VIII. The Rama Episode (Ramopakhyana) and the Ramayana¹

SLUSZKIEWICZ’s elaborate dissertation² on the recensions of the Ramayana has revived the interest in the question of the relationship between the Rāmāyaṇa and the Rāma Episode of the Mahabharata, a question which appears to have been first mooted by WEBER.³ WEBER had contented himself with formulating the four logical alternatives: (1) the Rāmopākhyāna is the source of the Rāmāyaṇa; (2) the Rāmopākhyāna constitutes an epitome of the Rāmāyaṇa, but of a Rāmāyaṇa more primitive than the epic in its present form; (3) the Rāmopākhyāna represents an epitome of the Rāmāyaṇa, but an epitome modified somewhat by the compiler of the Episode himself; and lastly; (4) the two poems are derived independently from a lost common source. The alternatives worked out by WEBER may be admitted; but then logical possibilities, unfortunately, do not carry us very far in historical investigations.

JACOBI, who has dealt with the question at great length in Das Râmâyana, Geschichte und Inhalt (Bonn 1893), held firmly to the opinion that the Rāmopākhyāna was based on the Rāmāyaṇa, on our Rāmāyaṇa, on the Rāma Epic as we have it, the episode forming a rather careless abridgment de Valmiki’s epic (op. cit. p. 70). In discussing the question he has drawn attention to certain passages in the Ramopākhyāna which presuppose a knowledge of the Rāmāyaṇa, and which would be indeed unintelligible if the reader did not know certain facts and circumstances which were detailed in the Epic but omitted in the Episode. This argument [473] seems to be not quite as sound as it appears at first sight; because, for the allusions in question, the compiler of the Episode might have been indebted to any other source or sources which likewise contained those explanatory allusions which happen to be omitted in the Episode. The allusions do not point unequivocally to any one single definite source.

But JACOBI did not of course base his case on this fact alone. He strengthened it from another side. He pointed out (op. cit. pp. 72 ff.) about a dozen passages which the Episode had in common with the Epic. These parallelisms carry naturally far greater weight than the allusions mentioned above. Exact verbal agreement between the works of two poets, even though they may be working on the same theme, are always suspicious. The human mind is not easily duplicated. Similar ideas may arise independently but the words in which they become clothed are still something personal and characteristic, varying with each individual.

JACOBI attached special importance to one particular stanza in the Episode, a veritable doggerel which, (according to JACOBI) was evidently a copy of the perfect Rāmāyaṇa stanza—once heard never forgotten:⁴

सागरं चाम्बरप्रख्यमम्बरं सागरोपमम् ।
रामरावणयोर्युद्धं रामरावणयोरिव ॥

The Mbh. caricature of this stanza, according to JACOBI, was:

दशकन्धरराजसून्वोस्तथा युद्धमभून्महत् ।
अलब्धोपममन्यत्र तयोरेव तथाभवत् ॥

JACOBI was of opinion that this stanza of inferior form proves borrowing because it is inferior. This unquestionably proved also, JACOBI argued, that the Episode is merely an epitome of our Rāmāyaṇa. The argument is again not quite conclusive, and the point has been contested by HOPKINS. “A great poet,” says HOPKINS, “is more apt to take a weak verse and make it strong than is a copyist to ruin a verse already excellent” (Great Epic, p. 63). Whatever the merits of this latter contention, JACOBI’S conclusion appears to be correct in the main, though his argument is certainly fallacious. JACOBI should have stopped short with the stanza. The Mahā-[[P389]]bhārata stanza appears to be—and very probably is—a weak [474] imitation of the Rāmāyaṇa stanza. The fallacy lies in the extension that the Rāmopākhyāna is therefore a weak imitation of the Rāmāyaṇa. The relation between the two stanzas does not necessarily prove anything about the relationship between the Rāmāyaṇa and the Rāmopākhyāna as wholes.

WINTERNITZ⁵ has already warned us that each stanza of the Mbh. must be judged on its own merits,—it may be added, when we want to use the stanza for historical and comparative purposes. We could not find a better example of this dictum than the stanza on which JACOBI has relied for establishing the posteriority of the Rāmopākhyāna. The stanza has an intricate history. Though found in all our old printed editions, the MS. support for it is surprisingly meagre. Of the two lines comprising the stanza, the second was found only in Bengali MSS. in addition to some stray Nāgarī MSS.; but the first line is itself known in two variant versions! The form known to and cited by JACOBI, namely,

दशकन्धरराजसून्वोस्तथा युद्धमभून्महत् ।

alternates with another:

ततः प्रववृते युद्धं रामरावणयोर्महत् ।

which appears to be an attempt at remedying the awkwardness of the former, which was the subject of JACOBI’s strictures.⁶ Both lines are however completely missing in Kaśmīrī and Southern MSS. (besides many old Nāgarī MSS.⁷)! This fact leaves no room now for doubting that the stanza in question is but a very late addition to the Great Epic. It can therefore naturally prove nothing whatsoever about the age or the character of the original Episode to which it has been secondarily appended by a recent interpolator. All disquisitions based on this stanza from the Rāmopākhyāna have consequently become futile. We must look for other criteria.

This only shows how very precarious are the conclusions that are based on the Vulgate text of the Mbh. And it is very remarkable that many of those very passages that have been used in the past for literary-historical purposes have turned out to be unhappily but also unquestionably spurious.⁸

[[P388]]

[[P390]]

---

[475] However the fact that one particular stanza cited by JACOBI has turned out to be unauthentic does not affect his general conclusion about the relationship between the Rāmopākhyāna and the Rāmāyaṇa which, in my opinion, is quite well-founded and can be supported on other grounds.

As far as I can judge, the minute differences in the details of the story, which have been pointed out and exaggerated by some critics of JACOBI’S theory, tell us nothing whatsoever about the matter which is the subject of discussion. The verbal agreements have, on the other hand, an unusually great probative force. To strengthen the case of JACOBI, we need therefore a large number of agreements. I had this fact in mind when I was studying the Rāmopākhyāna for my edition of Vanaparvan or—to give it its correct name—Aranyakaparvan.

JACOBI had found just twelve concordances. They are obviously too few. But their actual number should be very much greater, even if we exclude the epic iterata and standing phrases, which are the common heritage of the epic bards and which have been listed separately by HOPKINS in an Appendix to his Great Epic. It would be premature, it seems to me, to discuss the question which of the existing versions of the Rāmāyaṇa our Episode stands closest to. That question can be taken up only when we have a really critical edition of the Rāmāyaṇa, which is promised by my friend and colleague Professor RAGHU VIRA of Lahore from his International Academy of Indian Culture. In the meantime, I shall just register the concordances which I have been able to find, irrespective of the versions of the Rāmāyaṇa to which they may belong. A scholar who knows his Rāmāyaṇa better than I do would naturally be able to handle the question with more competence and find more concordances. But in the absence of such an exhaustive study by a savant who has mastered both the poems, the following table which I have prepared may be found useful.⁹ I have consulted only the Bombay edition (published in 1888 by the Nirnaya Sagar Press) and GORRESIO’s edition (1843-1867). Of the latter edition, moreover, the last volume (Uttarakāṇḍa) was not available to me and therefore could not be utilized.

---

Concordance of Parallel Passages in the Mbh. (Ramopakhyāna) and the Rāmāyaṇa

No.	Mbh. Aranyakaparvan (Rāmopākhyāna), Crit. Ed. (B. = Bombay Ed.)	Rāmāyaṇa, Bombay Ed. (= B.), GORRESIO’s Ed. (= G.)
(1)	258. 2d (B. 274. 24) हत्वा गृधं जटायुषम्	B. 1. 1. 53b (G. 1. 1. 58d) गृधं हत्वा जटायुषम् (G, like Mbh., हत्वा गृधं ज .)
(2)	258. [[4b|4b]] (B. 274. 48) किंवीर्यः किंपराक्रमः	B. 3. 34. 26 (G. 3. 38.20) किंरूपः किंपराक्रमः (G, like Mbh., किंवीर्यः किं . . )
(3)	258. 5d (B. 274. 5d) रामस्याक्लिष्टकर्मणः	B. 5. 42. 34; 43. 9b; 6. 41. 77; etc. (G. 5. 38. 31 ; 6. 16. 79b ; etc., etc.) रामस्याक्लिष्टकर्मणः
(4)	258. 9d (B. 274. 9d) रामस्य महिषीं प्रियाम्	B. 3. 50. [[262|26d]] (G. 4. 49. 24d) रामस्य महिषीं प्रियाम्
(5)	259. [[13av|13ab]] (B. 275. 13ab) सर्वे वेदविदः शूराः सर्वे सुचरितव्रताः ।	B. 1. 18. 25cd सर्वे वेदविदः शूराः सर्वे लोकहिते रताः ।
[[P391]][477] (6)	259. 30 (B. 275. 30) परमापगतस्यापि नाधर्मे मे मतिर्भवेत् । अशिक्षितं च भगवन् ब्रह्मास्त्रं प्रतिभातु मे ॥ [J]	B. 7. 10. 30cd-31ab (G. 7. 10. 30) परमापद्गतस्यापि धर्मे मम मतिर्भवेत् । अशिक्षितं च ब्रह्मास्त्रं भगवन्प्रतिभातु मे ॥ (G, like Mbh., transp. ब्रह्मास्त्रं and भगवन्)
[[P392]](7)	259. 31 (B. 275. 31) यस्माद्राक्षसयोनौ ते जातस्यामित्रकर्शन । नाधर्मे रमते बुद्धि- रमरत्वं ददामि ते ॥ [S] (B धीयते for रमते and ददानि for ददामि .)	B. 7. 10. 34cd-35ab (G. 7. 10. 34) यस्माद्राक्षस योनौ ते जातस्यामित्रनाशन । नाधर्मे जायते बुद्धि- रमरत्वं ददामि ते ॥ (G, like Mbh., कर्शन for नाशन, and वर्तते for जायते.)
(8)	(259. [[3626|36ab]]) (B. 275.[[3626|36ab]]) विभीषणस्तु धर्मात्मा सतां धर्ममनुस्मरन् । (B मार्गमनु’ for धर्ममनु .)	B. 7. 10. 6ab विभीषणस्तु धर्मात्मा नित्यं धर्मपरः शुचि: ।
(9)	260. 7d (B. 276.7d) कामरूपबलान्वितान्	G. 1. 20. 14b कामरूपा बलान्विता:
(10)	261. [[66|6b]] (B. 277.[[68|6b]]) रमयामास हि प्रजाः [S]	G. 1. 19. 28b रञ्जयामास हि प्रजा :
(11)	(261. 9c) (B. 277. 9b) मत्तमातङ्गगामिनम्	B. 2. 3. 28b (G. 2. 2. 134) मत्तमातङ्गगामिनम्
(12)	(261. 15c) (B. 277. 15c) संभाराः संनियन्तां मे	B. 1. 8. 14c [cf. 1. 8. 11; 12.30] (G. 1. 11. 15a) संभारा : संम्रियन्तां मे (G च for मे.)
(13)	261. 17cd (B. 277. 17cd) आशीविषस्त्वां संक्रुद्ध- श्चण्डो दशति दुर्भगे । [S] (B दशतु for दशति.)	G. 2. 7. 3ab आशीविषस्त्वां दशतु [[मढे|मन्दे]] मन्दितमानिनि ।
[478] (14)	261. 18ab (B. 277. 18ab) सुभगा खलु कौसल्या यस्या: पुत्रोऽभिषेक्ष्यते ।	B. 2. 8. 9ab (G. 2. 7. 40a) सुभगा किल कौसल्या यस्याः पुत्रोऽभिषेक्ष्यते । (G कौशल्यां सुभगां मन्ये and . षिच्यते for °षेक्ष्यते.)
(15)	261, 22cd (B. 277. 22cd) अवध्यो वध्यतां कोऽय [[P393]] वध्यः कोऽथ विमुच्यताम् । [S]	B. 2. 10. 33ab (G. 2. 9. 11cd) अवध्यो वध्यतां को वा वध्यः को वा विमुच्यताम् । (G अबध्यो बध्यतां कोsa and बध्यः for वध्यः)
(16)	1245 * (line 1) (B. 277. [[24”|24a]]) पृथिव्यां राजराजोऽस्मि [S]	G. 2. 9. 13c पृथिव्यां राजराजोऽस्मि
(17)	261. 25ab (B. 277. 26ab) आभिषेचनिकं यत्ते रामार्थमुपकल्पितम् । [S]	G. 2. 12. 3cd आभिषेचनिकं द्रव्यं रामार्थमुपकल्पितं ।
(18)	261. 25d (B. 277. 27d) वनं गच्छतु राघव :	B. 5. 33. 21d (G. 5. 31. 15) वनं गच्छतु राघव :
(19)	261. 33ab (B. 277. 34ab) अयश: पातयित्वा मे मूर्ध्नि त्वं कुलपांसने । [S]	G. 2. 76. 7cd मम चाप्ययशो मूर्ध्नि पातितं लुब्धया स्वया ।
(20)	261. 39d (B. 277. 40b) शरभङ्गाश्रमं प्रति	B. 3. 5. 20b (G. 3. 9. 15d) शरभङ्गाश्रमं प्रति
(21)	261. 40c (B. 277. 41a) नदीं गोदावरीं रम्याम्	B. 3. 64. 3a (G. 3. 68. 30a) नदीं गोदावरीं रम्यां
(22)	261. 42cd (B. 277. 43cd) चतुर्दश सहस्राणि जघान भुवि रक्षसाम् । (B राक्षसान् for रक्ष.)	B. 5. 37. 16ab (G. 5. 35. 17ab) चतुर्दश सहस्राणि राक्षसानां जघान यः ।
[479] (23)	262. [[36|3b]] (B. 278. 3b) कच्चित्क्षेमं पुरे तव [JS]	B. 3. 35. 41ab [[P394]] कच्चित्ते कुशलं राजल्लँङ्कायां राक्षसेश्वर
(24)	262. 12c (B. 278. 13a) अपक्रान्ते च काकुत्स्थे	B. 3. 40. 20b, 22b (G. 3. 44. 18a) अपक्रान्ते च काकुत्स्थे
(25)	262. 22cd (B. 278. 23ab) हा सीते लक्ष्मणेत्येवं चुक्रोशार्तस्वरेण ह । [JS]	B. 3. 44. 24ab (G. 3. 50. 22cd) हा सीते लक्ष्मणेत्येव माक्रुश्य तु महास्वनम् । (G हा लक्ष्मणेति चुक्रोश त्रायस्वेति महावने ।)
(26)	262. [[274|27d]] (B. 278. 28b) विशेयं वा हुताशनम्	G. 3. 51. 41a प्रविशेयं हुताशनं
(27)	262. 30 (B. 278. 32a) अभव्यो भव्यरूपेण [JS]	B. 3. 46. 9c (G. 3. 52. 14) अभव्यो भव्यरूपेण (G°रूपां तां for रूपेण .)
(28)	262. [[33.cd|33cd]] (B. 278. 35cd) मम लङ्का पुरी नाम्ना रम्या पारे महोदधे: । [J]	B. 3. 47. 29ab; 48. 10b (G. 3. 53. 35b; 54. 14b) लङ्का नाम समुद्रस्य मध्ये मम महापुरी । (B and G both second time मम पारे समुद्रस्य .) (B second time लङ्का नाम पुरी शुभा; G second time लङ्का नाम महापुरी.)
(29)	263. [[8"b|8ab]] (B. 279. 9ab) सा ददर्श गिरिप्रस्थे पञ्च वानरपुंगवान् ।	B. 3. 54. 1cd (G. 3. 60. 5cd) ददर्श गिरिशृङ्गस्थान् पञ्च वानरपुंगवान् ।
(30)	263. [[116|11b]] (B. 279. 14b) वने राक्षससेविते	B. 3. 57. 16d (G. 3. 64. 18d; 66. 2d) वने राक्षससेविते
(31)	263. [[22.|22]] (B. 279. 25b) व्यपविद्धबृसीघटम् (B° मठम् .)	B. 3. 60.7b विप्रविद्धबृसीकटम्
[[P395]][480] (32)	263. 39a (B. 279. 43) रावणेन हृता सीता	B. 3. 71. 21c (G. 3. 75. 37c) रावणेन हृता भार्या (G, like Mbh., सीता for भार्या.)
(33)	263. [[40%|40a]] (B. 279. 44) हंसकारण्डवायुता	G. 3. 79. 40a हंसकारण्डवायुतां
(34)	263. 41 (B. 279. 45b) संवसत्यत्र सुग्रीव- चतुर्भीः सचिवैः सह । [J] (B वसते तत्र for संवसत्यत्र.)	B. 3. 72. 12cd (G. 3. 76. 36cd) निवसत्यात्मवान्वीर- श्चतुर्भिः सह वानरैः । (G तस्मिन्वसति सुग्रीवश्चतुर्भिः सचिवैः सह ।)
(35)	264. 24 (B. 280. 24) जगाम मनसा प्रियाम्	B. 4. 30.6a (G. 4. 29. 5) जगाम मनसा प्रियाम्
(36)	264. 23ab (B. 280. 23b) मैन्दश्च द्विविदश्चैव हनूमांश्चानिलात्मज: । (B द्विविदश्चापि .)	B. 4. 50. 6ab (G. 4. 50. 6ab) मैन्दश्च द्विविदश्चैव हनूमा आम्बवानपि । (G द्विविधश्चैव, and जाम्बवान्नल : )
(37)	264. [[274|27d]] (B. 280, 27b) का त्वरा मरणे पुन: [S]	G. 4. 15. 21b का त्वरा मरणे पुन:
(38)	264. 32a (B. 280.32) पुष्पिताविव किंशुकौ	B. 6. 90.37a (G. 6. 70. 11a) पुष्पिताविव किंशुकौ
(39)	264. 34ab (B. 280. 34b) स मालया तदा वीर : शुशुभे कण्ठसक्तया ।	B. 4. 12. 41ab (G. 4. 12. 47ab) स तया शुशुभे श्रीमान् लतया कण्ठसक्तया । (G, like Mbh., वीर : for श्रीमान्, and मालया for लतया.)
(40)	264. 37b (B. 280. 37) वक्त्राच्छोणितमुद्वमन्	B. 4. 48. 20 (G. 4. 48. 22d) वक्त्राच्छोणितमुद्वमन् (G मुद्रिरन्.)
[481] (41)	264. [[42”|42a]] (B. 280. 42) तापसीवेषधारिणी	G. 5. 18. 21a तापसीवेशधारिणीं
(42)	264. 55ab (B. 280. 56ab) अविन्ध्यो नाम मेधावी वृद्धो राक्षस पुंगव । [S]	B. 5. 37. 12ab (G. 5. 35. 13ab) अविन्ध्यो नाम मेधावी विद्वान्रराक्षसपुंगवः । (G तेजस्वी for मेधावी)
[[P396]](43)	264. 64-65, 65 (B. 280. 65-66a, 66) असकृत्खरयुक्ते तु रथे नृत्यन्निव स्थित: । कुम्भकर्णादयःप्रेमे रक्तमाल्यानुलेपना: [S]	B. 5. 27. 21cd, 33a (G. 5. 27. 16ab, 22a) रथेन खरयुक्तेन रक्तमाल्यानुलेपनः । कुम्भकर्णादयश्वेमे
(44)	264, 66cd (B. 280. 67cd) श्वेतपर्वतमारूढ एक एव विभीषण: । [S]	G. 5. 27. 23ab श्वेतपर्वतमारूढ एक एव विभीषणः ।
(45)	265. 4d-5d (B. 281. 4d-5d) वसन्त इव मूर्तिमान् स कल्पवृक्षसदृशो यत्नादपि विभूषितः । श्मशानचैत्यद्रुमव- दूषितोऽपि भयंकर : ॥ [S]	B. 5. 22. 29 (G. 5. 20. 24cd) स कल्पवृक्षप्रतिमो वसन्त इव मूर्तिमान् । श्मशानचैत्यप्रतिमो भूषितोऽपि भयंकरः ॥ (G which has only the latter half °द्रुमवद् for °प्रतिमो, like Mbh.)
(46)	265. 8ab (B. 281. 8ab) सीते पर्याप्तमेतावत्- कृतो भर्तुरनुग्रहः ।	B. 5. 24. 21ab (G. 5. 25. 20cd) सीते पर्याप्तमेतावद्- भर्तुः स्नेहः प्रदर्शित: । (G भर्तुस्नेहनिदर्शनं for the posterior half.)
[482] (47)	265. 17cd (B. 281. 17cd) तृणमन्तरत: कृत्वा तमुवाच निशाचरम् । [S]	B. 3. 56. 1cd; 5. 21. 3ab (G. 3. 62, 1cd) तृणमन्तरत: कृत्वा रावणं प्रत्यभाषत । (B second time शुचिस्मिता. G वाक्यमब्रवीत् for प्रत्य.)
(48)	265. 21a (B. 281. 21c) न चैवोपयिकी भार्या	B. 5. 21. 6c (G. 5. 23. 4a) नामौपयिकी भार्या
(49)	266. 1c (B. 282. 1a) वसन्माल्यवतः पृष्ठे	B. 4. 28. 1c (G. 4. 27. 1c) वसन्माल्यवत : पृष्ठे
(50)	266. 49c (B. 282. 51a) निर्दग्धपक्ष : पतितो	B. 4. 58.7a (G. 4. 58. 8a) निर्दग्धपत्र: पतितो ‘ (G, like Mbh., [[P397]] °पक्ष : for पत्रः)
(51)	266. 58ab (B. 282. 60ab) तत्र सीता मया दृष्टा रावणान्त: पुरे सती ।	B. 5. 65. 11cd (G. 5. 66. 10ab) तत्र सीता मया दृष्टा रावणान्तःपुरे सती
(52)	266. 67c (B. 282. 70a) क्षिप्तामिषीकां काकस्य [S] (B काकाय for काकस्य)	B. 5. 40. 4c (G. 5. 37.4c) क्षिप्तामिषीकां काकस्य
(53)	266. 67d (B. 282. 70b) चित्रकूटे महागिरौ	G. 1. 4. 35b चित्रकूटे महागिरी
(54)	267. 2ab (B. 283. 2ac) वृत : कोटिसहस्त्रेण वानराणां तरस्विनाम् ।	B. 4. 39. 19cd; 40. 18cd (G. 4. 39. 27cd; 40. 17cd) वृत: कोटिसहस्त्रेण वानराणामदृश्यत । (B second time शतसहस्रेण for कोटि, and तरस्विनाम् for अदृश्यत G, first time कोटी, and गोलाड्डूलैर् for वानराणान् ; G second time कोटी and like Mbh. तरस्विनाम् for अदृश्यत.)
[483] (55)	267. 4cd (B. 283. 4cd) गोलाकुलो महाराज गवाक्षो भीमदर्शनः ।	B. 4. 39. 19ab ; 6. 42. 28ab (G. 4. 39. 27ab: 6. 17. 20ab) गोलाडुलमहाराजो गवाक्षो भीमविक्रमः । (B second time गोलाडूलो महाकायो गवाक्षो भीमदर्शन : G first time गोलडूल, and नाम नामत: for भीम’; G second time गोलाङलो महाराजो गवाक्षो भीमदर्शन :)
[[P398]](56)	267. 44cd (B. 283. 44cd) दशयोजनविस्तार- मायतं शतयोजनम् ।	B. 6. 22. 72ab (G. 5. 95. 12ab) दशयोजनविस्तीर्ण शतयोजनमायतम् (G, like Mbh., आयतं शतयोजनं for शत’.)
(57)	267. 46d (B. 283. 46d) चतुर्भिः सचिवैः सह	B. 6. 16. 17a ; 17. 7c (G. 5. 88. 14d; 89. 3c) चतुर्भिः सह राक्षसैः (G first time सचिवैः सह [like Mbh.], and second time सचिवै : सार्द्ध for सह रा .)
(58)	267. 49b (B. 283. 49b) [ अ ] भ्यषिञ्चद्विभीषणम्	B. 6. 19. 26b (G. 5. 92. 3d) अभ्यषिञ्चद्विभीषणम्
(59)	267. 52b (B. 283. 52b) राक्षसौ शुकसारणौ (B मन्त्रिणौ for राक्षसौ .)	B. 6. 25.9b, 26d (G. 6. 1. 12a, 36d) राक्षसौ शुकसारणौ
(60)	268. 10a (B. 284. 10c) आह त्वां राघवो राजन्	B. 6. 41. 78a (G. 6. 16, 80a) आह त्वां राघवो राम :
(61)	268. 11. (B. 284. 11) अकृतात्मानमासाद्य राजानमनये रतम् । विनश्यन्त्यनयाविष्टा देशाश्च नगराणि च ॥	B. 5. 21. 11 (G. 5.23.9) अकृतात्मानमासाद्य राजानमनये रतम् । समृद्धानि विनश्यन्ति राष्ट्राणि नगराणि च ॥ (G भर्त्तारम् for राजानम्; विनङ्क्ष्यन्ति देशाश्च नग.)
[484] (62)	268. 15a (B. 284. 15a) हन्तास्मि त्वां सहामात्यं (B सहामात्यैर्)	B. 6. 41. 79a (G. 6. 16. 81a) हन्तास्मि त्वां सहामात्यं (G अहं हन्ता सहा .)
(63)	268. 16cd (B. 284. 16cd) अराक्षसमिमं लोकं कर्तास्मि निशितैः शरैः । [JS]	B. 6. 41. 67ab (G. 6. 16. 68ab) अक्षरासमिमं लोकं कर्तास्मि निशितैः शरैः । (G करोमि for कर्तास्मि.)
(64)	268. 17a (B. 284. 17) रावण : क्रोधमूर्च्छित :	B. 6. 26.6a (G. 5. 47. 36d) रावण : क्रोधमूच्छित :
(65)	268. 18b (B. 284. 18b) चत्वारो रजनीचरा :	B. 6. 41.84 d ( G. 6. 16.86 d ) चत्वारो रजनीचरा :
(66)	268. 36c (B. 284.37c) नखैर्दन्तैश्च वीराणां	G. 6. 65. 22d नखैर्दन्तैश्च वीराणां
(67)	270. 13d (B. 286. 13) सस्कन्धविटपैर्द्रुमैः	B. 6. 52. 30d (G. 6. 28. 32d) सस्कन्धविटपैर्द्रुमैः
(68)	270. 14d (B. 286. 14d) हनूमान्मारुतात्मज:	B. 6. 52. 30c, 32c (G. 6. 28. 32b, 34c) हनूमान्मारुतात्मज:
(69)	270. 17b (B. 286. 17b) हतशेषा निशाचरा :	B. 6. 52. 37d (G. 6. 28.40c) हतशेषा निशाचरा:
(70)	271. 4c (B. 287. 5d) भक्षयामास वानरान्	B. 6. 67. 96d (G. 6. 46. 79d) भक्षयामास वानरान्
(71)	271. 21ab (B. 287. 23ab) ततः सुतुमुलं युद्ध - मभवलोमहर्षणम् ।	B. 3. 25. 34cd (G. 3. 31. 44cd; 6. 18. 23ab) तद्बभूवाद्भुतं युद्धं तुमुलं रोमहर्षणम् । (G first time [[P399]] G second time तत्रासीत्सुमहद्युद्धं तुमुलं लोभं)
[[P400]][485] (72)	272. 1ab (B. 288. 1ab) ततः श्रुत्वा हतं संख्ये कुम्भकर्ण सहानुगम् ।	B. 6. 68. 6ab (G. 6. 47. 2ab) श्रुत्वा विनिहतं संख्ये कुम्भकर्ण महाबलम् । (स श्रुत्वा नि° for श्रुत्वा विनि’)
(73)	272. [[266|26b]] (B. 288. 26d) भ्रातरौ रामलक्ष्मणौ	B. 6. 44. 3b ; 45. 13a; 46. 14 etc. (G. 6. 19. 54b; 20. 13; 20. 14, 29a etc.) भ्रातरौ रामलक्ष्मणौ
(74)	273. 5b (B. 289. 5b) कृतकर्मा विभीषण:	G. 6. 24. 42d कृतकर्मा विभीषण:
(75)	273. [[20°|20c]] (B. 289.20c) रावणिः क्रोधमूर्च्छितः	G. 6. 70. 19b रावणिः क्रोधमूर्च्छित :
(76)	273. [[204|20d]] (B. 289. 20d) शरानाशीविषोपमान्	B. 6. 88. 41b (G. 6. 68.58) शरानाशीविषोपमान्
(77)	274. [[52|5a]] (B. 290.5a) रावणो राक्षसेश्वर : (B राक्षसाधिप:)	B. 6. 95. 32d; 97. 2d; 100. 10c; 102. 24, 27a ; etc. (G. 6. 80. 10c) रावणो राक्षसेश्वर : (B राक्षसाधिपः in 97. 2d and ff.)
(78)	274. 12d (B. 290. 12d) मातलिः शक्रसारथि :	B. 6. 112. 5d (G. 6. 97. 6a) मातलिः शक्रसारथि :
(79)	1298*, 1299* (B. 290. 19c-20a) दशकन्धरराजसून्वो- स्तथा युद्धमभून्महत् । अलब्धोपममन्यत्र तयोरेव तथाभवत् ॥	B. 6. 107.51c-52c सागरं चाम्बरप्रख्य- मम्बरं सागरोपमम् । रामरावणयोर्युद्धं रामरावणयोरिव (MSS. v. 1. for the first line ततः प्रववृते युद्धं रामरावणयोर्महत् ।)
(80)	274. [[214|21d]] (B. 290.23c) शस्त्राणि विविधानि च	B. 6. 103. 29c (G. 6. 88. 35c) शस्त्राणि विविधानि च
[486] (81)	275. [[25¢|25c]] (B. 291. 26a) वानराणां महात्मनाम्	G. 1. 4. 72c वानराणां महात्मनां
(82)	275. 33 (B. 291. 34) यदि कामामासेवे- स्त्रियमन्यामपि ध्रुवम् । शतधास्य फलद्देह इत्युक्तः सोऽभवत्पुरा ॥ [S] (B मूर्धा for देह.)	B. 7. 26.55-56a यदा कामां कामात धर्षयिष्यति योषितम् । मूर्धा तु सप्तधा तस्य शकलीभविता तदा ॥
(83)	275. 48d (B. 291. 50c) यावद् भूमिर्धरिष्यति	B. 6. 100. 56d (G. 6. 81. 22d; 112. 102d) यावद् भूमिर्धरिष्यति
(84)	275. 52ab (B. 291. 53cd) पुष्पकेण विमानेन खेचरेण विराजता । [S]	B. 6. 122. 26ab (G. 6. 107. 25ab) खगतेन विमानेन हंसयुक्तेन भास्वता । [[P401]] (G खेचरेण विमानेन कामगेन विराजता .)
(85)	275. 65c (B. 291. 66c) वसिष्ठो वामदेवश्च	B. 1. 7.4c (G. 1. 7. 1; 2. 69. 2a) वसिष्ठो वामदेवश्व (G वशिष्ठो)
(86)	275. 69cd (B. 291. 70cd) [[दशाश्वमेधानाज|दशाश्वमेधानाजहे]] जारूथ्यान्स निरर्गलान् ।	B. 6. 128. 95cd (G. 6. 113. 10ab) दशाश्वमेधानाजहे सदश्वान्भूरिदक्षिणान् । (G [like Mbh.] जारुथ्यान् [[सदश्वानू for .|सदश्वान्]] )

---

[[P402]] This cannot be considered as an exhaustive list. In fact I must frankly confess that my study of the Rāmāyaṇa has been rather [487] perfunctory, and moreover it is difficult to identify passages in a work like the Rāmāyaṇa¹⁰ in the absence of a verse-index. A closer study of the Epic and Episode, I am confident, would result in the tracing of many more parallelisms in diction and phraseology. I must here add that I have intentionally excluded such passages as show merely parallelisms in ideas, and I have strictly confined myself to exact verbal similarities. The greater the number of such verbal similarities the weaker becomes the case for HOPKINS. He, relying on the many minor differences in detail, argues that “the fact that the subject-matter of the Epic and the Episode is treated differently in several particulars points to different workings-over of older matter rather than to copying or condensing” (HOPKINS, op. cit. p. 63). HOPKINS loses sight of the fact that differences like those pointed out by him do not prove anything in such cases. Differences are natural and may be expected; nay, they could scarcely be avoided—as far as I can judge—when one is condensing a work of about 25,000 stanzas. But agreements in the bulk can never be casual or accidental; they show invariably identity of source. And the source, as already pointed out by JACOBI,¹¹ was not a manuscript of the Rāmāyaṇa, but a memorized version of it, current in the time of the adapter and in his locality. Then, I expect, the compilers of such works could hardly avoid the influence from oral tradition which existed then. In this restricted sense we must understand the statement that the Rāmopākhyāna is an epitome of our Rāmāyaṇa, a fact which we may regard as established on account of the numerous verbal agreements which have been shown to exist between the two poems.¹²

---

[[P403]]

ARJUNAMISRA¹³

A commentator of the Mahabharata who has suffered undeserved neglect at the hands of scholars and publishers alike is Arjunamiśra. Not only is Arjuna’s commentary better than that of Nīlakaṇṭha, his text also is superior, in many respects, to that used or fixed by the Western commentator. And yet Arjuna’s Dīpikā has never been published in its entirety¹⁴ and, being difficult of access, is seldom consulted by scholars. HOLTZMANN has devoted a paragraph to him in his compendious work Das Mahabharata, Vol. 3, pp. 67 ff., but WINTERNITZ does not mention him even once in the 130 pages he devotes to the Mahabharata in his Geschichte. He is referred to en passant by BROCKHAUS, ZDMG, 6. 528; by TELANG, Bhagavadgītā Translation; by Rajendralal MITRA, Notices, Vols. 5 and 6; and in some other manuscripts catalogues.

The version of Arjunamiśra, as I pointed out in the Foreword (p. v) to the first fascicule of the critical edition of the Mahabharata (1927), is closely allied to the Bengali version. The simple reason for this affinity, not known to me then, is apparently that Arjunamiśra was a native of Bengal, to judge from the extracts from the colophons of his commentary recently published by Mahamahopadhyaya Haraprasada SHASTRI in the Descriptive Catalogue of Sanskrit Manuscripts of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Vol. 5 (1928).

The few facts about Arjunamiśra and his commentary that I have been able to glean from the various available sources may be briefly summarized thus. The name of his commentary is variously given as (Mahā-) bharatartha- [566] (pra) dīpikā and Bhāratasamgrahadīpikā. The commentaries on the different Parvans have been handed down singly or in groups of a few Parvans at a time. Complete manuscripts of the commentary exist in Bengal, but even there they are not common. The manuscripts, which are written in Bengali and Devanagari characters, bear various dates in the seventeenth or later centuries: the earliest hitherto reported date is Samvat 1676 (ca. A.D. 1620).

Arjunamiśra, who styles himself Bhāratācārya in the colophons of the manuscripts of his commentary, was the son of Isana, who was a (pāṭhaka or pāṭhakarāja) of the Mahabharata and who appears to have, like his son, borne the title Bhāratācārya. Arjuna is cited by name, by [[P404]] Nīlakaṇṭha once in his commentary on the Mahabharata (ad 3. 291. 70) and is, therefore, certainly anterior to Nīlakaṇṭha, who belongs to the third quarter of the seventeenth century.¹⁵ He in turn mentions among his predecessors the commentators Devabodha, Vimalabodha, Śāṇḍilya, Sarvajña-Nārāyaṇa, and he appears to have based his scholium closely on that of Devabodha. He wrote also a commentary on the well-known Vedic hymn Puruṣasūkta, to which he himself refers in the Dīpikā on Mbh. 14. 25. 26. TELANG (op. cit. p. 204) surmises that he is posterior to Śaṁkara, and HOLTZMANN assigns him to the thirteenth or fourteenth century: both without adducing any cogent reasons for their assumptions. Arjuna regarded and has treated the Harivaṁśa as an integral part of the Great Epic, elaborately defending this position: his commentary, therefore, embraces the supplement Harivaṁśa also.

Arjunamiśra lived in North India, in a town or village on the banks of the Ganges and, according to his own statement, compiled the great commentary on the Mahabharata under the patronage of one Satyakhana. [567] Relying on one Bengal Asiatic Society’s manuscript examined by him, Haraprasada SHASTRI asserts that Arjuna was a Varendra Brahman of North Bengal. The Mahamahopadhyaya may indeed be right in this, but I am not wholly convinced. I find it a suspicious circumstance that this word Varendra occurs only in one place in one manuscript (No. 3422), while it is conspicuous by its absence in the others which contain a similar colophon. There is, however, another word which is often repeated in these colophons but not discussed by the Mahamahopadhyaya and which I think also contains a place-name. The word is spelt in the colophons variously as Campāhet(t)iya, Campāheṭhi, Campiheṭika. It is used there as an attribute of Kula. I take the reference to mean that Arjunamiśra’s family (kula) belonged to a town or village, called Campāhet(t)i. Could this place be identified with certainty, we should have a very definite clue as to Arjunamiśra’s provenance. I am tempted to identify it with Campāhāti mentioned in the Imperial Gazetteer of India (1885) as a “small village….15 miles south-west of Calcutta, in the district of the Twenty-four Parganas, Bengal”; but owing partly to the erratic manner in which proper names are spelt in the Imperial Gazetteer and partly to the lack of sufficient data as to the situation of the place in question, the identification proposed above is necessarily uncertain.

Following the example of my predecessors, I have utilized Devanāgarī manuscripts of the commentary of Arjunamiśra and treated his version as a sub-division of the Devanāgarī version. The two Devanāgarī manuscripts I am using for my edition of the Ādiparvan are extremely corrupt. In fact all the manuscripts I have consulted—and they are all Nāgari manuscripts—have been surprisingly corrupt. Not only that, the text they contain is [[P405]] obviously contaminated from the vulgate text, as evidenced [568] by the glaring discrepancies that exist between the readings of the text and the lemmata in the commentary. This corruption of the Devanāgarī manuscripts I could not understand at first, but is, I cannot but think now, due to their being copies of Bengali originals. It would, therefore, be expedient to secure and use, whenever possible, good old Bengali manuscripts of Arjunamiśra’s commentary, treating his version as an offshoot of the Bengali version. Arjunamiśra certainly seems to belong to the Eastern school of Mahabharata commentators.

---

[[P406]]

THE NALA EPISODE AND THE RAMAYANA¹⁶

There must be indeed very few Sanskritists who have read the justly popular Nala-Damayantī episode of the Mahabharata and not felt disposed to echo the sentiments of A. W. V. SCHLEGEL that the poem “can hardly be surpassed in pathos and ethos, in the enthralling force and tenderness of the sentiments.”¹⁷ It is without doubt one of the most beautiful love stories of the world, striking on account of the simplicity of its style and the beauty of its imagery. Owing to its innate attractiveness and transparent lucidity, it has been the custom, since a long time, at almost all Western Universities, to begin the study of Sanskrit with the reading of this romantic little poem, for which purpose it is no doubt excellently suited. Its popularity may be judged from the fact that it has been translated not only into English, French and German, but also into Italian, Swedish, Czech, Polish, Russian, Greek and Hungarian among the European languages. Every province of India can of course boast of its own version of this superb little epopee.

Regarded as an integral part of the Mahabharata,¹⁸ the episode¹⁹ is a palpable “interpolation”, impeding annoyingly the march of the epic story, and is forced upon the reader of the Epic in the most barefaced manner. During the exile of the Pandavas they receive a casual visit from a peripatetic sage called Bṛhadaśva. Yudhiṣṭhira—as is usual with him—complains to him of the misfortune which has overtaken him and his family, and asks the sage whether there has ever been a more unfortunate king than himself. Thereupon Bṛhadaśva forthwith relates the Nala story, in 27 adhyāyas, comprising something like 1100 stanzas or 2200 lines. There could be no clearer instance of deliberate interpolation, introduced with a coolness difficult to match. Yet we are really intensely grateful at heart in this case, as in the case of the Savitri episode, the two immortal stories that are known and loved throughout the length and breadth of India—that some meddlesome interpolator had the courage to interrupt deliberately the smooth flow of the epic narrative with these beautiful digressions and thus saved them [295] from falling a prey to the ravages of Time. And so with a number of other [[P407]] interpolations in the Great Epic. Many of them richly deserved to be “interpolated” in this Golden Treasury of the Myths and Legends of India.

Not only has the Nala-Damayantī poem what may be called a lively story-interest, but it is also clothed in a most attractive garb. The charmingly simple diction of this exquisite little poem is marked by a rigorous economy of words and “ornaments”; the construction of the story is also on the whole remarkably faultless: qualities which have endeared it to connoisseurs all the world over. The narrative, like a sylvan brook, runs its meandering course naturally and smoothly to its destined conclusion. And in spite of a few inevitable scenes of divine intervention and a little exaggeration necessary for artistic effect, we carry away the impression that the story rests on a foundation of fact, and we feel that it may all have happened, in those wonderful bygone times, exactly as it is narrated here.

In the whole length of this carefully and artistically constructed poem there is just one passage which is apt slightly to perplex a careful reader. It is the soliloquy of the Brahmin Sudeva in chapter 16 of the poem (B. 3. 68. 8 ff.). On reading this passage a discerning reader would notice for one thing a sudden change to a rather florid style, marked by a plethora of epithets and a rich embroidery of similes.

The situation is this. King Nala, having deserted Damayantī where she lay asleep, strode through the forest aimlessly until he met the snake-king Karkoṭaka, who, in return for a good turn done to him, transformed the handsome Nala into an ugly hunchback and advised him to go to Ayodhyā and seek service as a charioteer with king Ṛtuparṇa. Nala does so and remains at the court of Ṛtuparṇa in the service of the king. His whereabouts and identity are not known to any living soul besides himself: which is a very important point in the narrative. Damayantī, in the meanwhile, after a number of perilous adventures, reaches, by a fortunate coincidence, the palace of the queen of the Cedis, who is no other than Damayantī’s own aunt (as is revealed later), who takes compassion on her and gives her shelter. In course of time the evil tidings of the fateful game of dice and the subsequent exile of Nala and Damayantī reached king Bhīma, Damayantī’s father. Thereupon he called to him some Brahmins and enjoined them, with promise of rich gifts, that they should search for Nala and Damayantī and bring them back to him. One of these Brahmins, the fortunate Sudeva, comes to the country of the Cedis and there, in the palace hall, he sees Damayantī and recognizes her forthwith. On seeing the wan, unkempt and forlorn appearance of the beautiful princess of Vidarbha, he indulges in a soliloquy before addressing her directly. This passage, as already remarked, seems marked out from the rest of the poem by attempts at higher flights of imagination, approaching the requirements of what is known as the Kāvya style. Damayantī is here successively compared by Sudeva to Śrī (or Lakṣmī), to the full [[P408]] moon, to Rati (Cupid’s consort), to the splendour of the full moon, to a lotus stalk, to a full-moon night, to a river, to [296] a lotus pool, again to a lotus stalk, and finally to the crescent of the moon (B. 3. 68. 10-17). That, how-ever, is a minor matter.

The really perplexing part of the soliloquy is the way in which Sudeva refers to Nala in the following stanza (B. 3. 68. 20):

duṣkaram kurute ’tyartham hīno yad anayā Nalaḥ |
dhārayaty ātmano deham na śokenāvasīdati ||

“Extremely difficult is the trial of Nala who, deprived of her (scil. Damayantī), supports his body and does not pine away in sorrow!”

This can be properly said by a person who knows that Nala is heroically bearing the cruel blow of fate which had temporarily separated him from his beloved, and above all that Nala is alive. But for all Sudeva knew, Nala might have been dead. Here is a slight incongruity to start with. It might be argued that as it was not definitely known that Nala was dead, Sudeva was to a certain extent justified in assuming that Nala was alive, and so this outburst was after all not so very incongruous. But, even if he were alive, how was Sudeva to know whether Nala wanted to recover Damayantī; in fact, to know at all what feelings Nala entertained then about Damayantī : they might conceivably have been even hostile, for all Sudeva could say. Such minute analysis of hidden motives and distant possibilities might, however, be regarded as captious criticism, when considering such an old-world love poem as this.

The disturbing thought however recurs when a few lines later we read (B. 3. 68. 23 ab):

asyā nūnam punarlābhān Naiṣadhaḥ prītim eṣyati |

“Through her recovery Nala will become happy indeed”,

words which again definitely presuppose that Nala is alive and anxious to rediscover his lost Damayantī, neither of which facts could have been known to Sudeva, and whose assumption by him is quite gratuitous and most puzzling to the reader. Inappropriate to a certain extent are in the same context the adjectives aprameyasya and vīryasattvavataḥ (stanza 25) applied to Nala. Was it not through Nala’s own insane infatuation for dice that Damayantī was reduced to this condition, and all that great disaster was brought upon the two families? A discordant note is likewise struck by the words Naiṣadho ‘rhati Vaidarbhīm (stanza 24), which under these circumstances seem peculiarly inappropriate. One rather feels at this stage that poor Damayantī had definitely made the wrong choice at the svayaṁvara: she would have been much happier had she chosen, in preference to the profligate Nala, one of the four gods who were wooing her.

Another very curious thing we notice about this passage is that while Sudeva waxes eloquent about Nala and his sufferings, he has no thought at [[P409]] the moment for king Bhīma, who is Sudeva’s patron and who has dispatched him on this errand. Sudeva has not a word to say in this long soliloquy as to how glad the fond parents would be on seeing their beloved Damayantī and how happy Damayantī would be on being reunited to her kinsfolk. From [297] his present words we could never guess that he had been sent by king Bhīma or that he had any connection with the House of Vidarbha.

Our first thought is that the whole passage is one of those modern interpolations which have unintentionally disfigured many a fine old poem. The manuscripts do not however countenance such an idea. The passage is documented uniformly by all manuscripts alike. It is therefore not in any case a recent interpolation. Moreover the idea itself of the soliloquy is not by any means inherently inappropriate; only the precise wording and some of the sentiments expressed seem a little incongruous.

We are therefore led to conclude that the poet’s own knowledge of the real state of things, that Nala was not dead and that, repenting his hasty abandonment of Damayantī, he was then making reproaches to himself and was in fact longing to meet his lost Damayantī, had betrayed the poet into putting those words in the mouth of Sudeva, anticipating what was actually going to happen—a mistake common in the works of careless and inexperienced writers.

That this also is not the correct explanation of the anomaly follows, however, from the fact that almost all the lines forming this soliloquy of Sudeva recur almost verbatim in the long soliloquy of Hanumat in the Sundarakāṇḍa (adhy. 18 ff., ed. GORRESIO) of the Rāmāyaṇa at the time when he first sees Sītā in the Aśoka grove of Rāvaṇa’s Laṅkā,—a soliloquy which, as will be made clear, is the source of the passage under discussion from the Nala episode.

The two situations, it will be recalled, have a superficial similarity. The heroine is lost, and messengers have been sent, by persons interested in her recovery, to find out her whereabouts. One of these messengers, more fortunate than the rest, suddenly and unexpectedly lights upon her, whereupon he just stands gazing at her and giving vent to his mixed feelings of joy and sorrow in the form of a soliloquy.

The one important difference between the two situations—a difference obviously overlooked by the adapter—is that in one case—the Rāmāyaṇa—the messenger, Hanumat, has been sent by Rāma himself, and the messenger therefore knows exactly the state of the mind of the husband of the missing princess; whereas in the other case, the Nala episode, the messenger, sent by king Bhīma, has not only no knowledge of Nala’s feelings towards Damayantī, but he does not even know whether Nala, who is missing, is alive or dead. And that makes a deal of difference. The words of the Rāmāyaṇa soliloquy are wholly appropriate in the mouth of the Monkey Chieftain; but the same words, in spite of a few necessary verbal alterations made by the adapter, prove on close scrutiny, as shown above, just a trifle incongruous in the soliloquy of Sudeva.

The extent of the similarity between the two passages will be clear from the following table in which the related lines are given in parallel columns.

---

[[P410]]

Mahābhārata (Bom. ed.) 3. 68. 8 ff. [Emended]20	Rāmāyaṇa (ed. GORRESIO) Sundarakāṇḍa21 (Adhy. 18, 19, 21, 29)
8 mandaprakhyāyamānena rūpeṇāpratimena tām | pinaddhām dhūmajālena prabhām iva vibhāvasoḥ |	18 4 mandam prakhyāyamānena rūpeṇāpratimena tām | pinaddhām dhūmajālena prabhām iva vibhāvasoḥ | (cf. 10 cd also)
9 tām samīkṣya viśālākṣīm adhikaṁ malinām kṛśām | tarkayāmāsa Bhaimīti kāraṇair upapādayan |	18 22 tām samīkṣya viśālākṣīm adhikaṁ malinām kṛśām | tarkayāmāsa Sīteti | kāraṇair upapādayan |
10 yātheyam me purā dṛṣṭā tathārūpeyam aṅganā | kṛtārtho ‘smy adya dṛṣṭvemām lokakāntām iva Śriyam |	18 23cd yathā purā vai dṛṣṭā me tathārūpeyam aṅganā | 18 27ab tām dṛṣṭvā taptahemābhāṁ lokakāntām iva Śriyam |
11 pūrṇacandrānanāṁ śyāmām cāruvṛttapayodharām ! kurvantīm prabhayā devīm sarvā vitimirā diśaḥ |	18 24 pūrṇacandrānanā śyāmā cāruvṛttapayodharā ! kurvantī prabhayā devī sarvā vitimirā diśaḥ |
12 cārupadmapalāśākṣīm Manmathasya Ratīm iva | iṣṭām sarvasya jagataḥ pūrṇacandraprabhām iva |	18 26 padmapattraviśālākṣīm Manmathasya Ratīm iva | iṣṭām sarvasya jagataḥ pūrṇacandranibhām iva |
13 Vidarbhasarasas tasmād daivadoṣād ivoddhṛtām | malapaṅkānuliptāṅgīṁ mṛṇālīm iva tām bhṛśam |	19 15cd Ikṣvākusarasas tasmād Rāvaṇenodhṛtā balāt | 18 16cd malapaṅkadharām dīnām maṇḍanārhām amaṇḍitām |
14 paurṇamāsīm iva niśāṁ Rāhugrastaniśākarām | patiśokākulāṁ dīnām śuṣkasrotāṁ nadīm iva |	21 14ab paurṇamāsīm iva niśāṁ Rāhugrastaniśākarām | 21 15cd patiśokāturām dīnām śuṣkasrotonadīm iva |
[299] 15 vidhvastaparṇakamalāṁ vitrāsitavihaṅgamām | hastihastaparikliṣṭām vyākulām iva padminīm |	21 14cd vidhvastapattrakamalām vitrāsitavihaṅgamām | 21 15ab hastihastaparikliṣṭām ākulām padminīm iva |
16 sukumārīṁ sujātāṅgīm ratnagarbhagṛhoṣitām | dahyamānām ivoṣṇena mṛṇālīm aciroddhṛtām |	21 16cd sukumārīṁ sujātāṅgīm ratnagarbhagṛhocitām | 21 17ab tapyamānām ivoṣṇena mṛṇālīm aciroddhṛtām |
18 kāmabhogaiḥ priyair hīnām hīnāṁ bandhujanena ca | dehaṁ dhārayatīm dīnām bhartṛdarśanakāṅkṣayā	19 23cd kāmabhogavihīneyam hīnā bandhujanena ca | 19 24ab dhārayaty ātmano deham tatsamāgamakāṅkṣayā |
19 bhartā nāma paraṁ nāryā bhūṣaṇaṁ bhūṣaṇair vinā | eṣā virahitā tena śobhanāpi na śobhate |	19 25cd bhartā nāma paraṁ nāryā bhūṣaṇam bhūṣaṇair vinā | 19 26ab eṣā tasyānurāgeṇa śobhate ‘py analaṁkṛtā |
20 duṣkaraṁ kurute ’tyartham hīno yad anayā Nalaḥ | dhārayaty ātmano deham na śokenāvasīdati |	19 26cd duṣkaraṁ kurute Rāmo hīno yad anayā vibhuḥ | 19 27ab dhārayaty ātmano deham na śokenāvasīdati |
21 imām asitakeśāntām śatapattrāyatekṣaṇām | sukhārhāṁ duḥkhitām dṛṣṭvā mamāpi vyathate manaḥ |	19 27cd imām asitakeśāntām śatapattranibhānanām ! 19 28ab sukhārhām duḥkhitām dṛṣṭvā mamāpi vyathitam manaḥ |
22 kadā nu khalu duḥkhasya pāraṁ yāsyati vai śubhā | bhartuḥ samāgamāt sādhvī Rohiṇī śaśino yathā |	19 28cd kadā tu khalu duḥkhasya pāram yāsyati Maithilī | 19 29ab Rāghavasyāprameyasya Lakṣmaṇasya ca jīvataḥ | [[P411]]
23 asyā nūnam punarlābhān Naiṣadhaḥ prītim eṣyati | rājā rājyaparibhraṣṭaḥ punar labdhveva medinīm |	19 22cd nūnam asyā punarlābhād Rāghavaḥ prītim eṣyati | 19 23ab rājā rājyaparibhraṣṭaḥ punar labdhveva medinīm |
24 tulyaśīlavayoyuktāṁ tulyābhijanasaṁyutām | Naiṣadho ‘rhati Vaidarbhīm taṁ ceyam asitekṣaṇā |	19 32 tulyarūpavayoyuktām tulyābhijanalakṣaṇām | Rāghavo ‘rhati Vaidehīm | taṁ ceyam asitekṣaṇā |
25 yuktaṁ tasyāprameyasya vīryasattvavato mayā | samāśvāsayituṁ bhāryām | patidarśanalālasām |	29 6 yuktaṁ tasyāprameyasya satyaṁ sattvavato mayā | samāśvāsayituṁ bhāryāṁ patidarśanalālasām |
[300] 26 ayam āśvāsayāmy enāṁ pūrṇacandranibhānanām |22 adṛṣṭapūrvāṁ duḥkhasya duḥkhārtām dhyānatatparām |	29 7ab adṛṣṭaduḥkhā duḥkhasya na hy antam adhigacchati |

[[P412]]

---

[[P413]] The question which of the two passages is the original one, need not detain us long. It is a priori not very likely that Valmiki who is credited with having composed an epic of the size and rank of the Rāmāyaṇa would need to borrow the idea or the phraseology of such a commonplace soliloquy from a poem like the Nalopākhyāna. The redactor of the Nala story is, therefore, clearly indicated as the poet who would be under obligation for his inspiration to the Ādi-kavi. This a priori conclusion is happily confirmed in the present instance by the fortuitous circumstance that the passage turns out to be somewhat of a misfit in our poem. The anomaly, as has been suggested above, can be explained only on the supposition that the Nalopākhyāna lines were borrowed en bloc from a slightly different context. The exact phrasing of the speech of the messenger was originally conceived for a somewhat different set of circumstances as pictured in the Rāmāyaṇa, in which the soliloquy fits perfectly. The borrowed plumes, as is very often the case, do not fit the new incumbent as well as the adapter had imagined or at least hoped. We have, therefore, here an indubitable proof of the direct borrowing of some Rāmāyaṇa material by one of the Mahabharata poets—not necessarily of course Krsna Dvaipayana Vyasa, but one of the “Epigoni”, the Vyāsāids, who carried on the good work commenced by Vyasa.

The conclusion that the idea of this soliloquy of Sudeva in the Nalopākhyāna of the Mahabharata must necessarily have been borrowed by one of the redactors of the Great Epic from the Rāmāyaṇa is perhaps not without some significance for an understanding of the general interrelation of the Rāmāyaṇa and the Mahabharata to which we may here advert in passing.²³

The soliloquy discussed above is, as is well known, not by any means the only passage in which the Mahabharata, shows contact with its sister epic,²⁴ and the question arises each time in the mind of the textual critic whether [301] the Mahabharata or the Rāmāyaṇa is the source of the passage common to the two epics, a question to which, owing to the peculiar character and development of the Indian epics, no general answer is possible, though a partial solution of the problem may be attempted.

As remarked already, the Nala passage is not the only passage for which a parallel exists in the Rāmāyaṇa. In the Adiparvan, for instance, in a cosmogonic chapter, I had occasion to draw attention to the fact that a passage of some 30 lines (1. 60. 54-67 of the Critical Edition) recurs almost verbatim in the Rāmāyaṇa (3. 14. 17-32, ed. Nirnaya Sagar Press).²⁵ No definite evidence was available in that particular instance to show whether the passage was original to the Mahabharata and had been borrowed by the Rāmāyaṇa, or vice versa, or again whether it had been borrowed by both epics independently from a third source. There seemed to me, however, to be some slight abruptness in the manner in which the stanzas were introduced in the Mahabharata, which would suggest borrowing from the Rāmāyaṇa where the context is smoother; but, as the contents of the passage were of a very general nature, the third possibility mentioned above, namely that both epics owed the idea to a common (Puranic) source, could not be entirely eliminated.

The Sabhāparvan again supplies the well known kaccit chapter (adhy. 5), which has its counterpart in the Rāmāyaṇa. Here also the contents are of a very general character, having no direct bearing on the context of either the Rāmāyaṇa or the Mahabharata, and the whole passage could well have been adapted by both epics independently from an older Niti tractate.

---

[[P414]] On the other hand, in the Āraṇyakaparvan, commonly known as the Vanaparvan, the Rāmopākhyāna closely follows in general our Rāmāyaṇa,²⁶ notwithstanding some isolated though striking discrepancies between the two accounts. There are also not wanting in the Rāmopākhyāna a few of our genuine Rāmāyaṇa stanzas which have been reproduced either verbatim or with but slight verbal alteration. To suggest that the Rāmopākhyāna was the original source which had inspired the revered Ādi-kavi to compose his Rāmāyaṇa would be again a reductio ad absurdum. The inevitable conclusion is that the diaskeuasts of the Rāmopākhyāna knew and summarised an extensive older Rāma epic. The only doubt is whether the redactors of the Mahabharata had utilized our version of the Rāmāyaṇa or some other older version unknown to us, to which the discrepant traits of our episode might be traced. After an intensive study and a close comparison of the two texts, the late Prof. JACOBI had definitely expressed himself in favour of the former alternative, namely, that the Rāmopākhyāna was a passably accurate summary of our Rāmāyaṇa, the discrepancies between the accounts being due either to casual misconception or else to natural and unavoidable failure of memory, of which instances are common in summaries and abstracts.²⁷ [302] JACOBI’S view, it seems to me, now finds further confirmation from the instance discussed above of direct borrowing from our Rāmāyaṇa text in a case where there is no intrinsic reason whatsoever for any reference to the Rāmāyaṇa at all. Evidence seems to be, therefore, gathering to show that our Rāmāyaṇa text—or the bulk of it, at any rate—was used as a “source” by the diaskeuasts of the Mahabharata. We can even go further and admit with JACOBI that the Rāmāyaṇa must already have been “generally familiar as an ancient work before the Mahabharata reached its final form.”²⁸

On the other hand it will have to be admitted that the Mahabharata makes in various ways a distinctly more archaic impression, a fact which has led some scholars to regard it as even a much older work than the other epic. We thus arrive at the apparent paradox that the Rāmāyaṇa is older than the Mahabharata and the Mahabharata is older than the Rāmāyaṇa. The only way we can resolve this paradox is by supposing—as has already been suggested by WINTERNITZ²⁹ and other writers on the subject—that the period of composition of the Rāmāyaṇa, which is a work with a distinctly more unitary character, falls within the much longer period of the evolution of the Mahabharata, which latter compared to the other is a very complex and complicated work indeed.

---

[[P415]] This statement of the relationship between the two epics will appear perfectly valid and even natural when we remember that the evolution of the Great Epic of India falls into two distinct and separate phases, namely, the Bhārata and the Mahābhārata, the caturviṁśatisāhasrī (1. 1. 61 Crit. Ed.) and the śatasahasrī, a fact which is documented in very clear terms by the work itself—and there is no reason to disbelieve it—but which for some unintelligible reason is not taken very seriously by people. Assuming, however, this to be a fact—which it undoubtedly is—we may hazard what seems to me to be a perfectly legitimate conjecture that the Rāmāyaṇa was composed in the interval which separated the Bhārata from the Mahābhārata. Thus, though we may admit that the Rāmāyaṇa was, as JACOBI says, a well-known work before the Mahabharata reached its ultimate form, we must reckon with the possibility that when the Rāmāyaṇa itself (minus perhaps Books 1 and 7) was composed by the poet Valmiki, the heroic poem Bhārata—the nucleus of our Mahabharata—was already long in existence, current perhaps in some distant part of the country and in a different milieu. The Bhārata and the Rāmāyaṇa may have been indeed more or less independent products, different in origin and treatment. But when the Bhārgava redactors³⁰ set to work and converted the [303] Bhārata into the Mahābhārata, conceived on a much larger scale and with a much more ambitious programme, they had already the archetype of our Rāmāyaṇa text before them and they made full use of it, absorbing in their own encyclopaedic work all that they possibly could, and they were perhaps also influenced by it in no small degree. In fact the very impetus to the conversion of the Bhārata and the compilation of the Mahābhārata may well have been given by the contact with the sister epic, which appears to have had a more elevated ethical standard, a more serious didactic purpose, a much higher idealistic view of life, and a wider popular appeal.

A priori, then, whenever our Mahābhārata shows close verbal agreement with the older books of the Rāmāyaṇa, the presumption would be that we have to look upon the Rāmāyana as the source, assuming of course that the common element is not of such a character that it could have been borrowed by both epics independently from a third source. It is naturally not excluded that the Rāmāyaṇa in its turn might have been influenced to a certain extent, at a still later epoch, in its further development, by the Mahabharata, the new encyclopaedic Dharma Saṁhitā. In fact there is every indication that the interrelation between the two epics will reduce itself to a very complicated system of mutual actions and reactions, and it would be interesting to investigate the question more fully by collation of all possible parallelisms in ideas and expression between the two great epics of India.