Ramáyana Book I: Boyhood: Ancilliaries

Sarga 1  

Virtually all manuscripts, with the notable exception of the vulgate (Dt), have several verses prior to the first verse of the crit. ed. in praise of Rāma, Hanumān, and especially Vālmīki. The verses are of the nature of later Vaishnava stotras and certainly do not belong to the oldest stratum of the text. The crit. notes, p. 424, tell us that these have been omitted from the crit. ed. on the grounds that they are “not written by Vālmīki.” But many passages of the constituted text, such as the Vaishnava hymn at 6.105, are of this character and are retained on textual grounds, despite the unlikelihood of their having been composed by Vālmīki himself. Indeed, as we have argued in the Introduction, a goal of a critical edition of the Rāmāyaṇa cannot be the recovery of the actual text of the poet. Therefore, these initial verses have been rejected on the grounds of higher criticism against the stated principles of scientific textual criticism adopted by the editors, whose spokesman, Bhatt, specifically denounced this sort of criticism during the early stages of preparing the critical edition (see Bhatt 1960, p. xxxiv). Many of the manuscripts have closely related verses that should be included in the crit. ed. The verses in question in all likelihood, belong to an early version of the poem and, judging by their popularity, are seen as an important part of it.

The decision as to just which verses should be accepted is not so easily made. The readings of N and S are divergent here, and the manuscripts within each of these recensions display many variants. Applying the principles of text criticism as set forth in the introduction to the first volume (p. xxxiv), it would seem most likely that verses 3*,4*,5*, and 6* should precede the first verse of our text. This is the most popular and consistent S reading. Verses 20*,42*,21*,22*,14*, and 15* are also popular S readings but have not been included, since they have inadequate support in the Devanāgarī manuscripts and lack a clear parallel in N. The distribution of 1* and 2* in N seems to indicate that these verses are a substituted passage for S’s 3*-6*. Because of the great variety and divergence among the texts, however, even the southern reading should, in our opinion, be regarded with considerable suspicion. See Peterson 1879, p. 1, who quotes Schlegel’s view on these introductory stanzas. It is interesting that the only textual tradition that consistently excises these verses is Dt, or the text of the southern commentators, The commentators of the vulgate know the verses, but use them as invocatory stanzas to their own commentaries rather than to the poem itself. Cr, discussing Vālmīki’s patronymic, Prācetasa, in reference to 1.1, remarks that verse 5 (and so, by implication, the others) is lavakuśoktiḥ, “the words of Lava and Kuśa,” indicating, it would seem, that the prefatory stanzas were not regarded as part of Vālmīki’s composition, but were thought to form part of the version recited by the rhapsodists. Verses 3*-6*, which we find to have the best textual support of this prefatory material, have, with a number of the others, become quite popular in the sectarian tradition and are often recited at the beginning of even vernacular discourses on the Rāmāyaṇa. Some of them have a considerable charm. Their translation is as follows:

This first sarga of Vālmīki’s Rāmāyaṇa is commonly known as the Saṃkṣipta, or condensed, Rāmāyaṇa and discussed at some length in the Introduction.

.1  

Owing to the great importance attached in the Indian tradition to the beginnings of texts, the first verse of the commentators’ text, which is also the first verse of the crit. ed., has been invested with a significance far exceeding that of its apparent content. The sectarian commentators see in each of its words cryptic references to the poem’s theological import. They apply their enormous learning and considerable ingenuity to bringing out the sectarian significance in apparently straight-forward names and adjectives. Thus, for example, Ct and Cr explain the name of the sage Nārada in terms of an etymology provided in the Nāradīya Purāṇa, whereby it is seen as a compound meaning “destroyer of ignorance” (nāram ajñānaṃ, tad dyati — Ct, Cr). The significance of this name, according to Cr, is that the sage dispels human nescience by making known the story of the lord of Sāketa (Rāma). Similarly, Cr interprets the term tapaḥsvādhyāyaniratam, “devoted to asceticism and vedic study,” in various ways. At first he takes the term tapaḥ simply to mean knowledge and the word svādhyāyaḥ to mean the vedas, particularly the upaniṣadic texts. Subsequently, however, he analyzes the compound differently, taking it as tapaḥ plus sūḥ plus adhyāyaḥ, where tapaḥ means the vedas, sūḥ signifies the source of these texts, or the god Brahmā, and adhyāyaḥ means longing recollection. In this way the word suggests to the pious longing for Brahmā. By further manipulation of this sort, involving derivation of the same word from various verbal roots, the pious scholiast is able to argue that the compound has been used in order to make us understand the supremacy of the great gods Brahmā, Viṣṇu, and Śiva. The commentaries abound in such interpretations, especially in connection with verses thought to have some special significance by virtue of their placement or some other criterion. In general, we regard such exegeses as interesting for the light they shed on the workings of the commentarial mind in traditional India and on the Vaishnava theology of the Rāma cult. They do not, in our opinion, often elucidate the epic text itself. Except for these examples and a few cases (for example, the notes on 1.2.14) where the traditional interpretations are of unusual interest, we have ignored this hermeneutic approach both in the translation and the notes.

Several of the commentators evince considerable interest in the name Vālmīki and the light that it sheds on the poet-sage’s origins and family affiliation. They are especially eager to show that there is no contradiction to be found among the three apparently patronymic epithets that the first and seventh books of the epic apply to the sage, Vālmīki, Bhārgava, and Prācetasa. For a discussion of the problem of Vālmīki’s affiliation, see Goldman 1976, pp. 97-101.

In the N manuscripts, all the adjectives in the verse refer to Vālmīki rather than Nārada. The crit. notes (p. 424) are probably correct in their opinion that this is inappropriate, given the relative status of the two figures, and that the S manuscripts seem to represent the older reading.

For additional discussions of this verse, see crit. notes, pp. 424-25 and Bhandare notes, pp. 1-2.

.2  

“today” sāṃpratam: This is marked in the crit. ed. as a doubtful reading, although the reason is not clear. The N manuscripts read prathitaḥ, “famous,” but there does not appear to be the irresolvable intrarecensional difference that Bhatt sets down as the justification for the use of the wavy line; see Bhatt 1960, p, xxxiv. The critical reading makes Vālmīki a contemporary of Rāma. N is not, despite Bhatt’s note (p. 425), an “improvement” over the reading of S. The case demonstrates the crit. ed.’s recurrent failure to follow the principles upon which it is predicated.

.4  

After 4 (or 4ab-D2), S,Ñ2,V,B,D2,3,5,7,9-13,M4 insert 4 lines [49*] that extend Vālmīki’s question in a similar vein.

.8  

Rāma: This is the first mention of the name of the epic’s hero, and the commentators again comment upon it at length, providing dozens of derivations for the name, ranging from such popular etymologies as the root ram, “to take pleasure” (“He who delights all creatures through his virtues” [Cg]), to elaborate discussions, based on the various monosyllabic and disyllabic words that the scholiasts (especially Cr) can find, after the manner of the Ekākṣarakośa, in the name and charge with theological significance. The first and most common of these derivations is included in the text of several N manuscripts. See 52* (misnumbered in the apparatus) after verse 18b.

Compare the catalog of Rāma’s virtues with that given at 2.1.

.9  

“His neck is like a conch shell” kambugrīvaḥ: The comparison to the shell is based, according to Cr and Cg, upon the presence of three lines, or, apparently, folds of flesh. See Bhandare 1920, p. 5.

.10  

“collarbone is set deep in muscle” gūḍhajatruḥ: The phrase is awkward in English. The compound reads literally, “whose collarbone is hidden.” The commentators generally understand this to mean something like “collarbones hidden because of fleshiness,” gūḍhe māṃsalatvenāprakāśe jatruṇī (Cg), and we have followed them. The idea is that his chest is muscular. See verse 11 below.

.11  

“Dark is his complexion” snigdhavarṇaḥ: As with so many of the epithets found in the epic, the visual reference of this adjective is unclear. Snigdha, literally “oily,” can be understood either as “dark” or as “soft, smooth.” The commentators, themselves indecisive, mention both. However, since Rāma, like Kṛṣṇa, is traditionally depicted in iconography and paintings as dark-complexioned, it seems reasonable, unless we see this tradition as deriving from a later misreading of the term, that this is the intent here. For a discussion of the complexion of Rāma and its traditional contrast with that of Lakṣmaṇa, see Goldman 1980, pp. 153-54 and note 21.

.13  

“subsidiary sciences” vedāṅga—: This is a collective term for the six areas of learning that were considered necessary for the pronunciation and interpretation of the vedas and for the proper employment of the various sacrificial formulae. The six are śikṣā, “pronunciation”; chandas, “prosody”; vyākaraṇa, “grammar”; nirukta, “etymology”; jyotiṣa, “astronomy”; and kalpa, “ritual.”

.15  

“equable in all circumstances” sarvasamaḥ: Ct understands this in two ways: “equal in his treatment of all men” or “unmoved by pleasure or pain.” We have attempted to preserve the ambiguity.

.16  

“The delight of his mother Kausalyā” kausalyānandavardhanaḥ: The phrase is a stock epithet, “the increaser of the joy of Kausalyā.”

.17  

“as mighty as Viṣṇu” viṣṇunā sadrśaḥ: The fact that Rāma is compared to Viṣṇu in this verse is often cited as proof that the author of this section of the epic did not recognize Rāma as an incarnation of Viṣṇu. Despite the arguments of Peterson 1879, p. 2, and Bhandare 1920, p. 7, the reference is suggestive rather than decisive.

The Vaishnava commentators discuss this reference at length. See crit. notes, p. 426.

“fire at the end of time” kālāgni—: The reference is to the destruction of the universe that occurs at the end of the kalpa age (approximately 432 million years). The epic poets frequently use this fire in rhetorical figures to suggest enormous destructive power. Cf. 1.54.28, 1.55.19, and 1.64.9 below.

.19  

This begins the abbreviated story of the Rāmāyaṇa. For a discussion of its contents and their significance for our understanding of the textual history of the Bālakāṇḍa, see the Introduction. Numbers in square brackets below indicate the passages in the body of the crit. ed. that are alluded to in Nārada’s synopsis of the epic tale.

“wished to appoint … Rāma … as prince regent” [2.2].

.20  

“preparations for the consecration” [2.3-6]; “Kaikeyī, who had … been granted a boon” [2.9.4-26, 2.10].

.21  

“Daśaratha was caught in the trap of his own righteousness” [2.12.16]; “had to exile … Rāma” [2.16.21-26].

.22  

“hero entered the forest’ [2.35].

.23  

“Lakṣmaṇa … followed him” [2.28].

.24  

“Sītā … followed … Rāma” [2.24-27].

“as Rohiṇī does the hare-marked moon” śaśinaṃ rohiṇī yathā: Rohiṇī is considered the most favored wife of the moon. In astrology, Rohiṇī is the fourth lunar mansion, which is made up of five stars in the shape of a cart. The spots on the moon are commonly thought to resemble a hare, śaśa.

.25  

“followed far on his way by his father … and the people” paurair anugato dūraṃ pitrā daśarathena ca [2.35-37]: The word dūram, “far,” is strictly applicable only to the populace here. Daśaratha (and Kausalyā) follow Rāma’s chariot only a short way, in one of the most affecting scenes in the epic (2.35.24-38). Cg, noting that the king follows his son only as far as the gates, understands the conjunction ca as indicating the inclusion of a lesser or secondary action (ca śabdo ‘nvācaye).

“he dismissed his charioteer” [2.46.7].

.26  

“on the instructions of Bharadvāja” [2.47]; “they came to Mount Citrakūṭa” [2.50.11ff.].

.27  

“There (they) built a … dwelling … and … lived … happily” [2.50.13ff.].

.28  

“Daśaratha … went to heaven” [2.53].

.29  

“brahmans … urged Bharata to become king” [2.73]; “the hero (Bharata) went to the forest” [2.76].

.30  

“(Rāma) gave his sandals as a token” [2.104.20-25]: for “token,” nyāsam, cf. note on 1.65.8.

.31  

“Bharata … ruled the kingdom from the village of Nandigrāma” [2.107]: Nandigrāma is the village where Bharata lived during the fourteen-year exile of his elder brother, Rāma. It is usually identified with modern Nandagaon, which is situated two miles from modern Ayodhyā.

.32  

Daṇḍaka forest: According to Rām 7.81, the Daṇḍaka forest was situated between the Vindhya and Śaivala mountains. See crit. notes, p. 427 and Law 1954, p. 280.

At 2.108-109 a different reason is given for the departure of Rāma for the Daṇḍaka forest. There the sages, anxious on account of their harassment at the hands of the rākṣasas, urge him to go. This element is mentioned in verse 35.

.33  

The killing of Virādha and the encounters with the named sages are recounted at 3.2-12. Agastya’s brother, whose hermitage the hero visits on the way to that of Agastya himself [3.10.45-70], is never named. The commentators are divided as to his actual identity, Ct and Cr think that he is Idhmavāhana, a character identified as Agastya’s brother in the Mārkaṇḍeyapurāṇa. Cg claims that, according to the Sanatkumārasaṃhitā, Agastya’s brother is named Sudarśana.

.34  

Agastya presents the divine weapons to Rāma at 3.11.29-30. This incident may be the inspiration for the much more elaborate conferral of divine weaponry upon the prince at the hands of Viśvāmitra at 1.26-27.

.35  

“woodland creatures” vanacaraiḥ saha: We have so taken the phrase against Cr, who glosses vanaprasthaiḥ, “forest-dwelling hermits.” The text seems to us to distinguish the vanacaras, the wanderers of the forest, from the seers and sages who people the woods. In any case, the term is more commonly used of tribal peoples and forest creatures than of Aryan sages.

“the seers came to see him about killing the asuras and rākṣasas” [3.1]. See above, note 32.

.36  

“he disfigured the rākṣasa woman Śūrpaṇakhā” [3.16-17].

.37–38  

“Rāma slew … all the rākṣasas sent against him” [3.21-29].

.39  

“Rāvaṇa … chose … Mārīca to assist him” [3.33-34].

.40  

“Mārīca tried to dissuade Rāvaṇa” [3.35-37].

.41  

“Rāvaṇa … paid no heed … and went … to Rāma’s ashram’ [3.38, 40].

.42  

“he lured both sons of the king far away” [3.40-43]; “having slain the vulture Jaṭāyus” [3.48-50]; “he carried off Rāma’s wife” [3.47, 51ff.].

.43  

“(Rāghava found) the vulture dying and (heard) that Maithilī had been abducted” [3.63]; “Rāghava was consumed with grief’ [3.58-59].

.44–45  

“he cremated the vulture Jaṭāyus’ [3.64]; “he met … Kabandha’ [3.65]; “(he) killed … him” [3.66].

.46  

“Kabandha … told him, … ‘go to … Śabarī’ “ [3.69]; “(he) came to Śabarī” [3.70].

.47  

Lake Pampā: B. C. Law identifies Pampā as a tributary of the river Tuṅgabhadrā in western India. According to him it originates in the Ṛṣyamūka hills and is the spot where Hanumān meets Rāma. However, he also acknowledges a lake by this same name, described in the Kiṣkindhākāṇḍa. In the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary, we follow the tradition in considering Pampā a lake.

“he met the monkey Hanumān” [4.3].

.48  

“Rāma met Sugrīva and told him all that had happened” [4.5-6].

.49  

“(Sugrīva) told Rāma the whole story of his feud” [4.8-11].

.50  

“Rāma vowed to kill Vālin” [4.10.27-29].

.51  

“Rāghava kicked the great corpse of Dundubhi’ [4.11.50].

.52  

“he pierced seven sāla trees” [4.12.1-4].

.53  

“(Sugrīva) went with Rāma to … Kiṣkindhā” [4.12.13ff.]: Although it is called a cave here, the crit. notes (p. 427) identify Kiṣkindhā as a “small hamlet situated on the northern bank of the river Tuṅgabhadrā near Anagandi.”

.54  

“(Sugrīva) gave a great roar … Vālin came forth” [4.14].

.55  

“Rāghava .. killed Vālin in battle … and made Sugrīva king” [4.16-25].

.56  

“(Sugrīva) sent (the monkeys) out in all directions” [4.36-42].

.57  

“On the advice of the vulture Sampāti” [4.57-58]: The vulture Sampāti, elder brother of the slain Jaṭāyus, actually advises all the monkeys to continue their search for Sītā. It is the monkey Jāmbavān who exhorts Hanumān to leap over the ocean [4.65].

“Hanumān leaped over the salt sea” [4.66; 5.1].

.58  

“(Hanumān) saw Sītā” [5.13].

.59  

“He gave her a token” [5.34]; “he smashed the gate” [5.39].

.60  

“He killed five generals” [5.41-45]; “he was captured” [5.46].

.61  

“as they would” yadṛcchayā: Usually, “by chance,” we have followed Cg, Ct, Ck, and Cm, who understand it to mean that he went without resistance. However, Cr takes it to mean that he went in order to see Rāvaṇa “of his own accord.” See Bhandare 1920, p. 24.

The verse is awkward since it has no independent verb or participle. Most N manuscripts avoid this, reading instead mamarṣa, “suffered.” Cg construes it with verse 60. The idea of the verse is that, although Hanumān knows that he can escape the bonds, he endures the abuse so that he can be taken to Rāvaṇa. See Bhandare 1920, pp. 23-24, who discusses this verse at length.

“the hero suffered the rākṣasas to bind him” [5.46.37ff.].

.62  

“the … monkey .. burned … the city of Laṅkā” [5.52-53]: The location of Laṅkā has been the subject of much controversy and debate. Such locations as Shri Lanka (Ceylon), Amarakaṇṭaka, Madagascar, Malaya Island, and Australia have all been suggested. See crit. notes, p. 427 and Introduction above.

“(he) returned” [5.56].

.63  

“(Hanumān) told him just what had happened” [5.62.38ff.].

“I have seen Sītā” dṛṣṭā sītā: Although this is a reference to the event described at 5.62.38, the phrasing is evidently borrowed from 5.61.22, where Sugrīva tells Lakṣmaṇa that, on the basis of their behavior in the Madhuvana, the monkeys must have seen Sītā. The commentators are virtually unanimous in their concern with showing that the order of the words here demonstrates Hanumān’s worry lest the use of Sītā’s name cause Rāma anxiety while he awaited the verb (so Ct, Cr, Cg). But although the phrase or a variant of it occurs in several contexts in the Sundara and Yuddha Kāṇḍas, neither the commentators’ text nor any other reported in the critical apparatus has Hanumān deliver just this phrase to Rāma at their first encounter after the former’s successful mission to Laṅkā A few Devanāgarī manuscripts and the texts of Ct and Cr have a half verse in the context of this encounter in which the phrase dṛṣṭā devī is quoted as the monkey’s direct address [1352*], but the exact source of our quotation is unclear.

.64  

“Rāma went … to the seashore” [6.4]; “he made the ocean tremble” [6.14].

.65  

“The ocean … revealed himself” [6.14]; “Rāma had Nala build a bridge” [6.15].

.66  

“(he killed) Rāvaṇa” [6.87-97]; “he consecrated Vibhīṣaṇa” [6.100.8-18]. The crit. ed. is inconsistent in its spelling of the name Vibhīṣaṇa. The name is spelled in this verse with an initial V, but at 1.3.25 and 27 it begins with B. We have adopted the former spelling, as it seems to be the more common and familiar one, used in the vulgate editions and, for the most part, in the Yuddhakāṇḍa of the crit. ed. Also the use of the upasarga “vi” would seem etymologically apposite. See Apte 1959, s.v. vibhīsikā, an etymologically related word used in the Rām. Note, however, that Apte cites the name of the rākṣasa as Bibhīṣaṇa.

.67  

“The three worlds … were delighted” [6.105].

Dt,4,6,8,9,14,S (except M4) (after 66ab); D11,13,M4 (after 66); Ñ2,V4,B,D10,12 (after 68ab); V2,3 (after 69ab) insert 6 lines [107*], in which the fire ordeal of Sītā is described. See crit. notes, pp. 427-28 and Bhatt 1960, p. xxxiv. Despite Bhatt’s arguments, the omission of this passage is questionable.

.68  

“All the gods … worshiped Rāma” [6.105].

.69  

“He … revived the fallen monkeys” [6.120.8-9].

.70  

“He received boons … (and) went to Nandigrāma” [6.110-11].

.70  

“(he) put off the knotted hair of ascetics. Thus did Rāma … recover his kingdom” [6.115-16].

.73  

“Golden Age” kṛtayuge: The first and most perfect of traditional India’s four cosmic eras that make up the recurrent cycles of time.

.74  

Horse Sacrifices: See 7.82-83 for the description of the only such sacrifice Rāma is shown to perform in the epic. See the Introduction for a discussion of the significance of the epic’s treatment of the Horse Sacrifice.

.75  

“four social orders” cāturvarṇyam: Traditionally Indian society is divided into four classes: brahmans, kshatriyas, vaishyas, and shudras, each with its own preordained duties.

.76  

This verse has frequently been cited as evidence that Rāma was not originally considered to be an incarnation of Viṣṇu. See Introduction and Bhandare 1920, p. 29.

After 76, Ś,Ñ(Ñ1 missing),V,B,D5,9-13 insert 5 lines [122*] in which Nārada brings his account to a formal close by recapitulating his premise. Vālmīki then speaks, paraphrasing Nārada’s remark and indicating that he understands that all these virtues are indeed to be attributed to Rāma. The effect of this passage is to bring the dialogue between the two sages to a clearly marked close and thus to sharply separate the closing verses of thesarga and the phalaśruti from the discourse of Nārada.

.77  

This begins the phalaśruti of the Saṃkṣiptarāmāyaṇa. See Introduction.

.79  

In keeping with Hindu tradition, N does not allow the lowly shudras actually to read or recite (paṭh) the Rāmāyaṇa. Several N manuscripts substitute śṛṇvan hi, “hearing.” This prejudice, evidently ignored by the authors of the S passage, is, however, clearly present in the minds of the commentators. Thus Cm glosses the word paṭhan, “reading or reciting,” which applies to all four social classes, as brāhmaṇāc chṛṇvan, “hearing from a brahman,” only in the case of the shudras. See crit. notes, p. 428. Cases such as this are interesting not only for the light they shed on the social history of ancient and medieval India, but for the information they provide about the relationship of the two principal recensions of the text. It would appear that the medieval commentators and the transmitters of N alike are struck by what seems to them a social impropriety and seek to rectify it in the light of their own perceptions of what is correct. This is an excellent example of the quasi-commentarial nature of many N readings and tends to confirm the critical editors’ judgment that S often retains the older readings. Since the reading of N and the interpretation of Cm are later than that of S, they would tend to confirm our notion that the tradition’s conception of the immutability of caste and class function grew more rigid after the period in which the epics were first written.

The closure of this introductory sarga is marked by the shift, in verse 79, of the meter from the basic narrative śloka of 32 syllables to the 44-syllabic upajāti.

.1  

“great … sage” mahāmuniḥ: The crit. ed. marks the nominative ending of mahāmuniḥ as uncertain. Dt,6,8, G2,M read mahāmunim, the accusative singular, and make the term refer to Nārada rather than, as in the text, Vālmīki. This reading appears in some printed versions of the vulgate and is mentioned as a variant by Cg. It is possible that these texts have adopted the accusative because without it there is no explicit object of Vālmīki’s reverence.

.2  

“he took his leave” āpṛṣṭvā: This is marked as a doubtful reading by the crit. ed. As noted in crit. notes, p. 428, Ś,Ñ2,V1-3,B,Dt,1-3,5-10, M3,4 prefer the more regular āpṛcchya. Cg, however, justifies the irregularity, citing Pā 7.1.38. Ct and Cr take the reference to the formalities of leave taking to be illustrative of the formal relationship of master and disciple that has sprung up between the two sages.

.3  

“after a while” muhūrtam: Although the adverb could technically refer to the actions of either sage, Ct,Cr,Cg,Ck, and Cm agree that the term is to be taken as referring to Vālmīki’s actions. The idea is that he hesitated for a moment out of respect for Nārada. Additionally, Cr thinks that the term is to be taken technically as referring to a period of two ghatikās (a total of 48 minutes) and feels that this delay is suggestive of the profound affection in which Vālmīki holds Nārada. An-other possible interpretation is to read muhūrtam adverbially with gate tasmin to mean that it took but a moment for Nārada to reach the heavenly world.

Jāhnavī: See note on 1.42.24.

Tamasā: A tributary of the Ganges on whose banks Vālmīki is said to have had his ashram.

.6  

“water jar … barkcloth robe” kalaśam … valkalam: These two standard accoutrements of the forest-dwelling ascetic are mentioned again in the Bālakāṇḍa in connection with the recitation of the poem. See 1.4.19, where Lava and Kuśa, the first professional singers of the tale, receive these articles as rewards for their performance.

.7  

Note the unusual variant Vālmīka for Vālmīki.

.8  

It is interesting that, after having prepared himself for his ablutions, the sage does not actually bathe until verse 19 below, after his encounter with the Niṣādas Although he is niyatendriya, “one whose senses are tightly controlled,” he becomes distracted by the beauty of the woodlands and begins to wander about. Many manuscripts (S,Ñ2,V,B,D1,2,3,5,7,9,10-13), in full or part, insert two lines [133*], in which the sage immediately performs his ritual bath with its accompanying rites and recitations, in an apparent attempt to remedy this seeming discontinuity. These manuscripts, naturally, omit verse l9ab of our text.

.9  

“Nearby” abhyāśe: According to Cg, this means “near the tīrtha,” whereas Ck and Ct understand “near the forest.”

“inseparable” anapāyinam: Cr and Cg take anapāyinam more strongly to mean “unable to endure even a moment’s separation.” Ck and Ct, however, understand the adjective to mean that the birds are free from any hindrance, danger, or bodily affliction and that it is for this reason that they sing so sweetly.

krauñcas: A type of heron or curlew.

.10  

Niṣāda hunter: Niṣāda, originally the proper name of a tribe, came also to be used as a generic term for any non-aryan tribesman and as such is frequently used to refer to a hunter or fisherman. The term also is applied to outcastes, especially the offspring of a brahman man and a shudra woman. It is uncertain whether or not the word is used in a restricted or generic sense in this passage, but the term clearly has a pejorative connotation. See crit. notes, p. 428, and Masson 1970.

.11  

“writhing” veṣṭamānam: Several N manuscripts and the vulgate read ceṣṭamānam. Burrow 1959, p. 79, in his review of the first fascicle of the crit. ed., argues for the vulgate reading, whereas Bhatt in his notes, p. 429, defends his reading on the grounds that it is the lectio difficilior and, he claims, is supported by parallel usages in the Rām and MBh.

.14  

Vālmīki’s curse of the hapless hunter is one of the most famous and widely known verses in the Sanskrit literature, quoted not only in numerous treatises on poetics and aesthetic theory, but even in great works of literature. See Masson 1969 and Bhavabhūti’s Uttararāmacarita 2.5. Its significance lies less in its inherent poetic value than in the texts statement that it is the very first example of true poetry, an idea that is generally accepted by the tradition. Because of its significance to the poem itself and the tradition of Sanskrit poetry and poetics, the verse has provoked an extensive, elaborate, and even absurd kind of exegesis of the same sort as was discussed in connection with 1.1.1. See crit. notes, p. 431.

.15  

“What is this … ?” kim idam … : Cg, whose interpretation we have followed, takes Vālmīki’s wonder to be a reference to the unprecedented nature of the form that he has created. Ct feels that this is more an expression of shock on the sage’s part, that he, a tranquil ascetic, should so give way to an anger that must destroy the fruits of his austerities. Ct is also struck by the use of the perfect form babhūva to describe the arising of Vālmīki’s thought. The point is that, according to the grammarians, this tense is reserved for distant past events not directly witnessed by the narrator (parokṣabhūtakāle liṭ) Yet Vālmīki is supposed to be the narrator. Ct offers several possible explanations of this seeming anomaly. First he suggests that the use of the perfect is allowable because, although the verse is Vālmīki’s composition, it was intended to be recited by the bards Kuśa and Lava. As an alternative he suggests that the first four sargas of the poem, the upodghāta, are the product of one or another of the sage’s students. This theory is still current, insofar as it is generally agreed by modern scholars that the four introductory sargas are very probably a later addition to the Bālakāṇḍa. For further discussion of this problem, see the Introduction and the note on the invocatory stanzas that, in most manuscripts, precede 1.1.1. Ct closes his discussion of this problem by noting that other scholars reckon that this is Vālmīki’s utterance, but is phrased in such a way as to show that it is a preface to the main poem. All this constitutes an interesting piece of early textual criticism in the traditional manner.

.17  

śloka: Vālmīki names his new creation punningly because of its origin in his grief or śoka. This sort of popular etymology, based on accidental phonological similarity, is well known and extremely popular in the brahmanic tradition. The Bālakāṇḍa is particularly fond of this type of etymology. For other examples, see 1.23.7,8,17-20; 1.28.18; 1.36.7. The particular play on śoka and śloka, repeated at verses 28 and 39 below, also makes a theoretical statement, accepted by later tradition, about the origin and nature of aesthetic experience. According to this view, such experience is deeply rooted in the unconscious emotional life of the person. The point is worth consideration even today.

A śloka consists of four quarters (pādas), each with eight syllables, and is the most common meter of the epic. For a discussion of this and other epic meters, see Hopkins 1901, pp. 191-362, especially pp. 219-61.

.21  

“various other matters” kathāś cānyāś cakāra: The commentators differ somewhat in their conceptions of what these “other matters” (literally, “stories”) are. Cr, with his unrelenting concern with the Rāma cult, takes these stories as those not connected with Rāma; Vālmīki’s meditation is for him concerned with Raghunātha. Cg sees the stories as purāṇic recitations, whereas Ck regards them as conversations conducive to dharma, “righteousness”

.24  

The translation follows Ck and Cg in taking enam to refer to Vālmīki. In this case it is necessary, as Ct notes, to read praṇamya separately from the pronoun, so as not to have the creator of the universe prostrating before a sage,

“welcome offering” arghya—: This is the traditional hospitality offering of brahmanical society. According to a traditional verse, it consists in its full form of eight things: water, milk, the tips of kuśa grass, curds, clarified butter, rice, barley, and mustard seed. See Apte 1957, s.v. arghya. Not infrequently, however, the offering consisted only of water.

.27  

The use of the optative form hanyāt here is unusual and its sense slightly opaque. The translation follows Ct, who sees it simply as an irregular past. Peterson 1879, p. 5, also accepts this. Ck takes the same position, but sees the usage as having a particular semantic value. He says that the optative is used of a past action that the speaker regards with contempt. Cm and Cg take the usage to be śaki liñ, “optative of capacity,” and gloss it as hantuṃ śaknuyāt, that is, “in that he could kill.”

.28  

“he sang” jagau: Cr proposes an optional interpretation of the verse. He suggests that we take the verb jagau as a first person singular, thus making this verse a continuation of the direct address represented by the sage’s thoughts in 27, that is, “Grieving for the krauñca hen, my mind focused within me, I sang this śloka, there, before him, for I was overwhelmed by sorrow.” He deals with the problem of the first person perfect by taking it as the valliṭprayoga, the first person perfect that is allowable if the speaker was intoxicated, maddened, or in some other altered state of consciousness at the time of the action referred to by the verb. In keeping with this interpretation, Cr takes the indeclinable upa, “near,” to refer to the Niṣāda at the time of the utterance of the curse. Ct, whom we have followed, reads the verb as a third person form used by the narrator, and takes upa to refer to the proximity of Brahmā. Cg and Cm regard this particle as an upasarga or preverb irregularly separated from the verb.

.39  

For the pun, see notes to 17 above. Cg and Cm, who mention our reading of śokaḥ, “grief,” as a v.l. of their ślokaḥ, “poetry,” argue — in our opinion correctly — that it is the repetition of the verse on the part of the sage’s students that is responsible for transforming the emotion of sorrow, expressed in Vālmīki’s curse, into something subject to aesthetic apprehension. However, the reading accepted by these commentators is not a good one. Ct attempts to demonstrate the technical features of the karuṇarasa. See note on 1.4.8.

.1  

Before this sarga, N manuscripts (S,Ñ,V,B,D5,10-13) insert an additional and more detailed list of contents which is given at App. 1, No. 1 (303 lines, pp. 401-10). Gorresio’s ed. inserts this added sarga aftersarga 3.

.2  

“the sage sipped water” upaspṛśyodakam: The purificatory sipping of water is a prerequisite to many ritual acts in the Hindu tradition. According to Ct, the sipping of water suggests purification of the body and the mind. Cf. 1.21.10.

darbha grass: A plant with special religious and ceremonial uses.

“through profound meditation” dharmeṇa: The term is quite difficult here. The translation takes its cue from Ct’s “arising from yoga and having the form of the grace of Brahmā.” Cg, Cr, and Cm have similar interpretations. The N manuscripts replace dharmeṇa with the much clearer and simpler kāvyasya. This replacement has the virtue of eliminating the problematic reading while providing an explicit reference for gatim, “means of access,” a reference that we felt it appropriate to provide in any case.

“sought … the means of access to” anveṣate gatim: Although literally this means “sought … the path,” we are in agreement with the vulgate commentators, who understand this as a reference to the events of the Rāmāyaṇa detailed in the following verses. See Raghuvaṃśa 1.4 for a similar use of the term gati.

After 2, Dt,4,6,8,9,14,and S (including the vulgate) insert a well-known passage of 14 lines [154*] in which additional details of the sage’s vision are given. This passage contains a famous verse on the clarity of the poet’s vision (lines 7-8; vulgate 1.3.6) which translates as follows: “Then, deep in his yogic trance, that knower of righteousness saw all that had taken place before as clearly as an āmalaka fruit placed in one’s hand.”

.3  

“Rāma’s birth” [1.7-17, especially sarga 17].

.4  

“various other marvellous stories” nānā citrāḥ kathāś cānyāḥ: This refers to stories that are not directly part of the Rāmacaritam, such as the episodes of the origin of the Ganges (1.34), the birth of Kumāra (1.36), the churning of the ocean (1.44), the penances of Diti (1.46), and so on. These stories are, for the most part, recounted in the first and last books of the Rāmāyaṇa.

“Jānakī’s wedding, and the breaking of the bow” [1.68-72, especially sarga 72 for Sītā’s wedding, and 1.66 for the breaking of the bow]. Notice that the order of events is inverted here.

.5  

“the dispute between the two Rāmas” [1.73-75]; “the virtues of Dāśarathi” [2.2.]; “Rāma’s consecration” [2.3-6]; “Kaikeyī’s wicked nature” [2.7-91.

.6  

“the interruption of the consecration” [2.10-11]; “the banishment of Rāma” [2.16.21-261; “the king’s grief and lamentation, and his departure for the next world” [2.57-78].

.7  

“the dejection of the common people” [2.36, 41]; “their abandonment” [2.41]; “the conversation with the Niṣāda chief” [2.44.9-2.45]; “the return of the charioteer” 12.46.1-45].

“charioteer” sūta: The reference here is to Rāma’s own charioteer, Sumantra.

.8  

“the crossing of the Ganges” [2.46.60-75]; “the meeting with Bharadvāja” [2.47]; “the arrival at Mount Citrakūṭa on the instruction of Bharadvāja” [2.50].

.9  

“the building of and dwelling in a hut” [2.50.13ff.]; “the coming of Bharata” [2.92]; “the propitiation of Rāma” [2.93]; “the funeral libations for his father” [2.95].

.10  

“the consecration of the wonderful sandals” [2.104.20-25]; “the dwelling in Nandigrāma” [2.107] (see note on 1.1.31); “the journey to the Daṇḍaka forest” [3.1] (see note on 1.1.32); “the meeting with Sutīkṣṇa” [3.6-7].

.11  

“the encounter with Anasūyā.” [2.109-111.16]; “her presentation of the ointment” [2.110.12-21]; “the conversation with Śūrpaṇakhā” [3.16-17].

“encounter” samasyām: The usual meaning is “junction, union,” whereas the sense used here of “meeting, encounter” is unusual in the classical language. Bhatt, however, provides a lengthy note (crit. notes, p. 431) demonstrating that there is ample justification fen this latter sense.

After 11ab, Ś,Ñ,V,B,D1-3,5,7,9-13 insert 3 lines (166*) in which the visit to Śarabhaṅga’s ashram, the encounter with Vāsava, the visit to Agastya’s ashram, the departure from Agastya, the meeting with Virādha, and the dwelling in the Pañcavaṭa forest are mentioned.

.12  

“the slaying of Khara and Triśiras” [3.26-29]; “the setting out of Rāvaṇa” [3.33-34]; “the destruction of Mārīca” [3.42]; “the abduction of Vaidehī” [3.47].

.13  

“the lamentation of Rāghava” [3.59]; “the death of the vulture king” [3.48-49]; “the encounter with Kabandha” [3.65-69]; “the arrival at Lake Pampā” [3.71] (see note on 1.1.47).

.14  

“the encounters with Śabarī and Hanumān” [3.70; 4.3]; “the lamentation of great Rāghava” [4.1]; note that the sequence is out of order.

.15  

“the journey to Ṛṣyamūka” [4.4-5]; “the meeting with Sugrīva” [4.4-5]; “the engendering of confidence” [4.4-5]; “the alliance” [4.4-5]; “the battle between Vālin and Sugrīva” [4.12].

.16  

“the slaying of Vālin” [4.16; Vālin dies at 4.22.24]; “the installation of Sugrīva” [4.22]; “the lamentation of Tārā, the agreement” [4.19.20-28; 4.20]; “settling in for the rainy season” [4.27].

“the lamentation of Tārā, the agreement” tārāvilāpasamayam: The compound is rather awkward. Ñ1,B1,4,Dt,4-6,8,11,12,G1, read vilāpaṃ samayaṃ, thus breaking the compound into two separate units. The translation follows Cr and Cg, who read as does the crit ed. and take the word as a copulative compound with a neuter singular ending, or a samāhāradvandva. Samaya, “compact,” could refer to either the agreement to install Sugrīva as king [4.22] or the agreement of Rāma and Lakṣmaṇa to remain on Mt. Prasravaṇa for the rainy season [4.26]. Ck,Ct,Cr, and Cg all understand it to refer to the latter, which seems most probable.

.17  

“the anger of the lion of the Rāghavas” [4.30-35]; “the marshaling of the troops” [4.36]; “their being dispatched in all directions, and the description of the earth” [4.39-42].

.18  

“the giving of the ring” [4.43.10-16]; “the discovery of Riksha’s cave” [4.49]; “the fast until death” [4.52-54]; “the encounter with Sampāti” [4.55-62].

.19  

“the ascent of the mountain” [4.66.31ff.]; “the leap over the ocean” [5.1]; “the entry into Laṅkā by night” [5.2.46ff.] (see note on 1.1.62); “the solitary deliberations” [5.2.24-45]. The crit. ed. omits several of the other deeds of Hanumān, noted chiefly in the S manuscripts. See 175* (1 line), 176* (1 line), and 177* (1 line).

.20  

“the arrival at the drinking ground” [5.9]; “the view of the women’s quarters” [5.7]; “the arrival at the aśoka grove” [5.12]; “the meeting with Sītā” [5.13-38].

.21  

“the giving of the token of recognition” [5.34.1-5]; “Sītā’s speech” [5-35.41-68]; “the threats of the rākṣasa women” [5.22]; “the dream-vision of Trijaṭā” [5.25.4-25].

.22  

“Sītā’s giving of the jewel” [5.36.10ff.]; “the breaking of the trees” [5.39]; “the flight of the rākṣasa women” [5.40.1-11]; “the slaughter of the servants” [5.40.31-36].

.23  

“the capture of Vāyu’s son” [5.46.17ff.]; “the wailing at the burning of Laṅkā” [5.52.1-5]; “the return leap” [5.55]; “the seizure of the mead” [5.59.7-60]. “the wailing at the burning of Laṅkā” laṅkādāhābhigarjanam: The identity of those wailing or roaring is unspecified, and the commentators are divided on the issue. Ct and Cr understand Hanumān as the subject, whereas Cg thinks that it is the crying of the rākṣasas. Cr understands the compound as optionally a copulative: “the burning of Laṅkā and the wailing.”

.24  

“the consolation of Rāghava” [5.62.25ff.]; “the presentation of the jewel” [5.63]; “the encounter with the ocean” [6.4.65-88]; “the construction of Nala’s bridge” [6.15.8-26].

.25  

“the crossing of the ocean” [6.15.27-33]; “the siege of Laṅkā by night” [6.31-32]; “the alliance with Vibhīṣaṇa” [6.13.1-10].

“his revelation of the means of destruction” vadhopāyanivedanam: This is an obscure reference. Cr takes it to refer to Vibhīṣaṇa’s suggestion that they approach Sāgara, the Ocean, for advice [6.13.13-14]. It could, however, refer to many other incidents. Since it follows directly upon the alliance with Vibhīṣaṇa in the list, Cr’s interpretation seems good.

.26  

“the death of Kumbhakarṇa” [6.55.77-123]; “the slaying of Meghanāda” [6.75-77]; “the destruction of Rāvaṇa’ [6.87-97]; “the recovery of Sītā” [6.101-106].

.27  

“the consecration of Vibhīṣaṇa” [6.100.8-18]; “the acquisition of the chariot Puṣpaka” [6.109.8ff.]; “the journey to Ayodhyā” [6.110.-111]; “the meeting with Bharata” [6.115].

.28  

“the celebration of Rāma’s consecration” [6.116.13-76]; “his dismissal of all his troops” [6.116.74-76]; “his pleasing the kingdom” [6.116.80-90]; “his sending away Vaidehī” [7.46]. Note that this is the only reference to events from the Uttarakāṇḍa.

.29  

“latter portion of this poem” uttare kāvye: Cr and Cg understand this as a reference to the Uttarakāṇḍa, the last book of the epic, whereas Ct and Ck take the word uttara to mean excellent,” that is, “in this excellent poem.”

.1  

After 1, B2 (after 1.14 of App. I, No. 2), Dt,4,6,8,9,14,S (except M4) and Cr,Cm,Cg,Ct insert 2 lines [196*] in which the length of the Rāmāyaṇa is specified: “The seer recited twenty-four thousand ślokas in five hundred sargas making up six kāṇḍas plus the Uttara.” This is, roughly speaking, the extent of the poem in its critical edition. The verse is, as Ck noted centuries ago, and as quoted by Ct, probably a late interpolation and describes the text of the bards who inserted it. It cannot be made the basis of any generalizations about the reconstruction of the “original” poem.

.2  

“the future and final events” sabhaviṣyaṃ … sahottaṛam: The verse suggests Vālmīki’s great and awesome ability to foretell future events through his divine insight. According to Ct, some people consider the future to refer to the events beginning with the abandonment of Sītā, that is, those told in the Uttarakāṇḍa, whereas others think that it refers to events after she enters the earth, that is, after the Horse Sacrifice of Rāma, at which Lava and Kuśa recite the poem. Cg understands uttara to refer to the events following Rāma’s coronation, and bhaviṣya to refer to “the events of the future that are later than (uttara) the Horse Sacrifice.” This seems plausible as, according to the story, the recitation of the poem at Rāma’s sacrifice marks a turning point in its history. See Bhandare 1920, p. 42.

For verses 2-18, Ś,Ñ,V,