Battle as Banquet: A Metaphor in Sradsa

Author(s): Vidyut Aklujkar

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 111, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1991), pp. 353361
Published by: American Oriental Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/604025 .
Accessed: 14/03/2013 08:43
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Oriental Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
the American Oriental Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 08:43:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BRIEF COMMUNICATIONS
Battle as Banquet: A Metaphor in Saraddsa
A banquet metaphor is employed in the early manuscripts of Saradasa's poems describing the
battle between Rama and Ravana. After discussing the novelty of the metaphor in this context, I
argue that it supplies us with two new sources for the Rama poems by Saradasa, namely, the

Anandardmdyana
andthe Hanumannataka.

In this paper I would like to discuss a poem ascribed

to Suradasa in early manuscripts from the 17th century. The poem which begins, Raghupati ranafl-te aye,
(hereafter Raghupati) first struck me because of its
uncommon imagery and then proved to be an important link in tracing the poetic heritage of Siradasa's
Rama poems, the least discussed of his poems. I came
upon Raghupati while working for John S. Hawley
and Kenneth E. Bryant on the critical edition of Suradasa's poems.' Raghupati does not appear in the edition published by the Nagari Pracarini Sabha (hereafter
NPS), which is still in use as a standard edition of
Siradasa's poems. However, since it appears in eight
manuscripts in the Hawley-Bryant collection, six of
which are earlier than the earliest (A.D. 1696) manuscript used by the NPS editors,2 we can safely assume
that it was ascribed to Siradasa in different manuscript
families as early as A.D. 1624, which, in turn, entitles us
to regard it as "a poem by SUradasa," at least in this
limited sense.
Raghupati belongs to a group of about eighty poems
on the theme of the Ramdyana that are scattered
through the early manuscripts of Siradasa's poems.
It is a long poem of 32 lines on the battle between
Rama and Ravana, a theme inherited from the epic of
Valmlki. It mentions many other exploits of Rama,
starting with his killing of the demoness Tddakd. Al-

though the poem deals with a time-honored theme,

Siradasa's choice of imagery is, to say the least, quite
unusual. Suradasa imagines the battlefield to be a banquet and describes the details of the battle as elements
of a frightful feast. Before I discuss this unusual imagery, here is a somewhat literal translation of the poem:3
"Raghupati has arrived,victorious in the battlefield!"
Thus sang the Vedas (his) untarnished glories: "The
Lord made manifest the initial ritual sip of water
(posdna = dposana or proksana) when he saw and
killed Tadaka with the first arrow. He demonstrated
(lit., taught) an awareness of the purification of lifebreath (prdna-Suddhi) by cutting off the nose of Sgirpanakha. He killed Khara, Diisana, Trisara, Marica
(lit., the deer) and ValT(lit., the monkey) to count as
the first five morsels (as part of the citrahuti). He
sprinkled the ocean water on (his) face, and being purified, created the great savor. The world came to know
(this) of the courageous Raghubira ( = Raghupati): that
he, as it were, furnished this feast.
"For the initial sweets, he let (the guests) taste the
heads of the warriors as laddu4 made of sev. He made
(them) understand the elephants to be the gfijhd, the
chariot-wheels excellent badd, and the horses the
ghevara. He brought the riders and warriors as welldecorated phen7, pharT,apuipaand pedhd. (The guests)
accepted respectfully the four-fold good feast made up
of the four-fold army. It was as if all the arrows ate for
the first time their favorite delicacies.
"For bitter (flavor) were summoned (lit., named)
Krodha, Makaraksa and Akampana.5 For hot, Prahasta. Kumbhakarna, Meghanada and Mahodara,

' While the poem found in textual materials gathered by

Bryant and Hawley for the SCIrasagaracritical edition project
has served as a starting point for this paper, the responsibility
for interpretation, comparison, and historical study is entirely
mine. I take this opportunity to thank Ken Bryant for the
access I had to the materials gathered for this research project,
as well as for his comments on a first draft of this paper.
2 On the shortcomings of the NPS as a critical edition, and
on the dates of the manuscripts available to the NPS editors
and to Hawley-Bryant, see Hawley 1979:64-72 and Bryant, in
Bahura 1984:vii-xx. For further discussion of different manuscripts of SUradisa, as an extensive bibliography on Siiraddsa,
see Mital 1983.

3 The texts of poems and verses utilized in this paper are

given in appendices.
4 Most names in italics in these verses are names of sweets
and savories still common in India, unless otherwise specified.
5 In this section the individual warriors from Ravana's army
are equated with five out of the six flavors of taste.

353

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 08:43:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

354

Journal of the American Oriental Society 111.2 (1991)

crushed, supplied the sour and the salty (flavors).
Atikaya was indeed the astringent flavor. The other
enemies were heartily enjoyed as various other relishes
and condiments.
"Seeing the arrows as the unprecedented clever/
sharp guests the rest was served well. Indeed the Lord
of Kosala (= Raghupati) served six flavors (of food) to
all arrows with his own hands.
"The scattered pearls from the necklaces of the slain
enemies adorned the earth-like (pearly) rice. Several
jeweled ornaments from the torn chests of the enemies
were barila, bari and sandhana. The flags, the headdresses, the armor, the clothes were served as mande,
purl and pdpad. The feet (were served) as fish, the
pieces of arm/hand as khandocd6 and cut up swords
(lit., waist-daggers) as tamarinds. The headless cadavers getting up and tottering appear as if opened-up
ghee was being served! The terrible Joginli, Bhata and
Vetala are creating quite an uproar. The wolves, the
jackals, the band of vultures, the crows and the kites
(lit., herons) are gathered as diners. The Lord of Slta
(= Raghupati), the crest-jewel of the excellent, thought
of inner satisfaction. There was no desire left for any
flavor, (be it) sour, sweet or salty. The tasty, juicy
pachdvarf(a buttermilk drink like lassr) was the blood
of Ravana, which pleased everyone.
"The Gods came to offer the (final) mouth-wash
(acavana), holding in hand the jar of nectar. Whoever
was sprinkled upon, got up, and being purified, left the
unusual feast.7 Everyone respectfully left through the
door, happy, as they were, for the sake of Ramacandra.
Raghupati served the golden dish of Lanka very well.
Having enjoyed himself, Stir's Lord left it for Bibhisana, saying, 'It is his turn'."

According to the Indian theories of poetics, this

poem exemplifies what is called sadiga-rapaka, or extended metaphor, where a situation is paralleled with
another in a number of details. Sanskrit as well as
vernacular poetry abounds in extended metaphors and
the battle between Rama and Ravana is an especially
fertile ground for them. However, traditional images
figuring in the context of the battle between Rama
and Ravana are quite different from what we find in
Raghupati. The imagery used in numerous Rdma-katha
texts almost always is from the realm of nature. For
example, in the VIlmrki-riimayana, we find the follow6
A word khandord means "lad.di of candied sugar." However, the reading accepted by Bryant, khandocd, may be a
local variant.
7 Here is an allusion to a belief that those who die on the
battlefield are received in heaven by the Gods.

ing: "Rama showers Ravana with his arrows." "Rama

and Laksmana being shot by Indrajit's arrows appear
like two mountains being drenched by torrential rain."
"Rama covered with blood resembles a kirhsuka tree in
blossom." "Ravana pierced by Rama's arrows resembles an asoka tree in blossom." "Rama's shower of
arrows on the enraged Ravana is like the heavy rains
that quench the upsurging fire at the end of an eon."
"The brilliance of warrior Rama is like the blinding
brilliance of the Sun at the end of an eon."
We find other poets, both before and after Siradasa,
in Sanskrit and in Hindi, using similar nature imagery
when they describe the battle between Rama and
Ravana. Suradasa himself has used traditional metaphors elsewhere in a similar context (v. appendix 9):
"The wrath of Raghupati is the great fire, the breath of
Sita the wind; Ravana's clan with all the mighty warriors is a thick forest of bamboos."
Even Tulasldasa (v.s. 1589-1680), a renowned successor of Siradasa, confines himself to the traditional
choice of nature imagery and uses the metaphor of
torrential rains at the time of the deluge in describing
the shower of arrows in this battle (TulasT-rdmdyana,
Lankd-kdnda, ekadasa vi'rama; doha, and chaupai).
Against this background, the banquet metaphor of
Suiradasastrikes one as rather unusual.
This is not to say that the metaphor by itself is
uncommon. One finds it used in traditionally more
acceptable contexts. For example, Sant Jfianesvara
(A.D. 1275-97) of Maharashtra uses the extended
metaphor of a feast in abhanga 718 of his Abhangagdthd to describe the highest bliss that a yogin
attains, the brahmananda. Since the identification of
food with brahman goes back at least to the Taittirfyopanisad (annam brahmeti vyajandt, 3:2) the use of this
metaphor in the context of yogic bliss is quite conventional. As I have pointed out elsewhere, several other
Sant poets from different regions of India have also
used the feast metaphor in the context of ultimate
bliss.8

The other context in which the banquet metaphor is

often used by Indian poets is that of lovemaking.
Suradasa himself has so used it (v. appendix 10). Since
eating and lovemaking are man's natural hungers, and
the resulting sentiment is of enjoyment, the popularity
of the feast metaphor in the context of lovemaking is
quite understandable. It is in practice, if not in connotation, similar to the modern colloquial usage of
food words for the beloved, such as honey, honey8 See V. Aklujkar (forthcoming), "Sharing the Divine Feast:
Evolution of Food Metaphor in Marathi Sant Poetry" (paper
read at the AAS meetings in Washington, March 1989).

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 08:43:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

AKLUJKAR:

Battle as Banquet: A Metaphor in Siraddsa

bunch, dumpling, sweetie-pie, and so on. The use of

food imagery in the context of lovemaking seems almost universal, for it is found in the works of poets and
authors as varied as Siraddsa, Margaret Atwood (1969:
216) and Garcia Marquez (1989: 296).
The uniqueness of Stiradasa's poem Raghupati results from the fact (a) that Stiradasa does not use the
commonly available nature metaphors to describe a
well-known topic, and (b) that he uses a metaphor in a
context that is traditionally not well suited to it. He
thus displays his originality and uses the metaphor in
an off-beat situation quite successfully. The effect
achieved by his poetic transplant of the frightful and
the pleasant moods is stunning and exhilarating.
It is always tricky to go back in time and speculate
about the process through which a poet may have
arrived at a certain poem. It might be considered even
more so when the poet in question is Stiradasa, supposedly blind, an oral performer who "as far as we
know, never wrote anything" (Bryant, in Bahura 1984),
and who had little knowledge of Sanskrit-"It seems
questionable that Str knew Sanskrit at all" (Hawley
1979:64). However, while Stiradasa's use of the banquet
metaphor in the context of the battle between Rama
and Ravana is uncommon, it is not unprecedented.
After an extensive search through literature on the
Rama theme, I have come across two works that use
similar metaphors in such a context;9 I shall deal with
each of them separately.
A Sanskrit work quite close in time to Stiradasa's,
namely, the Ananda-ramayana (hereafter A. R.) has a
passage that resembles Stiradasa's poem. The similarities between Raghupati (v. appendix 1) and the long
passage in the A. R. (v. appendix 2) are unmistakable.
Both describe the battlefield as a banquet, Rama as the
host, and individual warriors from Ravana's army as
dishes and delicacies. The progression of the feast
through its prescribed stages-dposana, prdndydma,
the first five morsels, the main course, the side dishes,
the drinks, the last helping of yogurt or buttermilk lassi
to finish off the feast, etc.-matches in both places.
Some variation is found in the names of edibles in the
A. R. account and those found in Raghupati. However,
even here, four out of the first five morsels are alike,
9 Here I must mention that there may be occasional metaphors describing a battle as a banquet in a context other than
that of the Rdmayana, although even such instances are, as
far as I know, few and far between (e.g., Bhattanarayana in
VenTsamhdra,act 3, vs. 1). My quest is for an extended metaphor that is used in the particular context of the RamaRavana battle, where most of the elaborate details match, and
which cannot be explained away as a mere coincidence.

355

and in the same order (Khara, Disana, Trisara, and

Marica). Such close similarity in the use of an uncommon metaphor is not merely accidental. I suggest
that it reveals to us a yet unnoticed source of Siiradasa's
Rama poems and also forces us to alter our concept of
this medieval Indian poet's "knowledge" of certain old
texts.'0 I shall present whatever evidence there is from
the external sources first, but shall argue that there is
independent internal evidence that leads us to the conclusion that the A. R. may be one of the sources of
Stiradasa's Rama poems.
The usual date ascribed to the A. R. (cf. Bulcke
1971:168) is the 14th and 15th centuries A.D. The upper
limit is furnished by the Adhyatma-ramdyana (14th
century A.D.), which is mentioned in the A. R. The
lower limit is set by the two vernacular Rdmdyanas
that draw upon some incidents found only in the A. R.,
namely, the Torave-ramayana of Narahari (c. A.D.
1500-90; cf. Bulcke 1971: 224), in Kannada, and the
Bhdvdrtha-rdmdydna of Eknath (A.D. 1533-99), in
Marathi. The date of Siiradasa is not quite so certain.
Traditional accounts indicate that he should be placed
around v.s. 1535-1640 (A.D. 1478-1583). While Vaudeville places him between A.D. 1530 and 1610, Bryant
would like to push the death year back to 1550 or so."
Even if we take the tentative date of Siiradasa to be in
the late 15th or early 16th century, we can safely say
that the A. R. passage is a likely candidate as a source
of his poetic heritage, since it is earlier than the poems
ascribed to Siiradasa.
One could object to my hypothesis by saying that
Stradasa's poems belong to an oral tradition, that
Stradasa was most likely not conversant with Sanskrit,
nor could he read scholarly Sanskrit works such as the
A. R., and that it is more likely that he had his own
vernacular sources quite different from the A. R.'2 I
do not deny the possibility of this being the case.
However, I have strong reservations against presenting
a picture of medieval Indian society neatly divided into
10

Statements such as, "It seems questionable that S&rknew

Sanskrit at all" (Hawley 1979:64), seem to be based on unwarrantable assumptions about the nature and extent of
"knowledge." It may be worthwhile to point out that "knowing Sanskrit" need not be confined to "reading and writing
Sanskrit," as many scholars take it to be. A traditional word
for a learned person in India was bahuSruta,that is, "one who
has heard a lot." And memory certainly played a large part in
such knowledge. In this sense it is quite possible that Siiradasa
"knew" Sanskrit very well.
I For a summary of many positions on this question, see
Mital 1983, ch. 3.
1 I owe this argument to Bryant.

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 08:43:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

356

Journal of the American Oriental Society 111.2 (1991)

the so-called Sanskrit tradition, monopolized by a

handful of scholars and pandits, and another parallel
tradition, the movement of the masses, as it were-the
oral, vernacular tradition propagated by rural poets
and bards, who had little knowledge of the elite literary
tradition. The tradition of daily temple recitations of
Sanskrit works (such as the puranas and the various
Rdmiyanas), along with explanatory commentaries
presented in vernacular languages by learned priests,
and the daily singing/storytelling in the temple focusing
on some incident in the exploits of the deity (kTrtana),
for the vernacular speaking audience, a common practice even in twentieth-century India, are two instances
of the interaction of the two "traditions."'3 The composition and performances of bilingual plays14 in medieval India is another instance of the free-floating poetic
heritage, and of the familiarity of the audience with
different linguistic vehicles of the "same" tradition.
Numerous poems by Sant poets (Ndmadeva, Ekandtha,
Tukdrdma, Khdnkhand Rahima, and so on), which are
composed in a deliberate mix of at least two, and
sometimes as many as five, eight or ten languages
(Sanskrit, Hindi, Gujarati, Kannada, Konkani, Turki,
PharasT, etc.), furnish yet another illustration of the
fact that medieval Indian poets were frequently working
at the confluence of differentlinguistic traditions. Therefore, it seems quite likely that a work like the A. R.,
which could be used for daily recitals at a temple
gathering, might easily be accessible to Siiraddsa, even
within "oral" surroundings, and may be one of the
inspirations of Siiradasa's Rama poems.
In fact, even if what I have said were to be discounted, there is some internal evidence that leads us
to the conclusion that the A. R. is a likely source of the
Siiraddsa poem at hand.
First, when we compare the body of poems of
Siiradasa"5with the corpus of the A. R., we notice that
while the author of the A. R. shows a marked preference for long, extended metaphors with elaborate details, Siiraddsa is usually content with simpler figures
of speech. The occasional extended metaphors in Siiradasa normally last only for a few lines. Those in the
A. R., however, frequently extend over several verses,
sometimes over several pages (e.g., Sara-kanda, 9:16973, 12:170-97, Vildsa-kanda, 3:32-72). Thus, the extended banquet metaphor fits the general stylistic pat-

13 Traditional accounts describe SiIraddsa as being the chief

in the temple of NabhajT,along with ParamdnandakTrtanakdra
dasa and Kumbhanaddsa. See Mital 1983.
1' Upddhyay 1974.
'5 I am relying on the evidence of the early manuscripts in
the Bryant-Hawley collection, with a core of about 30 poems.

tern of the A. R. better than it does the poems of

SUradasa.
Secondly, unlike S Graddsa,the author of the A. R. is
extremely fond of detailed descriptions of dinners,
feasts and banquets. He not only gives us the names of
nine fruits that Rama likes and nine delicacies that
Rama enjoys, but also supplies us with a full-fledged
recipe for a sweet dish made with cow's milk, rice,
hulled mung dal, sugar, honey, ghee, coconut, jdypatrT,
and black pepper (.Manohara-kdnzda,6:6-22). Further,
the "airplane" that Rama wins from Ravana, the
Puspaka vimdna, is described as having twenty dining
areas, five general kitchens and ten more especially for
the enjoyment of the ladies (Yatrd-kanda, 5:69-70). In
the same kdnida, he gives several descriptions of the
dinner parties that Rama gives in honor of the priests
at holy places. In the Yaga-kdnda, which describes the
horse sacrifice performed by Rama, we read that Rama
would furnish what he wanted to serve the priests
simply by asking for it from the wish-fulfilling cow, the
Kdmadhenu!
Thus the relish with which the author of the A. R.
describes the brdhmana-bhojanasgiven by Rama seems
quite unparalleled. We read of rows of Brahmins seated
on golden seats, eating from golden plates, the royal
ladies serving them with their own hands, the host,
Rama, telling them, "Eat at your hearts' content, ask
for whatever you would like, eat without any worries,
and leave on plates whatever you do not like," Rama
instructing his servants to serve sweets without waiting
for requests, and to serve ghee in an uninterrupted
stream. The words resound from the A. R. banquets,
"please have some more" and "oh, no, not any more"
(neti neti).
Later on too (Vildsa-kanda, 5) we get an elaborate
description of a feast given by Sita in which she serves
manifold dishes acquired from Kdmadhenu. These
include modaka, ladda, mdnde, piiranapoli, phen7,
pdpad, payasa, vaiddmade of polished rice, curds, milk,
ghee, honey, white sugar, candied sugar, lassT made
from buttermilk, vegetables cooked in ghee, fresh
uncooked greens, lagddamade of sesame, ginger-sweet,
mango-juice, bananas and other fruits, and so on. To
end, the author of the A. R. does not forget to mention
that after washing the hands of the brahmins Rama
personally offers them the best variety of pan! (sarvesdm nijahastena dadau tambalam uttamam). In
short, the banquet metaphor for the Rama-Ravana
battle appears to be, in the A. R., simply one more
occasion for the author to engage in his favorite pastime. In poems of the early manuscripts of Siiradasa,
on the other hand, it comes quite as a surprise.
Thirdly, in the A. R., the banquet metaphor for the
battlefield is embedded in the larger context of another

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 08:43:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

AKLUJKAR:

Battle as Banquet: A Metaphor in Siiraddsa

metaphor, namely, the rana-yajfna or the ritual sacrifice

of war (v. appendix 2).26 The author of the A. R. is
quite deliberate and elaborate in his use of this larger
metaphor. As early as the third sarga of the first kanda
(v. appendix 5) he remarks that Rama brought to
conclusion the sacrifice of Vi~vdmitra that was being
obstructed by the demons, but the war-sacrifice that
Rama himself started by killing Tadaka for Visvdmitra
has not yet been completed. He takes up this thread in
the penultimate, i.e., the twelfth sarga of the first kdnda
(v. appendix 2, vs. 170) and, after reminding the reader
of what was said earlier, he describes the final stages of
the war-sacrifice of Rama and then proceeds to build
the metaphor of the ritual feast as the grande finale of
the war-sacrifice. Thus, the banquet metaphor in the
A. R. forms an organic part of a larger and more traditional metaphor.
In the early manuscripts of Suradasa, on the other
hand, we have only a few stray poems on the Rdmdyana
theme. The story is not developed in deliberate stages,
leading one to believe that these could have been spontaneous utterances focusing on a few themes and incidents that specially attracted the poet. Specifically,
there is no poem that speaks of a war-sacrifice. As a
result, the poem Raghupati, which elaborates on the
final stage of the war-sacrifice, namely, the sacrificial
feast, appears rather odd. What seems so organic in the
A. R. seems quite out of place in Suradasa. The development of the larger theme of the rana-yajna, which
was suitable for the epic-like composition of the A. R.,
was perhaps not so suitable to the format of Suradasa's
occasional poems. Therefore, it seems preferable to
maintain that Siradisa picked a striking and novel
metaphor from a well-known work close to his times,
and used it in his own way to sing the glories of his
Lord. As is well known to students of Indian literature,
this is not so much a case of plagiarism as it is of

16
This sacrifice metaphor for war is traditionally more acceptable, more common. One finds it employed in the RdmaRavana battle context as early as the 8th century A.D.
(cf. Bulcke 1971:201) in Murari's play Anargha-rdghava, act
7, vs. 2 (appendix 3). In the Camp4-rdmdyana (Yuddhakdanda,vs. 38) written around the 11th century A.D. (Bulcke
1971:215), one finds the same metaphor used in an utterance
attributed to Rama (v. appendix 4). Rama says that he would
like to offer the tenth head of Rdvana as an oblation to the
War-goddess. Even Tulasiddsa in the 17th century A.D. uses it
in the context of Lank&-dahanaby Hanumdn in Kavitdvali,
Sundara-kdnda, 7. War as a ritual sacrifice, the heads of the
enemies as the oblations in the sacrifice, and the final pacification of the Death-fire, kdldnala, is a well-known metaphor,
handled by many poets and dramatists.

357

preserving what appeals to one in the language in

which one creates.
In general, there is not much written on Sfiradasa's
Rama poems; scholars have only observed generally
that Suraddsa's model is the ninth canto of the
Bhagavata.'7Again, this view arises out of their reliance
on the NPS edition. That edition follows an organization of poems into cantos that resembles the organization of the Bhagavata. However, as pointed out by
Hawley (1979), Mital (1983), and Bryant (1984), the
division into cantos resembling the format of the
Bhdgavata is not a feature shared by the early manuscripts of Suradasa at all. Little has been said, as far as
I can ascertain, about other possible influences on
Siiraddsa, as revealed by his Rama poems. As we saw
above, the similarities between the A. R. passage and
the poem ascribed to Suraddsa in the early MSS. are
significant. They point to at least one likely source for
his poetic heritage.
Further analysis of the same poem reveals yet another possible source. Suradasa echoed the A. R. description of the dishes and delicacies in his banquet
metaphor, but there is one significant difference between his guest-list and that of the A. R. In the latter,
Rama gives the feast in honor of the Death-fire, the
kaldnala, whereas SUradasamentions the arrows as the
guests of honor and the expectant animals and birds as
the other diners assembled at the site.
Of these, the scavengers are, understandably, almost
always there in the battle descriptions beginning with
those of the VaImTki-ramayana
(Yuddha-kanda; 96:20;
105:20-22). Innumerable other poets have also echoed
this natural detail. One need not therefore discuss it
any further. However, the personification of the arrows
as chief dinner guests is not so common and it is here
that we have an indication of the other possible source.
In the Hanumannataka, act 14, vs. 29 (v. appendix 6)
we find Rama saying to Ravana,
This arrow of mine, which got a blood-bath from
the head of Tadaka, performed prdndyama with the
nose of your sister (95rpanakhd), offered oblations of
Khara, Trisiras and Marica, and then took a drink of
the ocean, now wants to enjoy the meat of Ravana. 0
Ten-headed-one, even now return Maithili (and escape
from this fate).

The similarity between this verse and the poem we

are exploring is hard to miss. It is not only the personification of the arrow but the mention of Rama's earlier
exploits in the context of the sacrificial feast and the
juxtaposition of these two themes that is similar to
17

Gupta1947:23-24;Dube 1976:84;Sharma1984:8,etc.

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 08:43:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

358

Journal of the American Oriental Society 111.2 (1991)

Siiraddsa's use of the arrow-imagery. Mere mention of

arrows as bloodthirsty and the mention of their thirst
quenched by drinking the enemy's blood is found in
many traditional contexts. But this specific fusion of
the two images, namely, the personified arrows and the
other exploits of Rdma as stages in the sacrificial ritual
is found, to the best of my knowledge, only in the
Hanumannataka and in the poem ascribed to Siiradasa. I believe that the inference is quite compelling.
Although there is a difference of opinion about the
exact date of the Hanumannataka,"8both of its identified versions are earlier than Siiraddsa. Further, since
there is unanimity on the point that the play was
probably prepared for performance in the ydtras, and
that it was immensely popular, it is quite possible that
Siiradasa was familiar with it. The popularity of the
play until the times of Tulas-dasa, the successor of
Siiradasa, is established'9 by citing the passages in
which Tulasidasa echoes verses found in the Hanumanndtaka. Since we have ample evidence to believe
that Tulasidasa was familiar with the play and freely
used the ideas of the play in his works, I find it equally,
if not more, probable that Siiradasa, who was in fact
closer in time to the Hanumanndtaka, was also quite
familiar with it and was impressed by the striking
metaphors in the nataka so as to want to preserve them
in his own poems.
This inference is strengthened by yet another Rama
poem ascribed to Siiradasa in the early manuscripts,
the poem beginning, sunahu anuja ihi bana itanainu
mili hai jinukT harT(v. appendix 7). Since this is one
more instance of a striking similarity, not just in theme,
but in the exact representation of the theme, in words,
as well as in the order or presentation, including minor
syntactic details, such as the use of plurals, I feel that I
should bring it to the attention of my readers. In this
poem by S-Gradasa,which describes Rama's thoughts
when he cannot find Sita in the forest, one finds an
echo of the Hanumanndtaka, act 5, vs. 3 (v. appendix
8). Rama believes that the flora and fauna in the woods
have conspired to steal away his beloved since he finds
isolated traces of Sita's smile, complexion, etc., scattered in the elements of nature. True, Rama's belief in
the theft of his beloved's characteristics by the creatures
in the woods is a much used theme; Kalidasa adapted it
in the VikramorvasTyam(act 4, vs. 17); later, Bhaskara
has used it in his play Unmattardghava (vss. 28-30),
Scholars place the early version of it in the 10th century and the later enlarged version of it in the 14th century
(Hanumanndtaka 1967).
'9 Premprakash Lakkad, in BhCimikd,pp. 9-14, and Jagdish
Mishra, in Samalocani, pp. 25-27, in Hanumannataka 1967.
18

and so on. However, in these places the specific details

of the presentation are quite different. In the Unmattardghava, Rama believes that the elements in
nature and the creatures in the woods have stolen the
ornaments of his beloved. But the verse in the
Hanumannataka describes Rama's poetic confusion in
a novel manner. Rama here believes that the creatures
in the forest have destroyed Slta like a prey and stolen
away her isolated organs and other characteristics.
Siiraddsa seems faithfully to have followed the description of "who stole what" as it is found in the play,
and incorporated five out of the six details of the
Hanumanndtaka verse. "The lion stole her waist, the
band of deer stole the eyes, the campaka flower took
away the complexion, the kokila bird, alas! stole the
sweet voice, and the elephants along with the swans got
the gait." Note that the remaining detail from the verse
of the play is the theft of Sita's smile by the moon. In
its place Siiradasa has "the moon stole the luster of her
face"-the same thief with a slightly different loot.
Even unnecessary words, such as gana, to speak of the
band of deer (kurafigT-gana),from the Hanumannajaka, are found in Siiradasa (mriga-gana). Again we
are struck by the similarity, in the idea as well as in its
expression.

Thus, on the basis of the internal evidence here

presented, I find it quite compelling to conclude that
the A. R. and the Hanumanndtaka were among the
likely sources of Siiradasa's Rama poems as they are
recorded in the early manuscripts.
Even if, following Rajasekhara, we hold that all
poets are essentially thieves (Rajasekhara 1934:61), we
are struck by the originality of Siiradasa. In the A. R.,
the honored guest, Death-fire, the kdldnala, finishes
the feast and leaves in the plate the leftovers of blood,
skin and bones, but in Siradasa's poem, after serving
the multi-course banquet to his arrows, Rama leaves
the golden dish of Lanka to Bibhisana. The mention of
this little detail sums up the feast in a manner quite
familiar to Siiradasa's audiences, and adds to it a
distinctive flavor. Rama's act of leaving the golden dish
of Lanka for the enjoyment of Bibhisana reminds one
of the daily temple ritual of consecrating food offered
to the Deity, the sacred leftover, the ucchista, which is
then enjoyed by the devotees as prasida. This notion of
prasdda is one of the central notions of bhakti, and is
tied with the notion of God's grace. In this last line
Siiradasa transforms the whole poem from the domain
of a purely poetic battle description to that of bhakti
and leaves his own mark on the tradition.
VIDYUT AKLUJKAR
UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 08:43:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

AKLUJKAR:

Battle as Banquet: A Metaphor in Saraddsa

359

APPENDICES

1. Siiradasa (Mss. B1:418, B2:369, B3:127, G1:501, J2:148,

J4:265, U1:152, U4:83)
raghupati rana jite ae/ Thividhi beda bimala jasa gae/ /
prathama bana posana pragati prabhu taki taraka nas&T
prana suddhi budhi siipanasd ke naka nipati sisal/
sara diisara trisara mrga kapi hati pafica kavala karavae/
jala-nidhi jala mukha slci suddha hvai agrama ruci upajal/
jaga janTraghubliradhira kTjaisl jyaunara banal/
adi madhura hita chatra ihTtain sira seva ladu casae/
gaja giijha ratha cakra bataka bara haya ghevara samujhae/
phenmpharTpupa paida gana subhata svara saji lae/
caturangini cahum bhanti subhojana ati adara saum pae/
manahu priya pakavana pahala hTsakala silimusa sae/
katuka krodha makardsi akampana tikata prahasta bulae/
kumbhakarana meghanada mahodara amala lavana dhasi
dhae/
kila kasdi atikai itara ari bahu byanijanamana bhae/
bisisa atithi avaloki apuirabanipuna sesa purasae/
salu sata rasa nija kara kausala-pati sayaka sakala jivae/
bhrajata bhata bhuimimukatagana ripu hati hara bithare/
barila badf samdhana aneka mani bhusana ari ura phare/
mande papada purl pataka kiraca kapaca pata d.re/
mlna carana kara sanda sandauca kati karavara katare/
desiyata uthata kabandha manau ghrta parusata phirata
ughare/
jogini bhiita vetala bhayanaka karata kulahala bhrTi/
simite brika gomayu gldha gana kaka kafika jyaundri/
sitd-ndtha sujana siromani antara priltibicarT/
rahl na ekau sadha svada kI sdtTlmlthi sari/
ravana rudhira rasala pachavari sarasl saba sukha krlT/
ae acavana daina devata amrita kalasa kara dhari/
jihi slicaisoi iithai suddha hvai tyaji rasol nyarT/
ramacandra hita harasavanta saba sadara karata kivarT/
bhall bhanti parusayo raghupati lanka kancana tharT/
dal chamd.hi
susa mani siira prabhu boli babhlsana bWrT/
2. A. R., Sdra-kanda, 12:170-97: The war-sacrifice
visvamitradhvare puirvamranayagasya puirn.ata/
na krta ya raghavena sa krta svapade tada/
ran.ayagahsa vistarad varnyate srnu parvati/ 170
ranamganam yajfia-kun.damh
tatra vai hyapalayanamh/
tacca veda-vidhanamhhi brahma-sattvam prakirtitarh/171
karmanasca ghatatopo jneyah sastrakhana-svanah/
sammarjanam sruk-sruvayoh1jnneyampaia-gharsanam/ 172
sastran.m mala-sodharthamhkriyate yad ran.figane/
bhimau saranamhvistarah paristaranam uttamarh/ 173
parisamuhanam dhairyamhvahnih kalanalo mahan/
sruvena bana-ruipenamamhsahuti-samarpanamh/
174
rakta-dhara vasor dhara hahakaro bhayanakah/
sa (?) kara vasatkdra ghoso jnieyo ranadhvare/ 175

agner jvala sastra-tejo dhiimrah sveda-sruvo rane/

jvala-nicaya-santyarthamhpradajyasya secanam/ 176
yattadatra tu vWrandrh
astra-mocanam uttamamh/
jfinnena saha jivasya balir dipa-balis smrtah/ 177
ye deha-lobhino jiv&1h
balidipaharah smrtah/
rama-hastamrtim tyaktva ye kurvanti palayanamh/178
deha-bandhan na muktas te bali-bhaksana-dosatah/
purnahutih sirobhir hi jnieyastatra pradaksinah/ 179
uccatanam hi savyena v-randh jaya-hetave/
naijam padapradanam ca jneya sa daksinadhvare/ 180
surair ya puspa-vrstis taj jfieyamhviprabhisecanamh/
jaya-sampadanam yuddhe sreyas sampadanam hi tat/ 181
caracaran.m anando jnieyal sa nija-gotrindm/
bhuitanamtarpanam vipra-bhojanam sarhprak-rtitam/182
evamhsubahuna yuddhe raghavasya ranadhvarah/
tatha gadhija-yajnie'pidvau tau jineyau sahaiva hi/ 183
krtadhavara-samaptis tu visvamitrena ya pura/
visarjito na ramena drstva trptam ranadhvare/ 184
kalanalam punas tasya trptyartham va 'karon matimh/
krtva bhimer mahat patram viradha-rudhirena hi/ 185
patrasya proksnramkrtva citrahutyartham adarat/
ramah surpanakhayasca ghranam karnau bibheda yat/ 186
pranihutibhyo ramena trisirah khara-diisan.au/
maricasca kabandhasca pafica te nihatah ksanat/ 187
sikha-bandha-vimoksarthamhsabarTbhava-bandhanat/
krta mukta tu ramena jala-sparsana-hetave/ 188
netrayor nihato v&1idattam tadrudhiram tada/
kvathir lank&-purTdagdha kumhbhakarnastathaudanah/ 189
pakvannam indrajijjnieyahsakartham raksasah.hatah/
varannamhsarainojfieyah prahasto vatakah smrtah 190
nikumhbhahparpato jnieyahkumhbhastu lavan.amh
smrtah/
payasartham kalanemis tvatikayas sa sarkarah/ 191
ks-iramairavano jnieyo ghrtam mairavanas smrtah/
dadhyaudanah samaptau tu ahave sa ca ravanah/ 192
hatva niveditalhpatre tasya kalanalasya ca/
ucchista-bali-samhtyaga~h
kesa-tvak-kikasadlnarh/ 193
samhtyago'trarane jneyas tada trpto babhiiva sah./
tato ranadhvarasyatra raghaven.avisarjanamh/194
ayodhyayam praveso hi krtas tat te vadamyahamh/
adhvaravabhrtha-snanamh
jnieyamh
rajyabhisecanamh/195
mangalani samastani yajniafnga-vihitanihi/
jffatavyanlti ramena rana-yago visarjitah/ 196
evamhprokto maya devi rana-yago savistarah/
ramo 'tha paramatma 'pi karyadhyakso 'tinirmalah,/197
3. Murari's Anargharaghava, act 7, vs. 2.
ekaikani siramhsiraksasa-camii-cakrasya hutva nije
tejo'gnau dasa-kantha-miirdhabhiratho nirmaya purnahutimh/
adya svastyayanamhsamapya jagato lankendra-bandT-vrtam
sitam apyavalokya soka-rabhasa-vrida-jado raghavah/ /

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 08:43:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

360

Journal of the American Oriental Society 111.2 (1991)

4. Camptrdmdyana, Yuddha kdnda, vs. 38.

ati karuna raghunatha gusai juga bari jata ghari

siiradasa prabhu priya prema basa niju mahima bisari

piijopahara-racanaya pura purare

cchinnesu miirdhasu navasvavasesitam yat/
devas tad adya kutukl dasamam siras te
ramo balim racayitumhrana-devatayai/ /

8. Hanumanndtaka, act 5, vs. 3.

madhyo'yarhharibhih smitam himaruca netre kurangi-ganaih
kantis campaka-kudmalaih kalaravo ha ha hrtah kokilaih
matafigair gamanam katham katham aho harmsairvibhajyadhuna
kantare sakalair vinisya pasuvan nlta 'si bho maithili/ /

5. A. R., Sdra-kdnda, 3:12-14

prarambham rana-yajfiasya cakara raghu-nandanah
hatva sahasrasah ?riman raksasan nisitaih saraih/ 12
ksiptva banena maricam sata-yojana-sagare
hatva subahumhcaikena banena raghu-sattamah./13
sa krtva gadhi-yajfiasya samaptim raghu-nandanah
nakarod rana-yajfiasya samaptim svakrtasyaca/ 14

9. Suiradasa(Al:177,

B1:418, B2:91, B3:125, Gl:500,Jl:131(45),

J2:146, J4:263, U 1:143, U4:103)

raghupati risa pavaka pracanda ati slta svasa samira
ravana kula ati saghana benu bana sakala subhata rana dhTra

6. Hanumanndtaka, act 14, vs. 29.

bano'yam mama tatakatma-sirasi snatah svasur nasika
pranayamaparah khara-trisirasamh
hutva da?5syahutim/
maricam ca balim vidhaya tadanu tvacamya varah nidhim
bhoktum ravanam amisam mrgayate bho dlyatrm maithilT//

10. Suiradasa (A1:65, B1:250, B2:150, B3:27, B4:49, G1:42,

J3:386, J4:83, U1:76, U3:133; U4:112)
Radhika, hari atithu tumhare . . .
bacana racana bhrii-bhanigaavara afiga prema madhura rasa
parasi ninarai

7. Siiradasa (J1:135[52] U1:150A U4:25 J2:137b B1:407

B2:106 A1:204B J4:250 G1:508 NPS:507)
sunahu anuja ihi bana itanainu mili hai janukTharT
kachuka batanTkTsahanamdmerTdrsti parT
kati kehari banTsu kokila sasi mukha prabha dhari
mriga gana pe nainani ki sobha jati na gupta karT
campaka barana carana kara komala daryo dasana karT
gati marala bandhuikaadhara chabi ahi anuipakabari

ucita keli katu tikta tajata patu amala ulati amkama hathi
dharai
nasa sata sara kaca-graha cumhbanasarapi samarpi parama
rucikarai

adhara s-idhu upadamsa slci suci musa piirana bidhu basa

samhcarai
sura sukrita samhtosasyama kau bahuta punya iha brata
pratiparai

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Atwood, Margaret. The Edible Woman.Toronto: McClelland

Stewart, 1969.
Bahura, Gopal Narayan, ed. Pada Siiraddsajt kd: The Padas
of Sd~radasa,with introduction and appendices by Bahura
and with an essay by K. E. Bryant. Jaipur: Maharaja
Sawai Man Singh II Museum, 1984.
Bhaskara Bhatta. The Unmattaraghava of Bhaskara Bhatta,
ed. Pandit Durgaprasad and Kashinath Panduranga
Parab. Third ed. Kavya-mala 17. Bombay: Nirnayasagara Press, 1925.
ed. Narayana Rama Acharya.
Bhoja. CampC~rdmdyanam,
Tenth edition. Bombay: Nirnnaya-sagara Press, 1956.
Bulcke, Camille. Ram-katha: utpatti aur vikas. Revised edition. Allahabad: Allahabad University, 1971.
Dube, Lakshminarayan. 1976. "Mahakavi Suradasa ka Ramakavya," in SdirSdhitya Sandarbha, ed. Ram Svarup Arya
and Giriraj Sharan Agrawal. Bijnaur, U.P.: Suir Panchashati Samaroha Samiti, pp. 81-91.

Dvivedi, Pandit Jugalkishor. Anandardmayanam, ed. with

the commentary Jyotsna by Pandeya Ramtej Sashtri.
Varanasl: Pandit Pustakalay, 1977.
Garcia-Marquez, Gabriel. Love in the Time of Cholera. Translated from the Spanish by Edith Grossman. New York:
Alfred A. Knopf, 1988.
Gupta, Dr. Dindayalu. Asta-chdpa aur Vallabhasampraddya.
Prayag: Hindi Sahitya Sammelana, 1947.
Hanuman. Hanumanndtaka, ed. Pandit Jagadisha Mishra,
with the Vibha Sanskrit and Hindi commentaries. Varanasi: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office, 1967.
Hawley, John Stratton. "The Early SuirSagar and the Growth
of the Stir Tradition," JAOS 99 (1979): 64-72.
Jfnineshvara. Amrtdnubhava, Cdngdevapdsas hi, Haripdtha,
Abhafiga-gdtha. Aland! devacl: Aland! samhsthana,1977.
Kalidasa. Vikramorvas.yam, in Kdliddsa Granthdvali: Complete Worksof Kdliddsa, ed. Revaprasad Dvivedi. Varanasi: Benaras Hindu University, 1976.

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 08:43:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

AKLUJKAR:

Battle as Banquet: A Metaphor in Siraddsa

Mital, Dr. Prabhudayal. Suir-sarvasva: mahan bhakta kavi

Sfuraddsa ke vyaktitva aur krtitva kd samTksatmaka
vivecana. Mathura: Sahitya Samhsthana,1983.
Munilal. Adhydtma Rdmdyana, edited with a Hindi translation. Gorakhpur: Gita Press, 1967.
Murari. Anarghardghava, with the commentary of Rucipati,
ed. Pandit Durgaprasad and Wasudev Laxman gdstrT
PansTkar.Fifth ed. Bombay: Nirnaya-sagara Press, 1937.
Raghavan, V. Some Old Lost Rdma Plays. Annamalainagar:
Annamalai University, 1961.
. The Greater Rdmdyana. Varanasi: The All India
Kashiraj Trust, Fort Ramnager, 1973.
Rajasekhara. Kdvyamrmdrhsd,ed. C. D. Dalal and Pandit
R. A. Sastry. 3rd rev. ed. Baroda: Oriental Institute,
1934.
Rao, T. Gopala Krishna. Folk Rdmayanas in Telugu and
Kannada. Nellore: Saroja Publications, 1984.
Sharma, Ashok Sheel. Brajbhasha-Ramkavya parampara
men Murlidhar krit Ram-caritra. New Delhi: Asha
Prakashan, Karol Baag, 1984.

361

Sarma, C. R. The Rdmdyana in Telugu and Tamil: A Comparative Study. Madras: LakshminarayanaGranthamala
1973.
Subhata. The Distdngada, ed. Pandit Durgaprasad and Kashinath Panduranga Parab. Fifth ed. Kavya-mala: 28.
Bombay: Nirnaya-sagara Press, 1935.
Siiradasa. Siir-sdgar, ed. Nand Dulare Bajpeyi. Varanasl:The
Nagari PracdrinliSabha, 1972.
Tulasidasa. Tulsidas's Ramayan, ed. Pandit Jvala Prasad
Mishra. Bombay: Shri Venkateshvar Steam Press, 1968.
ed. Satish Kumar. Delhi:
. Tulsidasaur unkTkavitdvalT,
Goyal Prakashan, 1971.
Upadhyay, Ramji. Madhya-kdlrna samskrta ndtaka: naye
tathya: nayd itihdsa. Sagar: University of Sagar, 1974.
Valmiki. Rdmdyana. Critical edition. Seven vols. Baroda:
Oriental Institute, 1960-75.
Vijayasrl. Adhydtma Rdmdyana: A Critical Study. Delhi:
Alamkara Prakashana, 1979.

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 08:43:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions