Words Speak Louder Than Actions: Oral Fixation in the Ramayana

I am actually facilitating the discussion next class, and am not sure if I should do a blog. I was thinking to post my thoughts afterwards, or perhaps prepare a hand-out. Since I will reserve most of my comments on the primary text until then, I would like to comment here only on the Vasudha Narayanan essay. In “The Ramayana in the Theology and Experience of the Srivaishnava Community: The Poetry of the Alvars and the Commentaries of Periyavaccan Pillai” (originally appeared in the Journal of Vaisnava Studies, vol 2, no 4, Fall 1994; accessed from http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/ramayana/ on January 21, 2008) she writes that “we see (for the first time in Tamil literature) poets actually participating in the story of Rama by identifying themselves as, and then talking in the guise of, various characters in the epic…” I find this interesting insofar as it may offer insight into how these poets might have related to VŒlm´ki himself. Obviously, VŒlm´ki, too, enters into his work. Could this have been viewed by these poets as a literary convention instead of an actual event? If not, why else could these poets be so comfortable entering their work? Perhaps this can be construed as an technique in alignment with rasa theory: These poets themselves embody the mood of their work while performing since they actually partake in it. I find this interesting albeit tangential.

Also, Narayanan writes that Periyavaccan Pillai was among the first Srivaisnava theologians to “emphasize the analogy between Sita and the human soul...[serving as] the ultimate mediator and in fact, (almost) equal to Visnu himself”. This is interesting in considering the relationship between RŒma, S´tŒ and RŒma’s “purpose” throughout the epic. For example, RŒma first discovers S´tŒ while on a journey with his guru, away from home. This is similar to the need for a teacher in order to discover one’s “soul”, instead of finding the proper instruction at home. Also, most of his time getting to know S´tŒ occurs while he is a forest-dweller, away from society. This, too, is congruent with the notion that ascetic life brings one closer to one’s soul. Furhter, when RŒma initially loses S´tŒ, in the forest, he demonstrates a moment of highly uncharacteristic behavior, filled with anger, despair, etc. RŒma is “beside himself”. He ultimately fulfills his cosmic purpose in slaying the demon RŒvaöa, whereby he regains his soul-mate, S´tŒ. This may be taken as allegorical for the human struggle to overcome one’s evil aspects in order to recapture one’s own divine nature, as symbolized by S´tŒ.

Actually, while I have your attention, I think I will explore one of the themes I plan to include in my presentation – I call it the “orality motif”. I find Sheldon Pollock’s thoughts on the matter quite insightful. 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 argues:

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.


Interestingly, NŒrada, upon fist recounting the career of RŒma toVŒlm´ki, 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). However, despite, this one reference to writing, the epic overtly privileges orality. For example, in the primary text we read that VŒlm´ki’s poetic cry ensues upon hearing the cry of a krau–cha-hen, a cry of helplessness while her mate was being murdered. It was not just any helpless animal that was killed. It was not, for example, a silent animal, like a rabbit or a deer, either of which would be equally vulnerable in that situation. It was a vocal animal which was killed, and not simply one capable of sound - for example, a hyena, or fox – but one capable of aesthetic sound. These birds are often referred to as “sweet-voiced” throughout the work. The sight of her murdered mate causes grief in the krau–cha hen, which causes a cry to ensue. Her experience thereby parallels VŒlm´ki’s, who, upon witnessing the same hateful act, is moved by the force of his compassion. to produce a poetic utterance, one just as spontaneous as the wail of the krau–cha-hen. The krau–cha’s sound is born of §oka, i.e. grief; so, too, is VŒlm´ki’ poetry. The choice of animal for me, speaks to the ‘orality’ with which the epic is infused. I hope to explore this motif with further examples in my presentation.

Thanks for reading,
Raj