Seeing beyond all the 300 masks... (Ramayana Debate)
Translated from the Kannada Prabha article by Shri. Shatavadhani R Ganesh
Evidently Vimalasuri, who inspired the Jain Ramayana, lived in the 3rd century CE. Given this fact, if its contended that Vimalasuri's version has inspired Valmiki, its like saying that Valmiki is more recent than Kalidasa. Now, various other verbal and written versions of the Ramayana that appeared in several regional languages cannot be the inspiration to Valmiki as their creation does not go beyond the 8th or 9th century CE. Not only that, traditional research on languages and styles show that the verbal versions of the Ramayana in the regional languages cannot be older than 500 years, however lenient we are to the timeline. In such a scenario, what can we suggest was the inspiration to Valmiki? It may be said that the folk versions of Sanskrit or several other languages before Valmiki might have inspired him. Even if we agree to this, then where are these versions now? What has happened to them? If saying that the proofs have vanished with time, the counter-proofs might have also existed to disprove them. We may argue that the counter-proofs also vanished with time. Hence, we need to debate with facts and proofs available with us now and not with something unavailable presently. Its like somebody saying that the eggs used to make omelets gave birth to chickens which grew older and increased the population of the fowls to over a thousand!
Everybody is also aware that every Indian literature on Ramayana, including the Kamban's Tamil version of the Ramayana, have declared that they mainly owe it to Valmiki's version. Various literary greats of Sanskrit like Kalidasa, Bhavabhooti, Bhoja, Rajashekara, Kaviraja and works of Kuvempu in Kannada and other modern writers are proofs to this (Samples of original statements can be quoted, however due to space constraints they cannot be provided). Hence, what can be the background of the statement that Ramayana has 300 versions?
Actually, the object for such a clamor is neither educational nor research but a different doctrine. The obstinacy of the leftist school of thought can be found here. When they want to reject something, they first reject it entirely. But when they are promptly countered on facts, they change the topic of debate to facilitate their 'Change of grounds' ploy and keep reappearing as if their sole objective is to reject any finding that counter their views. Inspite of their constant change of grounds, if prompt and relative proofs in traditional authoritative texts are provided, they counter it with the 'no authoritativeness; nothing called as ancient; things existed anyhow during different periods' card. They do not need any study materials or any proofs for their viewpoints or knowledge. But they need all kinds of proofs for the facts that counter them. That is the irony. As in the case of 'Hit and Run', the traditional plan they have disciplined is to 'Spit and run'.
Earlier, people involved in the comparative study of 'Indo-European Languages' were unable to digest the antiquity of Sanskrit, created a false mother-tongue called as 'Proto-Indo-European Language' and became a butt of ridicule, which is almost forgotten now. An example of such double-standards have also crept in here. Hadn't one of our Jnanpith awardee recently 'ordered' us that 'Kauravas were the heroes and the Pandavas the villians in the original Mahabharata and that it has been tampered with by people recently'? Even this argument has been quashed and rejected by scholars. Interested people can read the book 'On the meaning of the Mahabharata' by V.S.Sukthankar. Presently Ramayana is in a similar state.
People who have read the Baroda edition of Ramayana, edited along with all the other versions, by G.K.Bhat and the writings of authoritative scholars of Ramayana like V.Raghavan, K.R.Srinivasa Iyengar, K.Krishnamurthy and others will understand the weakness of A.K.Ramanujan's deliberations. Not only that, people with little scientific temper will deem this debate as ludicrous. In the scholarly world, bawling without proofs in the name of 'freedom of expression' is not only humourous but also dangerous. One cannot understand whether to laugh or cry when Dr.Jayanti Manohar, who has no such ideology or background, writes a lucid article which portrays as if she has used her scholarship of Ramayana in support of A.K.Ramanujan's knowledge.
The life and times of a world famous king was made into a immortal poem by a immensely talented poet. This is how he became our 'Original Poet(Adi Kavi)' of a language with a literary tradition which is older to our nation. Kalidasa has used the word 'poet' alternatively to Valmiki's name. This has been accepted by even the most recent poets. Such a world famous poem has been used appropriately for their enjoyment or benefit by scholars and commoners who have been attracted to it. They have also helped it grow. This can be compared to a box-office hit that gets dubbed or remade into several languages as per ones requirement. One need not be boggled at this as a incommensurate comparison. There is no doubt that Ramayana is a medium of expression that accrues for various traditions and their mundane procedures.
Therefore for Jains who refused to get Ravana killed by Rama, Buddhists who never got Sita kidnapped, Vedantis who instructed Advaitha to Rama, Vishitadvaitis who portray Vibhishana's submissiveness, Dvaitis who portray Hanuman as the Brahma of the future, Shaktas who got ten-headed Ravana killed by Sita, hardcore Shaivas who deny that Rama was a incarnation of Vishnu and recently the so-called 'Intellectuals' who demur Ramayana itself as though its inappropriate, only to become famous, and similar ideologues had to fallback on Ramayana. It is indeed ironic that Brahma's words to Valmiki, 'परम् कविनामाधाराम्', is turning out to be true in its antonymous form.
Comments