Creative Retelling: Dialogue and "Domestication"

In an essay on Kannada folklore, A. K. Ramanujan points to the "domestication" of Sanskritic gods and heroes that is characteristic of folk retellings of epic and Puranic stories: "In Sanskritic mythology, the gods do not even blink or sweat, let alone weep tears, sneeze, or menstruate. Their feet do not touch the earth."^[61] In folktales, however, gods and

[59] This Vaishnava interpretation of the Lord's dual nature resembles Otto's well-known characterization of the two aspects of the sacred: mysterium tremendum and mysterium fascinans , the first eliciting a response of awe or even terror, the second producing an irresistible attraction; The Idea of the Holy , 12-40.

[60] The approach was not original, however. C. N. Singh recalled that the sadhu Snehlata of Ayodhya used to offer a similar vyakhya of this line, offering thirty-two examples each of Ram's prabhav and svabhav ; interview, August 1983.

[61] Ramanujan, "Two Realms of Kannada Folklore," 64-68.

heroes are liable not only to weep but also to blow their noses and argue with their wives in earthy village dialect. Although the Manas might be termed a "folk-influenced" retelling of the Ramayan story, and although it contains many touches of the humor, local color, and proverbial wisdom characteristic of regional folktales, it is a work that strongly asserts both its own religious authority and its fidelity to a perceived "great tradition," and its author generally maintains an august and dignified tone. His principal characters may not be quite as unearthly as the gods referred to in the above quotation, but they are still exalted and noble, and his hero and heroine have sometimes been faulted by Western readers as paragons of an unrelieved and almost inhuman virtue. Devotees, however, do not share this negative assessment. Even though Ram is perceived as less playful than Krishna, indeed as profound or serious (gambhir ) by nature, he is nonetheless, to his worshipers, entirely real, familiar, and human.

One reason that the epic characters remain vivid and alive to their audience is their domestication in the endless retellings of the Manas in Katha performances. For these are indeed folk recastings of the Ramayan, utilizing the text as a framework to be fleshed out with imaginary and highly colloquial dialogues containing touches of humor and pathos often missing from the original. For example, when Tulsi tells the story of Ram's anger at the monkey king Sugriv, he has his hero speak some harsh words and Lakshman display his usual hot temper; but he does not have Lakshman say (as Shrinath Mishra does when he retells the story), "Lord, for the first time in your life you're speaking my language! I'm going to go kill him right now. You got the big brother, now I'll take care of the little one!"—the last sentence a crudely comic reference to Ram's earlier slaying of Sugriv's brother Bali. Nor does he have Ram nervously tell himself, "Oh no, this fellow is really going to murder him!"^[62] Many of the expounders' domestications prove to be "readings between the lines" of the epic—never accepting the text at face value but always probing the motives, mental processes, and emotions of characters, imagining their facial expressions and gestures, and bringing them all to life for listeners.

To demonstrate this approach, I offer a brief passage from Sundar kand^[*] followed by a transcription of its retelling by Shrinath Mishra. In this episode, Ravan's brother Vibhishan, having just fled Lanka, is coming to surrender to Ram. The monkeys, led by Sugriv, fear that he comes

[62] Shrinath Mishra, Katha , Banaras Hindu University (hereafter, B.H.U.), February 14, 1983.

with an evil purpose and attempt to warn Ram against him. Ram counters that he must be true to his vow to welcome all who come to him seeking shelter. The Manas passage reads:

Sugriv said, "Listen, Lord of the Raghus,
Ten-head's brother is coming to meet you."
The Lord said, "Friend, what do you think?"
The monkey king answered, "Listen, Lord of men,
the illusory power of the demons can't be fathomed.
A form-changer—who knows why he comes?
This scoundrel comes to learn our secrets!
Bind and hold him—that seems best to me."
[Ram replied] "Friend, you've analyzed the strategy rightly,
but I've vowed to protect those who seek shelter."
5.43.4-8

In Shrinath's interpretation, this passage draws special poignancy from the fact that both Sugriv and Vibhishan have quarreled with and ultimately betrayed their elder brothers. Sugriv has already come under the Lord's protection, but now Vibhishan's fate seems to hang in the balance and, ironically, Ram allows Sugriv to present the case against him. This becomes the means for Ram to teach the proud and somewhat narrow-minded monkey king a lesson on the value of compassion. It also allows for a humorous digression in which Ram compares himself to the demon and finds that every evil quality that Sugriv has attributed to Vibhishan has a parallel in his own divine attributes. The discussion of evil qualities or "defects" (dos^[*] ) reminds the vyas of a passage in Book One in which nine defects are attributed to Shiva. After this digression, he returns to the subject of Ram's reception of Vibhishan and completes the story:

You know the time when Vibhishan-ji came seeking shelter and Sugriv-ji stopped him? Sugriv-ji said,

Sugriv said, "Listen, Lord of the Raghus,
Ten-head's brother is coming to meet you."
5.43.4

"Ten-head's brother"—that's the point—Ravan's brother is coming! The Lord said,

The Lord said, "Friend, what do you think?"
5.43.5

[off-handedly, speaking as Ram] "What's the need to consult me? If he's coming, well, let him come." Sugriv-ji said, "You don't understand. I'm telling you it's Ten-head's brother. . . . So the Lord said [sighs, then slowly

and deliberately] "Well, if Bali's brother^[63] can come, why can't Ravan's brother?" [loud approval from listeners: "Vah!"] "If Bali's brother can come take refuge in me, then why shouldn't Ten-head's brother come?"

Sugriv said, "Come on, Maharaj! I mean something else, you're not getting it." The Lord said, "What's your point? Speak up, explain!"

"Look here," Sugriv said [excitedly], "Ten-head's sister came, and what a big calamity that was!"

Shurpanakha, the sister of Ravan. . . .
3.17.3

"Janaki-ji was carried off, it was a great calamity! And now Ten-head's brother is coming. . . ."

[slowly] Then the Lord said to Sugriv-ji, "Friend, I've left Ayodhya and come all this way. I go to all the ashrams of the sages and ascetics, to all the devotees' places; I go all over. If even a single devotee wants to meet me, I go to him and then travel on. I go there and then travel on! [fervently] Now a devotee is coming to meet me, and you are holding him back, Sugriv! What is this you're doing? Let him come!"

The enemy's younger brother, Vibhishan the demon. . . .

Vinay patrika. . . . Goswami-ji has eleven other books, you know, and if one studies them, the intoxication is all the greater. My revered teacher was a great scholar of all twelve books. That's why I quote a lot from the other books in my Katha .

The enemy's younger brother, Vibhishan the demon—
what devotion was he fit to practice?
But when he sought refuge, you brought him before you
and met him with open arms.
Vinay patrika , 166.8

[tenderly] The Lord, you know. . . . [returning to the story] Then Sugriv-ji said, "Maharaj, you are a king, therefore you should think like a king. Right now, consider, as a king, whether Vibhishan should be given refuge or not."

The illusory power of the demons can't be fathomed.
A form-changer—who knows why he comes?
This scoundrel comes to learn our secrets!
Bind and hold him—that seems best to me.
5.43.6,7

Four defects! Four defects were pointed out by Sugriv at that time: "illusory power of the demons"—that's one; "form-changer"—two; "who knows why he comes?"—three; "to learn our secrets"—four.

[63] I.e., Sugriv himself.

The Lord said, "Sugriv, these four faults which you have pointed out in Vibhishan, it seems that they are in me as well. It seems they belong to me also." Sugriv-ji was stunned, "Lord, what are you saying?" The Lord said, "You said that 'the illusory power of the demons can't be fathomed.' Well., if the illusory power of the demons can't be fathomed, my illusory power also can't be fathomed:

Hari's illusory power is inscrutable,
not to be fathomed, King of Birds!
7.118a

My illusory power is also incomprehensible." And "form-changer": whenever the demons wish, they can take on a form. So the Lord said, "This defect also is found in me:

Of the fish, the turtle, the boar, the man-lion,
the dwarf, and of Parashuram . . .
[he pauses, smiling; audience completes line]
. . . you took the form!
6.110.7

[outburst of applause, exclamations of "Vah!"] When I desire it, then I too can take on a form. So this defect also is in me.

The illusory power of the demons can't be fathomed.
A form-changer—who knows why he comes?
5.43.6

Well, this 'who-knows-why-he-comes' defect is in me too:

The reason that Hari becomes incarnate,
one cannot say it's this or it's that.
1.121.2

The reason that God comes, this no one can explain with certainty. So,

A form-changer—who knows why he comes?
The scoundrel comes to learn our secrets!
5.43.6,7

He comes to learn our secrets. And I, I too . . .

Ram sits at the palace window
receiving everyone's homage.
He divines each one's desire
and gives accordingly to each.^[64]

I too, day and night, find out, you see, everyone's secrets. So it appears that all four defects are in me. Therefore, if there are four defects in Vibhishan and there are four defects in me, well then, if one defective person makes friends with another defective person, well, you know, perhaps it may turn out for

[64] A folk saying expressed as a doha .

the best! [laughter] But if a defective person should make friends with a meritorious person, well, that could be very difficult." Like the time when nine defects were pointed out in Lord Shiva—you know, by the seven sages.^[65] Parvati-ji was delighted. She said, "Sages, I have heard it said:

Eight defects are ever in woman's heart.^[66] 6.16.2

There are eight defects in women, so I have heard. So if an eightfold-defective woman should be wed to a ninefold-defective husband, well, they'll hit it off quite well!^[67] [laughter] But if by chance an eightfold-defective woman should get a ninefold-auspicious husband. . . ." They had pointed out nine auspicious qualities in Lord Vishnu, you know. But I'm not going to tell that story now; my subject is different. I'll just tell you the gist: that they described nine good qualities in Lord Vishnu, nine defects in Lord Shankar. Then Parvati-ji said, "If a ninefold-auspicious man is wed to an eightfold-defective woman, it will be a mismatch. But if she should marry a ninefold-defective man, then, you know, it just might work out!"

Mahadev may be full of defects,
Vishnu, the abode of all good qualities . . .

But get the point, it comes at the end:

Mahadev may be full of defects,
Vishnu, the abode of all good qualities,
but whatever pleases one's heart,
that alone one desires.
1.80

"Hey, Seven Sages, what are you saying? Don't you know who my guru is? My guru is Shri Narad-ji."

My obstinacy will persist through millions of births:
I'll wed Shambhu or remain a virgin!
1.81.5

I won't abandon Narad's advice,
whether my home prospers or perishes, I won't fear.
One who lacks faith in his guru's words
finds no happiness or profit even in dreams!
1.80.7,8

[65] In Tulsi's retelling of the courtship of Shiva and Parvati, Shiva sends the seven sages to test Parvati, who is performing austerities to win him as her husband. The sages try to sway her from her purpose by pointing out a catalog of defects in her prospective spouse: he is naked, has no home or family, carries a skull, etc. (1.79.5,6).

[66] A rebuke uttered by Rayan after his wife Mandodari urges him to return Sita to Ram. In the intertextual world of Katha , even the unwed Parvati quotes the Manas , although its story has yet to be narrated m her!

[67] I.e., since by conventional wisdom a husband should always surpass his wife.

At that moment the seven sages . . . ah, they fell at Mother Parvati's feet! [returning to original story] So, when the Lord said these things about Vi-bhishan-ji, and when he lifted Vibhishan up and clasped him to his heart, at that moment the Lord looked at Sugriv-ji. The Lord said to Sugriv-ji, "Sugriv, you told me,

Bind and hold him—that seems best to me.
5.43.7

Bind him and hold him prisoner. Well, Sugriv, I am following your advice—I am binding him. But not with rope; I'm binding him in my arms." Right? [audience: applause and "Vah!"]

Having spoken, Vibhishan fell prostrate. Seeing this,
at once the Lord lifted him up with delight.
That humble speech pleased the Lord's heart
and his great arms clasped Vibhishan to his breast.
5.46.1,2

Marvelous is the Lord's nature, marvelous! The more you dwell on it, the more delight you'll experience. . . .^[68]

The penultimate sentence above is almost a refrain, repeated at the end of each anecdote or episode in the seven-day Katha . Sometimes (as here) it is the Lord's svabhav , or "nature," that is praised, and sometimes his prabhav , or "majesty." In this way, Shrinath ties his many anecdotes and explanations into his overall treatment of the theme verse. But, as must be clear, his exposition is more an evocation and celebration of the Lord's being than a theological analysis of it, just as his vyakhya of the verse is more an improvisation on its mood and implications than a systematic analysis of its language or content.

The excerpt shows how much of a performer's exposition may consist of quotations—roughly half of Shrinath's Katha comprises aptly chosen verses from the Manas . It also offers an example of how a vyas , in presenting the text in his own fashion, necessarily interprets and comments on it. In the passage under consideration, the first line spoken by Ram himself ("kaha prabhu sakha bujhie kaha"; 5.43.5) is susceptible to at least two readings, because the verb bujhna can mean either "to think, to understand" or "to ask, to consult." The translation I have offered ("The Lord said, 'Friend, what do you think?'") is based on the first sense of the verb and is the interpretation preferred, for example, by the Gita Press tika^[*] and the Manaspiyus^[*] . Shrinath, however, wishes to stress the disparity between Ram's and Sugriv's understanding of the

[68] Shrinath Mishra, Katha , B.H.U., February 14, 1983.

situation and so takes the verb in its other sense and glosses the line, "What's the need to consult me?" having Ram add (with a hint of irritation in his voice), "If he's coming, then let him come."^[69] This contributes to a heightening of tension in the retelling, as Sugriv supposes that Ram did not understand him correctly and hastens to explain, with a certain impatient urgency, why a demon like Vibhishan is not to be trusted. Thus the vyas gradually "sets up" Sugriv for the denouement: Ram lovingly embraces Vibhishan and shoots a glance in Sugriv's direction, accompanied by an ironic comment on the monkey's advice to "bind" the new arrival. Neither the glance nor the comment, of course, is mentioned in Tulsi's text.

Just as the text may be expanded through dialogues and incidents based on distinctive interpretations of its lines, it may also be supplemented by stories or motifs taken from other works of Tulsidas. Thus, while discoursing on the supreme good fortune of Kaushalya, Ram's mother, Shrinath Mishra cites a couplet from Balkand^[*] , which in turn reminds him of a Kavitavali verse that mentions the infant Ram demanding that his mother give him the moon to play with—a theme Tulsi probably borrowed from the poetry of Surdas.^[70] The expounder turns this brief reference into a charming dialogue between Ram and his mother, culminating in a humorous and ironic "punchline" that reflects, as Shrinath intends, on the Lord's "majesty" (prabhav ):

The all-pervading Brahman, stainless,
qualityless, and dispassionate—
that very unborn one, mastered by love and devotion,
lies in Kaushalya's lap.
1.198

Goswami-ji says that the all-pervading Brahman, stainless, qualityless, and dispassionate. . . . One time Bhagvan was playing, you know? And,

Sometimes he stubbornly demands the moon,
or seeing his reflection, is frightened.
Sometimes he claps his hands and dances,
filling the womens' hearts with delight.
Kavitavali , 1:4

[69] Shrinath is following the interpretation of his guru, Vijayanand Tripathi, whose own Vijayatika^[*] glosses the line "The Lord said, 'O Friend, what is there to question in this?'" The commentary adds, "The Lord said, 'You are my friend. You have the authority to allow people to meet me, and my door is always open. No one is denied a meeting. What need is there to deliberate about this? If he wants to come, then let him come!'"; Vijayatika^[*] 3:235.

[70] See, for example, poem 5, p. 170, in Bryant's Poems to the Child-God ; note also poem 16, p. 159, which describes Krishna playing with his reflection, a motif also alluded to in Kavitavali .

Bhagvan said, "Mommy, give me the moon. I will play with the moon." When God plays, you know, will he play with any ordinary toy? [obstinately] "Give me the moon!"

Kaushalya said [sighs patiently], "The moon, you know, cannot come down to earth." Bhagvan laughed and said, "You mean, God can come down to earth, but the moon cannot come?" [audience: "Vah!"] "You are able to bring down the Absolute, and yet you cannot bring the moon? "^[71]

Sometimes the Ramayan story is enhanced in Katha by the introduction of material that has no basis in any of Tulsi's writings, or perhaps in any literature. Such anecdotes drawn from the oral tradition contribute significantly to domesticating the august epic characters and offer another kind of commentary on the story. The following example, again taken from Shrinath Mishra's performances, was woven into a retelling of the episode in which King Janak's messengers come to Ayodhya to announce Ram's impending marriage, and King Dashrath eagerly solicits news of his sons. The messengers remark on the personalities of the two princes, and this reminds the vyas of a story told by "a sant of Ayodhya." The story, which features an object (a jhar-phanus^[*] , or "chandelier," presumably of glass or crystal) more suggestive of a nineteenth-century princely setting than of the ancient world of the Ramayan, allows the expounder to make a good-natured joke over the fact that Lord Ram, even as a child, was inclined to be reserved.

O King, even as Ram possesses incomparable strength,
so Lakshman is a storehouse of fiery energy.
1.293.3

The messengers, here, are making a distinction. "Your elder son, Your Majesty? Well, the fact is, he's very solemn; very dignified, your elder son. . . ." You know, a certain sant of Ayodhya used to tell a wonderful story: Little Lord Ramchandra was twirling a stick. The stick flew from the Lord's hand and struck Ayodhya's most precious chandelier—you know, a hanging lamp—Ayodhya's most valuable one. The chandelier broke; it was shattered! The servants came and told Maharaja Dashrath, "Your Majesty, Ayodhya's most valuable chandelier got broken today!" Then Kaushalya-ji came. Kaushalya-ji was very frightened and said to Maharaja Dashrath, "A chandelier, the costliest in all of Ayodhya, got broken." So then Maharaja Dashrath asked sternly, "Who broke it? Who did it?!"

"Uh . . . Shri Ram. [pleadingly] Your Majesty, it was a mistake, please forgive him! Ram made a mistake. . . ."

[pause] Then Maharaja Dashrath said [gaily] "Sound the trumpets! Call a

[71] Shrinath Mishra, Katha , B.H.U., February 13, 1983.

holiday! Go all out! At least my little Ramchandra should be naughty enough to break one chandelier!" [laughter and applause]^[72]

Similarly, the informal and open-ended structure of Katha allows the performer to "contemporize" his discourse (to borrow another term from Ramanujan) by including personal anecdotes and contemporary stories. These may be as inspiring as Ramnarayan Shukla's account of the austerities of Jugalanand Sharan, a saintly sadhu whom he knew in his youth; or as satirical as Shrinath's tale of a Calcutta businessman of his acquaintance, who aspired to earn "twenty-five lakh rupees" (Rs 2,500,000) and then retire to Vrindavan but later found—after he had earned several times the desired amount—that he was too firmly enmeshed in worldly cares to set out for Krishna's holy city. And when Shrinath has the hot-tempered Lakshman note with disappointment Ram's use of the word "tomorrow" in his threat to slay Sugriv—fearing that Ram has, as usual, left a compassionate loophole in his anger—the vyas offers a homely digression on the habits of contemporary merchants:

Our U.P. shopkeepers, you know, the clever ones, they post signs in their shops: "Cash today, credit tomorrow!" Well, whenever you go there, it's always "today," right? When is it ever "tomorrow"? [laughter]^[73]