen is expected to know the connotation of words relating to matters of alliance, martial preparation, the auspicious or inauspicious movements of planets and stars and the notes of birds foreboding good or bad omens. Hence she should be assigned the language of Sanskrit on the appropriate occasions. (18.40-43). Bharata then goes on to enumerate others such as courtesans who should use Sanskrit, cestial nymphs who come down to earth who should use Prakr.t” (Dr. Kalyanaraman refers to the chapter 17 of NS as lakshaAAlankArAdivivekaH and chapter 18 as bhAShAvidhAnaM. However, in the version of NS that I have access to, chapter 17 is titled bhAShAlakShaNaM and chapter 18 as dasharUpanirUpaNaM. shloka # mentioned by him also differ in my version.)

[8] sItA here refers to the ancient paurAnika tradition of king sagara and his many descendants having undertaken the enterprise of bringing mighty river ga^ngA to the plains of jambUdvIpa. BhAgIratha, his worthy descendant, at last succeeded in this endeavor. ga^ngA eventually merged with the ocean at the place known as ga^ngA-sAgara (in bay of bengal). The traditions says that this way king sagara and his descendants caused “another sea”. (affected a water level rise in sea?) As rAma descends from the lineage of that king sagara, sItA is referring to those ancient kings as jeTTha-sasure (jyeShTha shvashuraiH) – senior fathers-in law.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Original text of this scene from mahAvIra-charita :

ततः प्रविशंति मन्दोदरि चेट्टी च।

चेट्टी: इदो भट्टिणी एदं अ राआसोअवाणमग्गदुआरअम।

मन्दोदरी (सोपानं नाटयित्वा, रावणं निरूप्य) : कहं एसो महाराअ दसकन्धरो उवट्ठिदो वट्ठदि। (निर्वर्ण्य) कहं असअवणिआसम्मुहंपुलोएदि। (सखेदं) कहं इरिसे वि रिउवक्खा हिओए संवुत्ते राअकज्जाणवेक्खो लक्खीअदि महाराअदसकन्धरो त्ति। (उपसृत्य) जेदु जेदु महाराअदसकन्धरो!!

रावणः (आकार संवरण नाटयित्वा) : कथं मन्दोदरी (इति पार्श्वे समुपवेशयति)

मन्दोदरी (ततः कृत्वा): महाराअ किं एत्थ चिन्दिदम?

रावणः : कुत्र?

मन्दोदरी: रिउवक्खाहिओए

रावणः (सोत्प्रासं) : कथं रिपुस्तत्पक्षस्तदभियोगश्च एत्यश्रुतं श्रव्यते देव्या!
योहं द्वाभ्यां भुजाभ्यां मृधभुवि युगपन्मत्तदिग्दंतिदंतान
रुद्ध्वा दोर्भिश्चतुर्भिः सरभसमजितान्दिक्पतिइनप्यरौत्सम।
दीव्यद्वजादिचण्डप्रहरणपतनक्षुण्णवक्षस्त्वचो मे
तस्यापि प्रातिभाट्याद्रिपुरिति कलितः कोप्यपूर्वः प्रमादः॥
भवतु। तथापि श्रोतव्यं देवी स कः?

मन्दोदरी: णिखिवलमुक्कणुगददसुग्गीवाग्गेसरो सहकणिट्टो दासरही रामो त्ति सुणीअदि

रावणः : किं सहानुजस्तापसः? देवि! किं गतेन तेन तैर्वा सः?

मन्दोदरी: महाराअ! समुदाओ क्खु संकीअदी। अवरं अ साअरवेलासु सेणां विणिवेसिअ आहूदो णेण साअरो ण णिग्गदो भवणादो त्ति । तदा तु!
(संस्कृतमाश्रित्य)
प्रायुंग्तास्त्रं स किंचिज्जलनिधिकुहरे यन्महिम्ना क्षणार्धा-
दावृत्यावृत्त्य चक्रभ्रममखिलमभूत्काथतः शोणमम्भः।
उन्मूर्छन्नकचक्रं झटिति परिदलत्कच्छपौधं प्रमुह्यद-
भूयः पाथोमनुष्यः स्फुटदतुलरवं प्रस्फुटच्छंखशुक्ति॥

रावणः (सावज्ञं) : किं ततः?

मन्दोदरी: महाराअ! तदो अ पुंखमेत्तपेक्खिज्जमाणतिक्खसरणिअरपह्मलिदसरीरेण णिक्कमिअ सलिलादो सवादवडणं अव्भत्थिअमग्गो उवदिट्ठो। साहसिएण उण तेण साहिज्जवित्ती सुणीअदि।

रावणः (सहासं) : अस्तु श्रूयते। देवि! कीदृशः?

मन्दोदरी: महाराअ! वलीमुहासहस्साणीदेहि महीहरेहिं सेदू णिम्मीअदि।

रावणः : देवि! विप्रलब्धासि केनचित! अकलितगाम्भीर्यमहिमाकिलायं पाथोनाथः।

जम्बुद्वीपे-थवान्येषु द्वीपेष्वपि महीधराः।

यावंतस्तैः कुक्षिकोणो-प्यस्य न भ्रियते किल॥

अपि च – साहसिकेनेति वदंत्या देव्या विस्मृतप्रायम। मत्साहसेतु उत्पुष्यद्गलधमनिस्फुटप्रसपैत्प्रत्यग्रक्षतझरोनिवृत्तपाद्यः।

हर्षाश्रुप्रचुरमधुस्मितस्फुटश्रीवक्वाब्जाचिंतचरणः शिवः प्रमाणम॥

मन्दोदरी: महाराअ! ओधारेहि किं वि अन्णारिसी रअणा कस्स व विलीमुहस्स हत्थपुण्णदो उवरि ज्जेव चिट्ठिन्दि ते महीधरा जलम्मि त्ति।

रावणः (सशिरःकम्पम) :

इदं तदप्रतीकार्य मौग्धमबलानां यद्ब्रावाणोपि प्लवंत इति। देवि! किं बहुनोक्तेन?

श्रुतं मे जानाति श्रुतिकविरथाज्ञां सहचरः

स शच्या धैर्यं चाशनिरथ यशोदस्त्रिभुवनम ।

बलं कैलासाद्रिः किमपरमहो साहसमपि

क्षरत्कीलालाम्भःस्नपितचरणः खण्डपरशुः ॥

(नेपथ्ये महान कलकलः )

मन्दोदरी: महाराअ! परित्ताहि परित्ताहि! (इति सत्रासमुदीक्षते)

रावणः : देवि! अलं शंकया।

~.~

Posted in Commentary, Culture, Literature | Leave a Comment »

Tags: , ,
  |   Newer Entries »
Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started