V. Khanna M. Saran the Ramayana Kakawin; a Product of Sanskrit Scholarship and Independent Literary Genius
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
V. Khanna M. Saran The Ramayana kakawin; A product of Sanskrit scholarship and independent literary genius In: Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 149 (1993), no: 2, Leiden, 226-249 This PDF-file was downloaded from http://www.kitlv-journals.nl Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 07:50:05PM via free access VESfOD KHANNA and MALINI SARAN THE RAMAYANA KAKAWIN: A PRODUCT OF SANSKRIT SCHOLARSHIP AND INDEPENDENT LITERARY GENIUS The Old Javanese Ramayana kakawin (RK), written in Central Java a thousand or so years ago, is not only one of the earliest full-length Ramayanas written beyond the shores of India, but perhaps the most important and impressive overseas re-telling of the Rama tale. The RK has been the subject of intensive and appreciative study by several scholars: Kern, Juynboll, Poerbatjaraka, Aichele, Sarkar, Bulcke, Hooykaas, Zoetmulder, Uhlenbeck, Robson and Santoso, to mention the most eminent among them. This article does not seek to deal with all the problems which they have addressed; it merely attempts to offer some new ideas concerning three related themes, namely: (1) the relationship between the RK and its primary source, the Sanskrit kdvya by Bhauj called Ravana-vadha (The Slaying of Ravana), better known as the Bhajjikavya (BhK); (2) the Old Javanese poet's1 familiarity with and skilful use of some other Sanskrit classics; and (3) the RK as an independent literary work.2 1 We cannot say with certainty whether the author of the Ramayana kakawin was a male or a female. We use the noun 'poet' and pronoun 'he' throughout this article purely as a conventional device. 2 While recognizing that there are still many unresolved issues relating to the problems of interpolation/reshaping/interpretation of the text, for the purposes of this article we use the text and translation of the Ramayana kakawin prepared by Soewito Santoso. Wherever we refer to a translation other than Santoso's, this is specifically mentioned. To the extent that any passage commented upon by us turns out to be the work not of the original poet but by some later hand, our comments about Sanskrit scholarship and/or poetic skill naturally apply to VINOD KHANNA is currently an Ambassador-in-Residence affiliated with the University of Delhi. A graduate from Bombay, Oxford and Delhi Universities, his interests include international relations and the role of the Ramayana in Indonesian cultural history. MALINI SARAN is an independent researcher specialized in art history and Indonesian art and culture who graduated from Loreto College, Darjeeling. Both authors have published on their respective subjects in leading Indian journals and newspapers and are currently engaged in jointly writing a book on the role of the Ramayana in ancient Indonesia. The address at which they may be reached is CII/86 Bapa Nagar, New Delhi 110003, India. Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 07:50:05PM via free access The Rdmdyana Kakawin 227 1. THE RAMAYANA KAKAWIN AND THE BHATTTKA VYA Since a suggestion by H.B. Sarkar in 1934, and after that in the successive works of Manmohan Ghosh, Bulcke and Hooykaas, it has been established that the RK had an Indian prototype, and that this was not the Valmiki Ramayana(VR) but the BhK (Zoetmulder 1974:226-228). On the basis of a comparison between the RK and the BhK, Hooykaas advanced the thesis that after following the BhK more or less closely for the first two-third part or so of his work, the author of the kakawin completely abandoned his Indian prototype, apparently borrowing 'from the flotsam and jetsam of general knowledge concerning the Ramayana that was current in those days in South-east Asia' (Hooykaas 1955:34). Elsewhere, Hooykaas argues that 'It is only the first 60% or so of the OJR [Old Javanese Ramayana] that runs parallel with the Bhk; from then onward the same epic material is dealt with, but the differences become so considerable that comparison has no longer the force of proof: the poet of the OJR went his own way' (Hooykaas 1958b: 5-6). This view of Hooykaas' has been accepted, with occasional variations, by a large number of scholars, including Zoetmulder, Sarkar, and Robson. Thus Zoetmulder says, '... the close correspondence of the kakawin with the kawya exists only in the first part of the former. After sarga 13 it becomes less and less, and from sarga 17 onward it has vanished altogether' (Zoetmulder 1974:229). According to Sarkar, "The text was based, up to the middle of the sixteenth canto, on the Sanskrit Bhattikavya, but the source of the remaining portion has not been yet determined' (Sarkar 1985:313). Robson, in a paper presented at a conference in Lucknow in India in 1986, asserted, 'A comparison between the OJR and BhK shows, however, that by no means the whole of the former is based on the latter; in fact, at the most two thirds can be said to be taken from the BhK, while the last one third is entirely independent. We do not know what could have motivated the poet to abandon his model at this point; actually the transition is gradual, [the correspondence] becoming less after sarga 13, and disappearing entirely from sarga 17 (up to the end in sarga 26).' Need for revision of the Hooykaas thesis We feel that the Hooykaas thesis is in need of some revision. The path for such a revision was paved by Soewito Santoso when he suggested that the RK adheres to the BhK right down to the end (Santoso 1980a:33-38). whoever was the author of that passage. For the Valmiki Rama"yaria, all references are to the three-volume translation by H.P. Shastri, since a complete English translation of the Critical Edition is not yet available. For the Bhatti- kavya we use the text edited and translated by Karandikar and Karandikar (see Bibliography for publication details). Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 07:50:05PM via free access 228 Vinod Khanna and Malini Saran However, he did not substantiate his view with sufficient examples.3 Though he was right in challenging Hooykaas' thesis, the relationship between the two texts is more complex than assumed by him. In sargas 17 and 18, the Old Javanese author of the RK does abandon the BhK, although, as we shall see, he does not turn to any 'flotsam and jetsam' but to the original epic, the Valmlki Ramayana. Similarly there is very little correspondence between sargas 25 and 26 of the kakawin and the Sanskrit kdvya. However, a careful comparison of the two works shows that, after having temporarily moved away from his Indian prototype in sargas 17 and 18, the Old Javanese poet does return gradually to it in sarga 19 and, basically, remains with it up to sarga 23, and part of sarga 24 as well. What is the nature of the evidence we need to present to establish that the Old Javanese poet did in fact return to the BhK in sargas 19-24? Hooykaas, and others who follow him, recognize that even in those earlier parts of the kakawin for which they acknowledge a correspondence with the Sanskrit kavya, the Old Javanese poet was not mechanically translating his prototype. 'It certainly was not his intention to give a translation of the Sanskrit text. Right from the beginning he allowed himself a certain amount of liberty to depart from his model, even in those parts that follow the Sanskrit original most closely' (Zoetmulder 1974:229). This being so, we do not need to look for a stanza-by-stanza identity with the BhK as far as sargas 19-24 of the RK are concerned; it would be sufficient for us to demonstrate clear and considerable parallels between these sargas of the RK and corresponding passages of the BhK (with the Old Javanese poet occasionally allowing himself 'a certain amount of liberty to depart from his model') for our argument to have 'the force of proof. A Hooykaas-style comparison of sarga 19 of the RK and the relevant passages of the BhK, for instance, demonstrates a clear concordance, as the following table shows. Episode BhK RK sarga 14 sarga 19 Ravana's army prepares for battle 2-11 2-18 Demons bid goodbye to their families 12 19-32 Deployment of Ravana's generals 15-16 33-35 3 Santoso gives the following examples of correspondence in support of his rejection of the Hooykaas view: (i) RK sarga 22, 41-42 = BhK sarga 15, 19-20; (ii) RK sarga 24, 13 = BhK sarga 17, 97; (iii) RK sarga 24, 134-135 = BhK sarga 20, 6-8; (iv) RK sarga 24, 216 = BhK sarga 22, 13; and (v) RK sarga 26, 19 = BhK sarga 22, 29. He offers no examples from sargas 17-21, 23 or 25, only a passage each from sargas 22 and 26, and three passages from sarga 24. Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 07:50:05PM via free access The Rdmdyana Kakawin 229 Rama makes preparations: gives Laksmana a glance 17-18 39 Monkeys get ready 19 40-42 Strange omens observed by Rama 20-21 45-46 Ravarja hears of arrival of enemy 22 60 The two armies clash 23-30 71-131 A similar comparison of sargas 20-23 and parts of sarga 24 of the kakawin with the relevant passages of the Sanskrit kavya yields evidence of the same level of continuing concordance. BhatU is broadly following Valrmki in his description of the conflict between the two forces, and one cannot rule out the possibility that the Old Javanese poet could have been referring to some other Valmiki-based texts, though every now and then a revealing clue clearly suggests that the BhK was certainly one of the texts before him.