The Morality of Orality: A Marrage between the Ascetic and Aesthetic elements of the Ramayana

Dr. Ajay Rao
RLG3762: Religion and Aesthetics in South Asia
Rajesh Balkaran, 990242439
Wednesday, January 19, 2008


The Morality of Orality:
A marriage of the ascetic and the aesthetic elements of Valmiki's Ramayana


Close Reading and Analysis of Canto 2-4, “The Creation of Poetry” of VŒlm´ki’s RŒmŒyana, Book One: Boyhood (BŒlakŒö¶a). Tr Robert P. Goldman. New York University Press: New York, 2005. pp 29-61.

INTRODUCTION:

- I thoroughly enjoyed the reading; I found it rich with imagery, imagery which I would like to explore in this discussion.

- As you know, MA project is based in VŒl´ki’s RŒmŒyaöa’s, with particular interest in tension between kingship and asceticism, between worldly authority and spiritual authority, between social values and possible “universal” values.

- In my own readings of the text for my work, I had paid particular attention to RŒma’s decision to renounce the world and accept exile into the wilderness on the very day of his coronation. As such, I had not previously attempted a close reading of the epic’s inaugural cantos, however, having done so for this week’s reading, I find the “ascetic” motif quite prevalent. The ascetic “motif” is the first of three which I hope to explore in my analysis of the selection. The others motifs are “purity”, “orality”, all of which, I hope to demonstrate, are intimately, if not indistinguishably intertwined.


MOTIF I: ASCETICISM

- The ascetic motif is evident from the very onset of the epic. It begins with the great sage, VŒlmik´, who in the first 6 verses of Canto 1, pose a question, to NŒrada. Narada, too, is a great ascetic figure. The question itself is quite philosophical and reflexive in nature: the first sake asks the second about human virtues, specifically wondering who among them possess virtues in abundance.
-
- NŒrada names RŒma as one befitting VŒlm´ki’s query, and lists several virtues of the hero-King. The very first of several qualities listed was “self-controlled” (1.1.8) which is clearly the mark of a sage, or at least one quite sage-like.

- So we have a work crafted by a sage, inspired by another sage, about a third, a hero King, who is remarkably sage-like, and indeed spends much of his like in exile. RŒma actually fulfills his cosmic purpose while in exile, as a quasi-ascetic, not as a full-fledged King.

- Returning to the work itself, as we learn from this week’s reading, once composed, the students/performers of the epic are Lava and Kusha. As you may recall, they originally arrive at VŒlm´ki’s ashram “in the guise of sages” (4.3, p 57). Of coursem as we know, they are in fact princes. This is strangely similar to the fate of their father who was made to renounce his own royal garments when he was a prince. This parallels well embodies the tension between royalty and renunciation.

- We are also told that Lava and Kusha, once they learned the poem, sang it “with single-minded concentration before assemblies of seers [¨·i], bhramans [dvijŒt´], and good men [sŒdhu]” (4.19 p 59). Single-mindedness, too, tends to be associable with the self-control which NŒrada says of RŒma. The mind is often depicted as a chariot led by five horses, the five sensed, and this compelled to travel in various directions. Only when one controls the horses does the mind become single-pointed, and this is, more or less, the aim of the ascetic, to control the senses, and to attain single-pointed-ness of mind. So, Lava and Kusha are not only sage-like in their delivery of the poem, but they in fact deliver it before a group of sages. So we have a work composed by a sage, VŒlm´ki, inspired by sage, NŒrada, about a sage-like King, RŒma, first performed by sage-like twins before and audience of sages. It is no wonder that Lava and Kusha are given a bark-cloth mantle as a reward to performing to poem so well (4.19 p 59). They are also give a water-pot, but I wish to comment on this in more detail when I arrive at my discussion of the theme of purity.

- Ironically, the kingship-asceticism tension is covertly articulated by RŒma himself, the first royal audience to receive the work. He remarks that despite the fact that “…these two sages, Kusha and Lava, are great ascetics, they bear all the marks of kings” (4.26, p 61). Are they kings in the clothing of sages, or are they sages in the bodies of kings? Interestingly, they “earned” their ascetic garb through their profound performance of the RŒmŒyana itself.

- I offer these thoughts on the predominance of asceticism in the work more as a backdrop for peripheral digestions. What I wish to draw your attention to is a topic which I think well resonates with asceticism: and this is purity.


MOTIF II: PURITY

- Notions Purity and Pollution are a topic which at once pervade South Asian thought, culture, narrative, etc., and evade scholars and practitioners alike. What is purity? What is pollution? We could easily spend the class discussion this issue, but I don’t want to get bogged down with a definition at this point, since I wish only here to inspire free-range discussion, rather than the development of caged definitions. Much like the term “religion”, who knows what it means? Then again, who doesn’t know what religion means? In a broad sense, I use purity to denote that which is religiously or ‘spiritually’ beneficial as opposed to pollution, which is religiously or spiritually debasing. In this manner, purity and pollution, dealing with the psycho-spiritual realm appear to be the domain of the ascetic rather than the king, yet appear to be sought after, and necessary, in the society as well as beyond. A king needs to be consecrated, and this consecration requires ritual purity. RŒma is not merely an example of justice, virtue, good conduct, etc., he is an example of purity. He himself has lived the life od ascetic simplicity, subsisting on roots, nuts, fruit etc., denying his desires, cultivating a grounded, composed, pure self. As such, the very recounting of his life and deeds is treated as a purifying process.

- The qualities and deeds of RŒma are summarized by NŒrada who informs VŒlm´ki that that “Whoever reads this history of Rama, which is purifying, destructive of sin, holy, and equal to the Vedas, is freed from all sins.” (2.77-80, p 41) The epic itself is not only an embodiment of purity, but also an instrument thereof. It’s recitation may be considered a ritual whereby the participants are purified.

- This notion of “being free from all sins” reminds me of the common-held belief that, upon bathing in the Ganges, the sincere spiritual aspirant would be purged of all sins, past, present, and future. One need not even be at the river, but the water thereof is thought to be pure. Hence, water form the Ganges is often used in ritual within and without India.

- The river itself mirrors the epic in that it is an embodiment of purity, and an instrument thereof. The river’s water is pure, and it can make you pure. Rivers in general are considered ritually pure, and in my opinion it is no coincidence that poetry itself, which is construed here to have a purifying effect, began in a river.

- The water in which VŒlm´ki bathes is described as a “lovely bathing spot, free from mud.” The loveliness of the water is constituted by its absence of mud. By entension, it’s purity is secured by its absence of pollution. The presence of mud would have signified the presence of pollution, which would have compromised the purity of the bathing spot, and would have rendered it “less lovely”, and certainly less fit for a bath, for the sake of both hygiene, but more so for the sake of a ritual bath.

- We are told that the waters are “lucid as the mind of a good man” (2.5, p 45). The purity of the water appears to correlate to the lucidity of VŒkm´k´ in the following fashion: poetry is born of his experience in the water, poetry, therefore, emerges, like a lotus, from the water, but not without the agency of the poet’s lucid mind. His clarity of thought and perception mirror the clarity of the water: neither are muddied by pollution.

- We are told that VŒlm´ki was preparing to take a ritual bath “his senses tightly controlled” (2.9, p45). This ascetic quality mirrors the self-control of RŒma which NŒrada’s account so readily celebrates. He, as a sage, and as a sage he is an embodiment of purity. He is the diametrical opposite to the ni·Œda (hunter) who is described as “filled with malice and intend on mischief”. (2.10, p 45). The hunter’s senses run amok such that he is driven to harming another creature. Here, he is an embodiment of pollution, and thus an appropriate foil for VŒlm´ki in this scene. VŒlm´ki’s name is actually derived from a legend where, while deep in meditation, he allowed ants to build an anthill around his very body. The sage-like detachment, equanimity and self-control he demonstrates is starkly contrast for the hunter’s malicious slaughter of a harmless creature. The sage’s commitment to self-controlled and ahiµsŒ is so that he even refrains from even from protecting his very body from an army of ants. The hunter, however, is so deluded by anger, jealousy, etc., that he senselessly harms a peaceful creature who is no threat to him whatsoever. Thus, their natures well-demonstrate the distinction between purity and pollution.

- Interestingly, VŒlm´ki is never described as possessing anger towards the ni·Œda. The text reads (1.2.13-14. p47): “Then, in the intensity of this feeling of compassion, the Brahman thought, ‘This is wrong’”. This is not an emotional, angry, hateful outburst, rather, but an almost reflective moral evaluation rendered by the “lucid-minded” VŒlm´ki.

- Although the sage’s bathing-spot appears free from mud, and thus pure, upon original inspection, pollution eventually arrives in the form of the hunter. However, poetry, both pure and purifying, is born of this pollution, like the lotus flower, emerging from mud. The lotus is not only beautiful, but it is pure. So, too, the epic not merely fosters an aesthetic function, but a religious one.

- As Goldman writes in his introductory essay, “The RŒmŒyaöa was meant to be heard at gatherings, to be chanted like liturgy – a poem that, early in its history, promises its audience not only aesthetic rapture but salvation” (Goldman 23)

- RŒma himself says, “it is said that the profound tale they tell is highly beneficial, even for me. Listen to it” (4.27, p 61). So the virtuous and pure RŒma conveniently extols the virtuous and purifying effects of the recitation his own virtuous and pure acts, effects form which he himself may benefit! Clearly there is a dimension to this work of art which purports to transcend the understood scope of aesthetic influence, traversing well into the realm of the spiritual and/or religious.

- Poetry is portrayed in the reading as a remarkably religious phenomenon. Interestingly we have here an account of its creation, which is no less mythical and supernatural than any religious account of creation. The creation of the creative process hereby aligns with a religious understanding of the creation of the universe itself, as a product of divine intervention/inspiration. The creative process itself is an act of creation, especially here where it is first being created.

- Poetry comes into being not by just any individual, but by a sage of great attainment and insight. Ascetic affinity apparently mirrors Aesthetic affinity in this setting. The creativity in this aesthetic process was not a product of the sage’s own lucidity, but also a function of his attainment. He is granted a vision by Brahma, the creator god, who reveals that he was chosen as Brahma’s instrument. Only a bona fide ascetic would be granted such an honor.

- As Brahma says, “This is shloka that you have composed. You needn’t be perplexed about this. Brahman, it was by my will alone that you produced this elegant speech” (2.29-2.30 p49). This is the first mention of Brahma in the text and one may wonder, why now? And why him, and not another god? Why not Vi·öu, especially given the avatŒr subplot? Would Vi·öu not be best suited to reveal the events of his own incarnation? It is Brahma, because he is the the creator god, and is responsible for all creation, including the creation of poetry. Creativity is an aspect of Divinity, so the aesthetic experience is necessarily religious to some degree.

- Poetry is a result of divine agency. Yet, still, Brahma does not create poetry independent from VŒlm´ki. He rather, elicits the aid of the sage’s who must ‘experience’ emotion in order to execute Brahma’s creation. Poetry is a peculiar result of both human and divine agency. Emotional experience becomes aesthetic experience, which is subsumed somehow under religious experience.

- Not only does Brahma dictate the style of the work, i.e., metered verse, but it is through the god’s blessing which grants the sage access to RŒma’s life events. The god is very much responsible for the epic’s very plot. The work – from style to content to aesthetic experience is hereby portrayed as a manifestation of the divine, albeit through human experience. The divine agency helps us understand the extent to which the work’s salvific dimension.

- Upon authorizing VŒlm´ki to compose the entire story of RŒma, Brahma declares:

As long as the mountains and rivers shall endure upon the earth,
so long will the story of the RŒmŒyaöa be told among men.
And as long as long as the story of RŒma you composed is told,
so long will you live in my worlds above and below.
(2.35-2.36 p 49)

- Immortality/salvation is hereby guaranteed by the following logic: the poem will live at least as long as the mountains and rivers, which, presumably is for all time, or at least all earthly time. Also, VŒlm´ki will exist as long as the poem does, thereby gaining immortality. But is this merely about the sage’s immortality, and not ours? There is another element here: for the poem to be told among men, men must exist! So, in reciting the poem, we, too, benefit from Brahma’s prophetic benediction in a roundabout way.

- It is noteworthy to consider that rivers are considered purifying, so both of these sources of purity are intertwined, and potentially play off of each other.
- The theme of purity may also be examined through the inclusion of the “water-pot”. For a modern secular readership, a “water-pot” would have little significance, but the kala§a is actually laden with associations of ritual purity. It is often a vessel of purified water, and plays a role even in modern day rituals. In my experience, there is often a segment of the ritual known as the kala§a sthŒpana, or establishment of the water-pot whereby said water-pot is consecrated, or sanctified, or made ritually pure, and worthy of veneration.

- VŒlm´ki asks Bharadvaja to set down his water jar (kala§a) and give him his bark robe just prior to entering the water. These two items represent both asceticism (the garment is made essentially of forest-material) and purity. The jar is presumable empty at this point, although the text does not specify (2.9, p45). The kala§a, is again mentioned, (2.20), after VŒlm´ki completes his ritual bath, this time the text indicates that it is “brimming” with water from the river. Initially, the pre-ritual pot is an empty vessel in the hands of the students, carrying neither water nor purity. The teacher them takes ownership of the pot, consecrating it and its contents in his ritual bath – a bath which coincides with the birth of poetry, rendering him doubly “purified” at its conclusion. He hands it back to his student full – physically, and ritually – ready to be taken back to the ashram. A kala§a is again mentioned (at 4.19 p 59) where it serves as a gift from sage to Lava and Kusha. It is the payment for their delivery of the moving epic. Given the poem’s purifying qualities as discussed above, it appears to be a fair exchange: one agent of purity, the pot, given in exchange for another agent of purity, the epic performance.

- There is an intriguing relationship here between poetry, purification, and performance. Poetry and Water are both agents of purity, yet ‘water’ is the source of both Poetry and Purity in this case. The kala§a symbolizes the presence of purity, hence it is brimming full upon completion of the sage’s ritual. It then appears as part of another very different process of purification, imitated by the twins’ performance of the Ramayana. There seems to be two performances here, ritual and poetic, ascetic and aesthetic, each serving as embodiments of purity and agents of purification. What is their commonaltiy? I would argue that their commonality is the third Motif of the discussion: Orality.

- So, why then, is recitation of the RŒmŒyaöa, or any kŒvya so purifying? According to Sheldon Pollock, “there is no tension between the ritual and grammatical meaning of saµsk¨ta” (46). If the language itself – it’s very grammar – is codified to retain ritual purity, then the only application of the language which would compromise that purity are those which violate that grammar, which the epics certainly do not. Both ritual performance and aesthetic performance are equally purifying because they are performance of Sanskrit, a language well-made for the transmission of purity.

- Orality is needed for purity. (water demonstration)

- The following is a purification mantra which invokes the sanctity of rivers:
oµ gaºge ca jamune caiva godŒvari sarasvati /
narmade sindhu kŒveri jale ‘smin sannidhiµ kuru
the water in the kala§a is purified by the ‘waters’ of these rivers via mantra, via SOUND.

- The following is a common purification mantra which is used in conjucbntion with the sprinking of water, but makes no mention of water specifically. It basically says that ‘purity’ and ‘polution’ reside in all things, but he who remembers the lotus-eyed lord (vi·öu) shall be clean
oµ apavitraú pavitro vŒ sarvŒvasthŒµ gato ‘pi vŒ /
yaú smaret puö¶ar´kŒk·aµ sa bŒhyŒbhyantaraú §uciú


- In like manner, one can recite a §loka from the epic to be used as a mantra, e.g., Brahma’s blessing (2.35 – 2.36 p 49)
- yŒvat sthŒsyanti girayaú sarita§ ca mah´tale
yŒvad rŒmŒyaöakathŒ loke·u pracari·yati
yŒvad rŒmasya ca kathŒ tvatk¨tŒ pracari·yati
tŒvad èrdhvam adha§ ca tvaµ malloke·u nivatsyasi


MOTIF III: ORALITY

- Pollock dates the epic at no earlier than the mid 3rd century B.C.E., only after the invention of writing. In the second chapter (p78), “Literature and the Cosmopolitan Language of Literature”, of his book, The Language of Gods in the World of Men, he cleverly argues that:

The carefully constructed image of a purely oral culture in the prelude – a text unquestionably dated later that the main body of the work – cannot mean what it literally says. When VŒlm´ki is shown to compose his poem after meditating and to transmit it orally to two young singers, who learn and perform it exactly as he taught it to them, we are being given not a realistic depiction, but a sentimental “fiction of written culture”…for it clearly cognizes orality as such from outside orality, so to speak, in a way impossible to do in a world ignorant of any alternative – ignorant, that is, of writing.


- The qualities and deeds of RŒma are summarized by NŒrada who brings VŒlm´ki up to speed on RŒma’s current situation, he declares that “Whoever reads this history of Rama, which is purifying, destructive of sin, holy, and equal to the Vedas, is freed from all sins.” (2.77-80, p 41)

- in places where “the majority of the audience has always been illiterate, public recitation has played a vital role in the dissemination of sacred literature” (Philip Lutgendorf, The “Great Sacrifice” of RŒmŒyaöa Recitations: Ritual Performance of the RŒmacaritmŒnas, p186)

- However, the oral, acoustic dimension is undeniable. Goldman writes that “…the translator of Sanskrit epic poetry has to conform the inevitable loss of the kin-aesthetic effect this poetry – intended to be sung to the accompaniment of musical instruments – had upon it’s original audience” (Goldman 23).

- Upon uttering the primordial §loka, VŒlm´ki declares that, “fixed in metrical quarters, eahcin with a like number of syllables, and fit for the accompaniment of stringed and percussive instruments, the utterance that I produced in this access of §oka should be called §loka, poetry, and nothing else” (1.2.17, p 47). There seems to be an excessive emphasis on the fact that this was meant to be performed with musical accompaniment.

- VŒlm´ki’s poetic cry ensues upon hearing the cry of the bird. It was not just any animal that was killed. It was not, for example, a silent animal, like a rabbit or a deer, either of which would be equally helpless and timid. It was a vocal animal which was killed, and one not simply one capable of sound, e.g., a hyena, or fox, it was one capable of aesthetic sound. These birds are often referred to as sweet-voiced.

- The krau–cha hen utters a cry at the sight of her murdered mate. The sight causes grief which causes an utterance. She therefore parallels VŒlm´ki in that fashion which, upon witnessing the hateful act is moved to a poetic utterance by force of his compassion. This is necessarily an oral experience. The krau–cha’s sound is born of grief just as VŒlm´ki’§loka is born of §oka, i.e. grief.

- This ties into the notion of a rasa being also experienced on the tongue. The “mood” of the composition is not associated with a texture (relating to touch), an aroma (relating to scent), a sound, relating to (hearing), or a sight (relating to vision). After all, these art forms are received by the eyes and ears, but the only sense associated is the only sense associated with the mouth, reinforcing the oral motif.

- The murdered krau–cha is described as sweet-voiced (2.27, p 49), and it is for the loss of this sweet-voiced being that VŒlm´ki grieves. From the grief over this loss springs poetry, but poetry which must not be only read silently, or read aloud, or chanted, it must be sung. Lava and Kusha are first introduced as, among other things, sweet-voiced. The text again self-reflexively repeats that it is “sweet both when recited and sung in the three tempos to the seven notes of the scale, and it is eminently suitable for the accompaniment of both stringed and percussive instruments” (4.7 p57).


CONLUSION:

- Sanskrit culture is undeniably an oral culture one, despite, as Pollock asserts, the later trend towards writing.

- Orality fundamental to both ritual performance and aesthetic performance, thereby rendering any divide between aesthetics and religion (in regards to this text) tenuous at best.

- Both performances, ritual and aesthetic, serve to purify, since their common medium, the Sanskrit language, is understood as both an embodiment of purity and as an instrument thereof. Sanskrit is pure, and Sanskrit makes pure. As such, performing a Sanskrit epic is parallel to performing a vedic ritual.


FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS:

- is the orality motif a subset of the purity motif, or is the former the subset of the latter?

- What can we say about non-oral aesthetic performance (e.g., dance) which does not rely on Sanskrit: can it, too, be likened to ritual performance? Does orality play a part in dance as well?