Abstract

The western approach to carrying on the legacy of their epic poetry is shaped by the intellectual ideas of the ancient Greek and Roman thinkers like Plato, Aristotle, and Horace. On the other hand, India’s adhyatmic civilization has adopted a different approach to preserving and popularizing the Ramayana and Mahabharata.

Introduction

https://indicportal.orgclassical-indic-literature-iv-epic-poetry/

Note: 'Mahakavya' popularly refer to the select few grand and monumental Sanskrit works of Kalidasa and other great Indian poets, which take their stories from Itihasa, particularly the Ramayana and Mahabharata. For clarity of exposition, hereon 'epic poetry' points to the works composed by renowned western poets like Homer and Milton, while 'Itihasa-Mahakavya' is used to refer to the Valmiki Ramayana and the Veda Vyasa Mahabharata.

The Work of VVS Aiyar

Among the modern commentaries on the Ramayana, a most interesting work to study is that of Sri Varaganeri Venkatesa Subramanya Aiyar’s treatise on Kamban’s Ramavataram.

VVS Aiyar was born in Tiruchirapalli in 1881. His father fought the horrific mass conversions of SC/ST Tamils to Christianity and worked for their return to dharma. A naturally brilliant student and debater, VVS Aiyar became a practicing lawyer at age 20. He traveled to England to seek his fortunes, only to spurn a lucrative career and dedicate himself to India’s freedom struggle against the despotic British Raj. He thrillingly evaded the European police and eventually returned to Pondicherry.  His armed resistance work peaked with his wife joining the dharma yuddham.

His protege Vanchinathan Iyer gave his life at age 25 to end the tyranny of Tirunelveli collector, Ashe in 1911.  In 1917, Gandhi ji convinced VVS Aiyar to switch to unarmed resistance. Thus began some of his key scholarly contributions to dharma. His commentary on Kamba Ramayanam was compiled in just nine months (1921-22) when lodged in the Bellary Central jail for prior revolutionary activities. His mortal sojourn ended in the life-giving Thamirabarani in 1925, trying to rescue his drowning daughter [1]. His life remains an awe-inspiring story of seva to dharma and unflinching patriotism.

VVS Aiyar was fluent in Sanskrit, Tamil, Telugu, English, Greek, and was an acknowledged master of Latin, among other languages. He was well placed to study the primary sources in Indic and Western literature (he mastered French just so he could study Napoleon’s memoirs in the original), appreciate the artistry and skill of these authors, and understand the context of these works [1].  His in-depth response to Western critiques of Indic works and his ability to ‘reverse the gaze’ on western art from his native Indian perspective is a topic of immediate interest with respect to the ongoing global clash of narratives. This post summarizes three findings from his comparative research of epic poetry and our Itihasa-Mahakavyas (Ramayana, in particular). These findings are further explored based on the more recent works of Swadeshi scholars.

VVS Aiyar’s Comparative Research

Kavichakravathi Kamban retained the main storyline of Adikavi Valmiki’s Ramayana and came up with an entirely new Tamil poem in the 9th century. This Personalities article on Kamban published in our daughter portal provides an overview. Kamban’s masterpiece has stood the test of time and has thrived for more than a thousand years now alongside the original poem of Sage Valmiki. We can cite other examples, including the 16th century work of Goswami Tulsidas‘ Ramacharitamanas. On the other hand, western authors followed the European ideal of translating their epic poetry such as Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey in Greek, into other European tongues. Starting from this primary observation, VVS Aiyar traces more differences, examines their impact on the literature produced, and offers insight into the reasons for these disparities:

1. The European dictum of translating poetry is neither necessary nor desirable. It dilutes the essence of the original and fails to capture the imagination of the audience.
   • VVS Aiyar remarks: “this method of popularising the stories revered by the people will appear much better than the western method of literally translating them into poetry. For, the attitude of mind in which the poet has to place himself in the attempt to translate from one language into another acts as a drag upon all his higher faculties, so that even poets of a very high order are failures when they descend to translation on a large scale“.
   • VVS Aiyar also gives a reason for this ‘drag’, noting that even poets of ‘second rank’ in India have had the good sense to stay away from translating poetry: “The mind of the poet is checked in its flight when it is weighted with the thoughts and images of the original which he has to render closely into another language. His mind loses its natural flow and has to substitute for it a simulacrum by all sorts of subterfuges. And the result is a travesty of the original which is not merely below the original, but even below the average quality of the works of the translator himself, as one can see by comparing, for instance, Pope’s Iliad and Odyssey with his other works.“.
2. The “absence of such poems of transcendental merit” in ancient Europe resulted in a multiplicity of fragmented primary works rather than a few central, sacred stories that were retold thereafter for generations in Bharata. This comes across as a crucial difference identified by VVS Aiyar. Inevitably, Europe severed its bonds and abandoned the ancient Greco-Roman religions, and their epic heroes eventually became names that were relevant mostly to the literati. In stark contrast, India’s unbroken civilization from the most ancient of times to this day gives the highest of places to the divine Sita and Rama, who were and are venerated by all sections of the society, and not just the literary classes.
3. VVS Aiyar devotes an entire chapter comparing the Aristotelian/Horatian recommendation of starting the plot ‘In Medias Res‘ versus the naturally unfolding cyclical time/chronological narration (with recursive sub-stories, akin to a forest) followed in our Mahakavyas.

We explore these three points in turn.

1. The Simulacrum and the Ideal

The word ‘simulacrum‘ used by VVS Aiyar here is well-known to students of western philosophy. In the current Indic context, we find this word used by Swadeshi Indology scholar Ravi Joshi in his wonderful exploratory talk at a 2014 WAVES conference [11]:

Day 4 Session 1-Talk 2-Ravi Joshi from Waves Conference on Vimeo.

Ravi ji goes to the roots of duality in western thought that culminated in a ‘material/spiritual split’ in western culture. He speaks of the dichotomy of the Platonic ‘perfect form’ (“which the being was supposed to retreat into in order to have the perfect view of the world“) versus the simulacrum (“the real world with its imperfect forms.. which are mere approximations of the perfect form“). Ravi ji’s ideas are in the context of mathematics but are equally important here. For example, when does this ‘simulacrum’ in a poet’s mind that VVS Aiyar mentioned, dissolve and allow a natural flow?

For answers we turn to an Indic understanding that is quite different from Plato’s: the world in all its diversity, divinity, along with the natural self-ordering principle (Rta), which defies perfect generalization is its ideal. Any ‘perfect view devoid of imperfections’ could only offer a limited representation [5]- a simulacrum, if you will, from an Indic perspective. In other words, Integral unity is the basis of Indian art, whereas the western quest is to synthesize unity out of fragmented, independent realities [2].

'The dharmic traditions are steeped in the metaphysics of the non-separation of all reality, physical and non-physical, from the divine – what is referred to henceforth as 'integral unity'- Rajiv Malhotra.

A small example to illustrate the real-life impact of dharma’s integrality and the Western material-spiritual split:

It is natural for an Indian aerospace engineer to perform a puja and invoke the immanent divine before a spacecraft launch- as an integral part of her duties. Her inner space is at peace, guided by her Ishta Devataa always, giving her the focus and Shakti to coordinate ISRO’s latest outer space quest, for the benefit of all [4]. She may be amused by astronaut Buzz Aldrin’s ill-advised attempt to proclaim a history-centric dogma’s conquest of the lunar frontier 50 years ago.

Christian Evangelist on the Moon: Communion Of Buzz Aldrin That NASA Didn't Want To Broadcast http://t.co/2EHx1O99dK

— Shivoham (@Ganitamrita) February 1, 2015

2. Unity within the Ramayanas

VVS Aiyar recognized an instinctive unity, a “common instinct with the peoples of India” to rewrite the Sanskrit classics: “… what they write are new poems altogether and not translations. And this tendency is to be seen among writers of Provinces situated so wide apart as Bengal and the Tamil country and Gujarat, and of ages extending from the first century up to our own times“.  For example, Kamban’s Sri Rama and Mother Sita, peerless Anjaneya and selfless Bharata are described in the most beautiful Tamizh one can ever hear. The reader can literally experience the Ramayana unfolding in their own local space.

Kamban’s rewriting produced a Sri Rama that is not identical to Valmiki’s depiction but is not separate either, and reflects a Tamil invocation of the same avatar of Mahavishnu, whose story was transmitted from a transcendental source Brahma, to Narada Muni, to Valmiki the adikavi. Kamban’s initial verses venerate Sage Valmiki, and the entire work is a celebration of the Ramayana adikavya in the complete sense—it is not only the main storyline and characters that are retained; the profound Vedic truths within Valmiki’s Sanskrit verses are well preserved in Kamba Ramayanam. Dharmic non-translatables in Sanskrit are a barrier to translation/retelling of Mahakavyas into English and other languages that do not possess equivalents [2], but not for Indic languages that developed equivalents and/or employed these Sanskrit terms as is. On the other hand, VVS Aiyar notes that not all these retellings are of equal merit. As we will see next, versions that do not realize the Vedic roots of the Valmiki Ramayana and lose integrality, invariably fall flat and fade away.

We can quote two paragraphs from the works of Rajiv Malhotra to learn more about this instinctive Indian preference for decentralized retelling/re-narration over literal, controlled translations.

• On the Vedic origin of this decentralization [4]: “The Hindu metaphysics of immanence leads to the decentralization of sacred geography. The Vedic principle of ‘rtam’ is about recreating a universal structure in one’s own particular locale, desh. This is why such localized references to the sacred geography of India are prevalent, and are perfectly fine. In fact, in the Vedic yajna, the mantras define the local space of the yajna as a replica or representation of the cosmos, and the universal deity is invoked to be present locally. Pollock ignores the Vedic bandhuta principles…. It is this ability of Hinduism to decentralize its sacred spaces that has helped it spread without centralized power. People separated by thousands of miles felt a common bond as participants in the cosmic narrative and yajna.”
• Narrating and listening to Itihasa by a dharmic practitioner is to be done with shraddha in order to bring about a positive change within [2]. Toward this: “The retelling of what has once been heard many times before is never the same when repeated. The precise story of Rama can never be reproduced, and each attempt involves a combination of reproduction (by supplier), re-narration (often interactive), and re-perception (by audience). Thus itihasa changes, evolves and adapts to circumstances as per the prevailing consensus.“

Rajiv Malhotra has identified a crucial differentiating aspect [4]: Our kavyas offer a path from the Vyavaharika to the Paramarthika. 

Rasanubhuti

“Rasa is the supreme aesthetic experience, an absolute aesthetic relish, that the audience feels when witnessing an artistic performance".

"Rasa is a heightened state of consciousness".

“The Taittirīya Upaniṣad speaks of Rasa".

- Prakruti Prativadi [3].

"Rasa’s importance to my analysis stems from its spiritual significance as a kavya’s bridge to transcendence." - Rajiv Malhotra [4].

It has been stated that Rasanubhuti, the realization of Rasa and a heightened state of consciousness and bliss in the Sahridaya listener, is the purpose of kavya [8]. However, the generation of Rasa is no easy feat, and requires the coming together of multiple factors involving the Kavi, Kavya, and audience. The dissolution of boundaries demarcating this trinity (triputi laya) leads to a unity of consciousness that enables Rasanubhuti [9]. Conversely, the presence of any ‘simulacrum’, facade, or duality that sharpens the independent identities in this chain (e.g., poet’s ego, cynical audience, limited/uninspiring story) becomes a Rasavighna, or a barrier to the Rasa generation. Abhinavagupta, in his commentary on Bharata’s Natyasastra, has enumerated seven types of Rasavighna [8].

Bharatanatyam practitioner and Swadeshi scholar Prakruti Prativadi [3] highlights the key role of Sattva (“a real, essential, true, genuine, and natural quality“) in the context of sacred Indian dance: “Sattva is an intangible element that is required for the genuine awakening of Rasa. Sattva supports the emotional states (Bhāvas)“. Modern ‘made for TV’ and pulp-fiction renditions of the Itihasa-Mahakavyas fail because they lack this quality, among other limitations. They project an author’s personal or collective ego, or air their limited ideological views, resulting in Rasavighna. Prakruti ji cites Sri P. N. Srinivas to explain a key quality of a great artist as one who “in effect, disappears in the art and performance. The artist’s ego and personality are not seen, allowing the art to shine through.” Hence, any performance or recital of sacred Indian art-forms is performed and followed with shraddha in order to achieve this seamless unity.

Rajiv Malhotra, in the context of the ongoing battle for Sanskrit [4], has re-emphasized this key role of Kavya in linking the paramarthika (sacred, transcendental) and vyavaharika (mundane, worldly) noting how “Indian poeticians have unequivocally declared that the Vedas, the Puranas, itihasas and kavyas have a common and single aim although their modes are different.“.  Rajiv ji’s observations expand upon VVS Aiyar’s observation when he notes the absence of any equivalent to kavya in Abrahamic religions as well as within pre-Christian practices in the west: “Even in the Greek tradition, theatre and arts did not serve the same paramarthika purpose that they serve in Hinduism” [2]. A lack of such Mahakavya resulted in a fragmented collection of epic literature that eventually faded away from popular imagination. Soon, Europe’s ancient religions and cultures that created these works were digested into Christianity [2], and poets like Francois-Rene de Chateaubriand, who defended the church, began to demonize these epics as corrupt and evil [1].

Western academia remains in (or feigns) ignorance about the paramarthika aspect of kavya. For example, the Harvard Center for Hellenic studies promotes this comparative work on epics by a student of Wendy Doniger that force-fits Itihasa-Mahakavya within western categories. Toward this goal, it relies on a history decided by American orientalists [4] who post-date these works by millennia until centuries after Buddha and Homer’s epics (8th BCE) to fit their theories. These speculative theories are bereft of meaningful context and end up in galaxies far, far away from how ordinary practitioners of dharma have approached these sacred works for millennia, long before Homer. These excerpts from an essay [12] by Ravi Joshi ji summarize this problematic westernization of Vedic concepts:

"It is a well known fact that attempts at re-interpreting the Upanishadic tradition in the light of modern Western thought have not resulted in any major contribution towards meaningful living in our contemporary world" – RJ

— Shivoham (@Ganitamrita) July 26, 2019

So how ancient are our Itihasa-Mahakavyas (and hence, Bharata)? Can westernized history say something confidently about this? One way to answer this is by re-purposing Wittgenstein’s Ruler: Unless you have confidence in history’s reliability in this regard, if you use history to measure India’s age, you may also be using India to measure history’s. Such history reveals little information about the ancientness of these sacred works but says more about its own credibility. As far as the ancientness of India, there is a lot to learn and unlearn.

This session of ‘Vakyartha Sadas’ shares the traditional Sanskrit scholar’s response to the manipulation of traditional categories by Western Indology.

We conclude with a comparative discussion of the narrative structure of epics.

3. In Medias Res

VVS Aiyar examines in detail the Western proclivity for starting their epic literature In Medias Res (in the midst of things; the modern phrase ‘cut to the chase’ comes to mind) following in the footsteps of Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey. Homer’s approach was lauded by Aristotle as well as by the ancient Latin poet Horace who is credited with coining this term. Aiyar notes how this recommendation of starting the narration close to the end has been turned into another top-down intellectual rule that has been dutifully followed, and remains popular to this day.  He offers many examples in order for “the reader to realise how deep and widespread is this superstition in the West with regard to the order of narrative in the graver poems. But, as we have said before, our epic poets have shown that the rule in question is not as absolute as western critics seem to imagine.”

A key benefit of starting In Medias Res (IMR) is that the narration grabs the initial attention of a viewer or publisher. However, the audience’s attention can drop after the initial excitement.  Itihasa-Mahakavyas are glorious counterexamples. Despite being several times longer than Homer’s works, they remain as popular and revered today as they were several millennia ago. The narration of the Ramayana follows the natural order of cyclical time. It contains sub-stories within that provide context, while itself being part of a meta narrative as part of the Dasavataram. The story may start slowly but gets steadily more interesting [1]. Aiyar offers Dandin’s commentary on poetics in comparison, to explain the structure of Mahakavya.

Dandin’s Kavyadarsha and Aristotle’s Poetics

For an introduction to Indian poetics, see this post.

https://indicportal.orgclassical-indic-literature-ii-poetics/

VVS Aiyar quotes Dandin who states that an epic poem can be of any length (just asamkshipta – not short) as long as it is “Rasabhava–nirantara i.e. satisfies our sense of the grand and the beautiful“. He summarizes three shlokas from Dandin’s Kavyadarsha to explain how the various cantos are to be arranged in order to work towards this goal:

“Bhavika is said to the essential quality of the Prabandha or poem ; for bhava is the idea of the poet as to how he should arrange the poem and set forth its parts. The mutual harmony of the parts both in the subject matter as well as in the canto divisions … And the right employment of the bhava gives rise to the quality called Bhavika.”

Let us now look at Aristotle’s views in his work ‘‘Poetics’ that is studied in the West as a foundation of narrative theory [13]:

[Art as imitation: mimesis] “Epic poetry and tragedy, comedy also and dithyrambic poetry, and the music of the flute and of the lyre in most of their forms, are all in their general conception modes of imitation [mimêsis]...”

[Unity of action (action ~ plot) if the poetic imitation is in the form of a narrative] “should have for its subject a single action, whole and complete, with a beginning, a middle, and an end. It will thus resemble a living organism in all its unity, and produce the pleasure proper to it. It will differ in structure from historical compositions, which of necessity present not a single action, but a single period, and all that happened within that period to one person or to many, little connected together as the events may be.”

[On the scale or length of Epic poetry] “we have already laid down an adequate limit: the beginning and the end must be capable of being brought within a single view…”

16th-17th century European classicists derived a trio of Aristotelian unities from ‘Poetics’ – of action, place, and time, of which the ‘unity of action’ is given the pride of place. Aristotle emphasizes a (single) plot where the importance of characters is secondary, and their thought processes, tertiary. The sequence in which the content is presented is synthesized to achieve a compact unity of action. Doing so maximizes the desired impact of the enacted imitation on the audience leading to, in tragedy and high epics, catharsis, i.e. soul purification or purgation [6]. Starting the plot IMR helps achieve this unity [7]. For his teacher Plato, art was an imitation of an imitation (~Simulacrum²).

Even with this brief comparison, it is apparent that the aim of Mahakavyas and epic poetry and their ideas of unity are different, and the Aristotelian unities are neither sufficient nor necessary conditions in the Indic context. Starting IMR and synthesizing a reductive plot-driven unity can lead to Rasavighna.  Prakruti Prativadi categorically states that Abhinaya (enactment of characters in Bharatanatyam) in not the art of imitating, but rather a subtle, deeper, and more mature means of evoking a Rasa experience, for which it must have Sattva. She also explains the need to be careful in choosing stories and narratives for a Bharatanatyam performance: “That’s why many of the epics and classical tales with inherent characters are so rich and complex and they are chosen for these portrayals. Modern one-dimensional stories that are only plot driven, or have superficial characters are not sufficient for such an aesthetic (Rasa) experience. “.

“[The Nāṭyaśāstra] delves into the very root cause of what emotions and mental states are and why art gives people joy. The Hindu philosophical view explains that we are divine, and that innate Ātman is brought out in a Bharatanāṭyaṃ performance." - Prakruti Prativadi.

By design, there is no role for Rasa or the Paramarthika in epic poetry or their enactments, and the ancient Greek soul ≠ Atman. Indic art for a Sahridaya is to experience a deep joy (ananda) and not merely a means of cathartic relief.  A quest for Bhavas and Rasas in epic poetry can only be of speculative interest, and in any case, Mahakayvas and Mahakavis certainly cannot be reduced to equivalence with Western epic poetry and their authors in the dharmic sense. It is certainly possible to enjoy and appreciate all these works in their respective contexts, and VVS Aiyar’s commentary comes across as a great example of such Viveka.

Aiyar states how even Milton, widely recognized as one of the great western poets “found it a difficult matter to make his episodes organic and integral parts of his epic” in his epic work ‘Paradise Lost’ that starts IMR. However, following the natural order can help achieve the goals of a Mahakavya as VVS Aiyar explains: “From treating the story chronologically flows another result, namely that the poet is able to make the main story occupy a longer period of time than if he followed Aristotle’s rule. This may not be considered an advantage by western critics. But there seems to be a greater fullness of life and greater stateliness in an epic which deals poetically and with art with the birth and youth and manhood of his hero and his achievements.”.

"The epic, therefore, should be a unity, with parts of course, but parts which go to make up and show off that unity." - VVS Aiyar.

These ancient ideas of Indic art have persisted through the ages and remain strong in Indian deep culture.  It is impossible to imagine an India sans its vision of a young prince Rama or Bala Krishna. We can immerse ourselves in the bliss of their divine mischief expressed through poem, song, and dance and re-emerge as slightly better human beings and parents.

In Memory Of

Sri Ravi Joshi, father, and fearless Swadeshi scholar whose seva to dharma will always be remembered. Om Shanti.

References

1. V. V. S. Aiyar. Kamba Ramayanam- A Study with Translations in Verse or Poetic Prose of Over Four Thousand of the Original Poems. The Delhi Tamil Sangam. 1950.
2. Rajiv Malhotra. Being Different: An Indian Challenge to Western Universalism. Harper Collins. 2011.
3. Prakruti Prativadi. Rasas in Bharatanatyam: First in a Series on Indian Aesthetics and Bharatanatyam. CreativeSpace. 2017.
4. Rajiv Malhotra. The Battle for Sanskrit: Is Sanskrit Political or Sacred, Oppressive or Liberating, Dead or Alive?. Harper Collins. 2016.
5. J.J. Bajaj. The Indian Tradition in Science and Technology: An Overview. PPST Bulletin. www.samanvaya.com.
6. Foundation of narrative theory: Aristotle’s Poetics. Columbia University, New York.
7. In Medias Res. http://compendium.kosawese.net.
8. Centre for Traditional Education. Unit-2. Rasadhyayas Of Natyashastra.
9. RK Mishra. Samavesa (Concluding Chapter). Unknown work. Shodhganga. 2001.
10. V. V. Sastrulu. Kavyadarsah of Dandin: English Translation. Text with Commentary of Jibanand Vidyasagar. Bharatiya Kala Prakashan. 2008.
11. Ravi Joshi. Integral Unity in Indian Mathematics. WAVES Conference Talk. 2014.
12. Ravi Joshi. Western Culture: A Concise Religio-Philosophical History for the Non Westerner. Medha Journal. 2008.
13. Aristotle. Poetics. Based on the translation by S. H. Butcher. Edited by Jack Lynch.

Acknowledgments:Thanks to the ICP editor and author for reviewing this post and providing critical feedback.  The primary goal of this article is to bring to attention the amazing work of Swadeshi scholars, past and present. Their seva to dharma is an inspiration.