Disclaimer: I hereby declare that there is no chauvinistic intention of promoting Tamil, which happens to be my mother tongue, in this series. The intention is to bring to the notice of readers, the presence of Tamil alongside Sanskrit in the Indian Subcontinent for many thousands of years. A deeper analysis might give us leads on why a fused Tamil and Sanskrit presence can be seen from India to Ireland to Ice land and from Polynesia to the Incas.
Similarly in Sundhara Khanda, Dadhimukha complained to Sugreeva that the vanaras headed by Angada and Hanuman had destroyed the Madhuvana and beaten him and other security guards of the Madhuvana. Dadhimukha was in tears and in pain from the beatings, while he conveyed the news to Sugreeva. Sugreeva in turn conveyed this news to Rama and Lakshmana who were with him at that time. But how did he convey? What did he actually say? He said that Dadhimikha had come to tell in "Madhura Vaag" (मधुर वाग्) the news of the destruction of the Madhuvana by the vanaras!
एतत् अर्थम् अयम् प्राप्तो वक्तुम् मधुर वाग् इह (5-63-21)
Would anyone beaten up well and fled from the scene to inform his superior of the atrocity tell the news in "sweet words"?
Again in Uttara Khanda, just before shedding his mortal coils, Rama gives a piece of advice to Vibhishana in "madhuraṃ ślakṣṇayā girā" (7- 98-21)
विभीषणम अथॊवाच मधुरं शलक्ष्णया गिरा
Everyone was stupefied at the developments of Rama planning to leave the earth. And there was no Madhuram in the words of Rama spoken to various people. But on seeing Vibhishana who had come to see him on hearing the developments, Rama used Madhuram speech! The selective use of Madhuram in the context of talk with Vibhishana can at best be about speaking in the language that Vibhishana was conversant with.
Part
6: Southern Madurai (தென்
மதுரை) of 1st Tamil
Sangam was submerged at the time of Rama’s exile.
*******************
Madhuram – in Tamil and in Valmiki
Ramayana!
The original name of Tamil language has
been mentioned by Subramanya Bharathiyaar
(1882 -1921) and poet Bharathidasan (1891-1964). Interestingly,
this name is found in Valmiki Ramayana also – particularly while referring to
the conversation between Hanuman
and Seetha in Ashoka vana. Before going in to the
details, let us see the original name of Tamil mentioned by these two Tamil
poets.
Bharathiyaar wanted to broadcast ‘madhura Tamil sound’ (தேமதுரத் தமிழோசை = tE Madhura-th-thamizh
Osai) all
over the World. He used the words “madhura-th- Tamil” for Tamil at another place also as “Madhura-thE mozhi”. In
many verses he has mentioned Tamil as sweet and as honey – the synonyms for
Madhu.
This was not a mere poetic description
of Tamil for, we find poet Bharathidasan writing the other names of Tamil as “Amruth”
and “Madhu”.
He said that Tamil has other names such
as “Amudhu” (amrutham
or nectar) and “Madhu”
(honey). (“thamizhukkum amudhu enRu pEr”=
Tamil has a name called “Amudhu” which means nectar. and “thamizhukku madhu
enRu pEr”= Tamil has a name called “Madhu”)
It is easy to dismiss this as a kind of
praise that anyone would say for his mother tongue.
No, it is not so with this name, Madhu.
The 10th century Tamil
Thesaurus, known as “Pingala
Nigandu” – a popular Thesaurus for referring to meanings of many Tamil
words has given the meaning of the word “Tamil” as “sweet” (இனிமை) and refined quality (நீர்மை).
The meaning, ‘sweet’ is derived from
honey. The words ‘Honey’ (‘thEn’/தேன் in Tamil), sweetness and Madhu are used as synonyms in Tamil. The author of the Pingala Nigandu cannot be
attributed with special love for Tamil for having given this meaning, for he
was a Jain ascetic who had a keen interest in writing a reliable Thesaurus for
Tamil. He wrote the meanings that were already in existence and did not create
his own meanings. Moreover he was not a native of Tamil lands. He was a Siddha and therefore cannot be
expected to have said something that was not true.
This meaning or name ‘Madhu’ for Tamil must have
existed as common knowledge until 100 years ago, or else how could the two
popular poets of Tamil have explicitly mentioned that in their compositions? It seems a great loss of knowledge that many
ideas in Tamil have been erased from the memory of common man in the last 100
years with the rise of Dravidian parties.
The present Tamil chauvinists have
erased many traditions and practices of ancient Tamil. These chauvinists did
not allow any idea of Bharathiyaar to be popularised. It is because he was a
Brahmin and he identified Tamilnadu
as part of Aryan country. He even expressed that Tamil was enriched by
grammar given by the “Arya
mainthan” (Arya putra) Agasthya! (“Thamiz-th-thaai” – verse-1).
We find a similar reference to Tamil lands as Arya naadu
– that too as “Southern Aryan country” (Then aarya naadu) in many places in a
popular composition of 16th century written in the form of a folk
song called “Thiru-
KuRRaala-k-kuRavanji”. KuRRaalam (Courtalam) is the
place where sage Agasthya stayed.
This is being written here to show that Tamil lands were considered as Aryan
lands and not as separate lands from the rest of Bharat in those days. The same
idea of Tamil lands as Aryan lands had continued till 100 years ago and found
its echo in Bharathiyaar’s compositions.
The
word ‘madhu’ used by Bharathiyaar and Bharathi dasan as the name of Tamil, is found as ‘Madhuram’ at 8 places in Sundhara Khanda of Valmiki Ramayana in the conversation between Hanuman
and Sita that was done in Manusham Vaakyam (Manushya bhasha / language of the humans)!! It also appears at many places where the persons involved were ordinary beings.
When Hanuman decided to speak to Sita in the
language of the humans, Valmiki again and again employs this word ‘madhuram’.
It raises a thought whether Valmiki was thinking of Tamil?
Before we go to these details, let us
know about the person, who first researched and established that Hanuman talked
to Sita in Tamil. He was Mr.Narayana Iyengar.
He functioned as Editor of ‘Senthamizh, a Tamil magazine of Madurai Tamil Sangam. In 1938 he wrote a serial ‘Valmiki and Tamil’. In that article he
established that Valmiki wrote poem in purananooru; and that Hanuman talked to Sita in Tamil, by quoting a popular
Tamil proverb found in Ramayana. We will see that
proverb later.
Taking cue from his book, I went through
Valmiki Ramayana and identified the word “Madhuram” in 8 places in the
conversation between Hanuman and Sita in Ashoka vana and several other places
in the rest of Ramayana where the contexts surprisinglyhappen to be
conversations by ordinary people. There are quite a few places in Valmiki Ramayana
where the word Madhu is used to denote honey, sweetness or even liquor. But those
contexts are different from the context where the word Madhuram has been used.
In the context where Hanuman decides to speak not in Sanskrit or in a pandit’s
language but in the language of common man, the word Madhuram appears at 8
places that can be interpreted to mean the name of the language.
In the same conversation with Sita,
Hanuman does use the word Madhuram at one place to mean just sweetness. When he
was describing how Rama was suffering from the pangs of separation from Sita, he
does say, “sIthEthi madhuraam vaaNIm”
(सीतेति मधुराम् वाणीम् व्याहरन् प्रतिबुध्यते || VR 5-36-44) (Sweet words like Sita Sita)
Similar expression
is written in the First Khanda also, when Viswamitra called out the “sweet words Rama, Rama” / Rama
ithi Madhuram VaaNim
viswamitra abhyabhashata (“रामा इति मधुराम् वाणीम् विश्वामित्रः अभ्यभाषत” VR 1-22-11)
In this context it means the ‘sweet
words’ and not a language. In fact Valmiki composed the entire Ramayana in such
a way that it can be sung sweetly with the accompaniment of a string
instrument. He himself says - “to read
and sing sweetly” where he uses the word Madhuram “PaatyE gEyE cha madhuram pramaaNai:” ( पाठ्ये गेये च मथुरम् प्रमाणैः 1-4-8)
He included all ‘rasas’ – aesthetics – in the Epic that
can be sung to a tune in a sweet / Madhuram svara / or sweet tone. He taught
the Epic to Lava and Kusha who possessed a rich voice and were trained in music
(1-4-10). While expressing this Valmiki says that they had a sweet voice - मधुर स्वर भाषिणौ Their musical talent is expressed in a couple
of places to highlight that Ramayana can be sung in sweet tune and tone. The
boys were made to memorise it well and sing in accordance with rules of music.
Initially the boys
sang the Epic in the hermitage of Valmiki for the sages who gathered there. The
sages were overwhelmed by the beauty of the verses and also the way they were
sung melodiously by the boys. They were pleased with the “Geethasya Maadhuryam” – the melody / Maadhuryam of the song (अहो गीतस्य माधुर्यम् श्लोकानाम् च विशेषतः 1-4-17)
They expressed how
the two boys sang in one tone ‘dipped in Madhura- swara’. (सहितौ मधुरम् रक्तम् संपन्नम् स्वर संपदा |
1-4-19) This is repeated again in the Epic that the boys sang sweetly. “Madhuram tau agaayataam”
( संरक्ततरम् अत्यर्थम् मधुरम् तौ अगायताम् |1-4-20) Finally
when Rama also heard it, it is mentioned “api Madhuram raktam” (तौ च अपि मधुरम् रक्तम् स्वचित्तायत निःस्वनम् 1-4-33) where
Madhuram is used as an adjective. It is used to show the melody of the song and
the quality of the tone.
Use of Madhuram in such context is perfectly agreeable,
but is it agreeable in the context of an incident in the Epic where the emotion
is something like pathos or melancholy?
In the three
chapters (from 2nd to 4th
in Bala khanda) that explain the way the Epic was evolved by Valmiki, it
is repeatedly said that he used proper words in proper contexts. The sages who
heard it initially and Rama who heard it in his court, were delighted more by
the meaningful words used in the Epic. What is conveyed by this is that every
word used in the Epic was carefully used to give a meaning – even special
meanings or hidden meanings. Such being the greatness of this Epic, the word
like Madhuram cannot be used in a context where the emotion conveyed is that of
suffering and sorrowfulness.
For example, in
Aranya Khanda, chapter 52, Sita almost lost her hope when she saw Jatayau
defeated by Ravana. The chapter begins with Sita weeping on seeing Jatayu
having fallen down. She was bawling and screaming out “Rama, Lakshmana...”, as though someone was
there listening to her, so says the Epic. (समाक्रंदत् = noisily, bawled.- VR 3-52-5). This expression is perfectly
understandable as it is suits the context. The scene further moves on with Ravana
carrying her and flying over the lands. Sita was still looking down searching
to locate Rama somewhere on the ground and kept calling out his name. Here, while
expressing this, Valmiki uses the word Madhuram! He says that she was crying
out Rama and Lakshmana in “KroshanthIm Madhura swaram” (क्रोशन्तीम् मधुर स्वराम् VR 3-52-42).
Just in the
beginning of the chapter he said that she cried out their names aloud but later
when she was looking down in search of Rama or someone to help her, she was not
calling aloud but calling in Madhuram
tone! How is this possible? Does this expression suit the context? One could
say that she had become tired or exhausted by then and therefore could not
scream loudly. In that case words like weak, sad, distressed, pitiable, tired,
scared etc are more suitable to express her voice or tone or whatever words
that she was speaking. An expression
like “dheena swara” would suit the context, but how could “Madhura swara” fit
in the scene? For an Epic known for its apt words and meanings, this expression
does not seem to convey the sweetness in her voice. It must be something else. Suppose Madhuram means the language, it suits
the context that she was calling out in that language something like – “ hey
Rama, where are you, can’t you see that your beloved wife is being carried
away? ...”
Similarly there is
another context having “Madhuram” which defies logic. Vali was lying on the
ground, slain by Rama.
Vali was angry at
Rama and started accusing him. Rama replied to him in detail justifying his
act. Vali agreed to that justification. In normal course how would a poet
describe this? He would say that Rama told convincingly or in a convincing tone
why he was not wrong in killing Vali. It is also perfectly alright if Vali was
not convinced by his reply. But a Mahakavi like Valmiki says that on hearing
the Madhuram Vaakyam
of Rama, Vali started to speak in well disposed words (that is, he was
convinced by what Rama said) { तस्य वाक्यम् मधुरम् महात्मनः (VR 4-18-65}. Rama had indeed given a long lecture to
Vali who was lying on the ground grievously injured. Certainly it could not
have been a sweet reply but rather a soft or persuasive or convincing reply. If
the poet had used the word Madhuram in this context, it could not have been an
adjective but something else.
We find a quite a
few places like this in Ramayana where the word Madhuram Vaakyam is used out of
sync with the usual meaning of “sweetness”. If we assume that Madhuram vaakyam or Madhuram aksharam or Madhuram vachanam refers to a language by name Madhuram, then it perfectly
fits with the context. For, in all the places where this dilemma over meaning
of Madhuram arises, the persons involved in the conversation are ordinary
folks!
Before going into
further details, let me point out that the very popular Dhyana sloka for
Valmiki Ramayana contains a reference to Madhuram language!
It is customary to
start to recital of Ramayana with a sloka,
“Kujantham Rama RamEthi Madhuram madhuraaksharam
Aruhya Kavita saka vande vaalmiki
kOkilam”
It says “rama rama iti Madhuram Madhura aksharam”.
Usually the name / word Rama is supposed to be endowed with or to create
delightfulness and not sweetness. There exists a popular sloka attributed to Lord Shiva who said that the name
Rama is equivalent to reciting 1000 names of Vishnu. It says “Sri Rama rama rama iti ramE rAmE manOramE”.
The Rama shabdam is supposed to create manorama – happiness / pleasantness to
the mind. The sages who first listened to the recital of Ramayana by Lava and
Kusha repeatedly expressed this idea only (VR 1-3). The name Rama is derived as
‘sarve ramanti yasmin iti
Raamaah’ (one who brings joy to everyone is Rama). It is not connected
with sweetness. But it can be uttered in sweet tone (Madhura swara) or sweet
voice.
In the verse “Kujantham Rama Rama iti Madhuram
Madhura aksharam”, the Madhuram seems to indicate the name of the language! Normally it would be thought that the
Madhuraaksharam refers to the letters, ra
- ma. But if we analyse the words that Ratanakar originally uttered, we would
get a different picture.
Valmiki was a robber then, known by the
name Ratnakar. He was advised by the sages to just utter “mara”, “mara”. Mara or Maram is a Tamil word
for tree! (in Tamil the ‘a’
ending masculine words would be added with a suffix of dotted letter as “m” or
“n” as the case may be. For example Rama is Raman in Tamil. Maram is refined /
grammatical Tamil whereas its previous form {proto-Tamil} not tinkered with grammar
could well be just ‘Mara’). As a robber pouncing on the people crossing the
forest, his most familiar and frequent place of hiding was the Tree (maram)! It
is logical to say that the sages wanted him to know what a tree (maram) could do
to him. The tree was not an aid for making a living by robbery, but it could
give him something else which has everlasting relevance.
So when he uttered ma-ra, ma-ra, the aksharas of Madhura
bhasha, it became ra-ma of the Deva bhasha! If we go by the normal
translation for Madhuram, this line (Kujantham....) would give the meaning ‘Sweet
letters of the word Rama’. But why sweet here? And why Madhuram is repeated twice? It is Madhuram Madhura aksharam, how? The word / name Rama means something else. It
means the one who brings joy.
The person who penned this Kujantham
verse could have used the meaning of Rama (as joy). (I don’t know the author of
this particular verse, if someone knows, I request them to convey it to me). Why
they brought Madhuram here? Why they brought Madhuram again as Maduram aksharam here, unless it
is an aksharam of Madhuram, the language known by that name? As the originally
uttered word was “ma ra” – a word of Tamil which has another name as Madhu, it
is reasonable to interpret that the
person who wrote the “Kujantham” verse was actually referring to the Madhura
akshara (ma-ra) that rose up (aaruhya)
to become Rama and enabled him (Valmiki) to bring out the Great poetry of
Ramayana.
It is perfectly logical to say that
Ratnakar must have known the Human language or the Maanusham Vaakyam only. He
was unlettered and was roaming in the forest looking out for some gullible
persons from whom he could steal their valuables. He was a robber and it is
perfectly justifiable to say that he must have known the local spoken language.
The sages did not give him any advice but only asked him to keep reciting a
simple word of his language which ultimately transformed him into a great sage.
At this juncture I request the readers to recall the 1st part of
this series on how Valmiki’s name is connected with Tamil language.
Now let me move over to Ashoka vana of
Sundhara khanda. There Hanuman sees Sita and wants to speak to her. But he gets
into a dilemma as to
which language he must speak to her.
If he speaks in Sanskrit, Sita would
suspect how a vanara could speak Sanskrit. She would think that it is Ravana in
the guise of a vanara trying to lure her. So Sanskrit is not helpful in that
context. Therefore he decides to speak
in the language of the common man. The first inference from this is that this
language must have had widespread presence in India at that time. It is because
it was known to Hanuman, a resident of the forest area in south India and also
known to Sita as well who hailed from Videha (somewhere in or near Nepal) and
lived a Royal life in Ayodhya.
The persons involved here are a minister
(Hanuman) and a princess (Sita). For them to have known a common language other
than Sanskrit, it means then that it must have been a popular language which everyone
– from ordinary people to Royals – must have known. Or it must have been a
language that people would have aped to learn or a language spoken all over
India at that time. This means that there existed a language other than Sanskrit
which was known to dignitaries like ministers and princesses hailing from
totally different parts of India. That language must have had a name and
Valmiki must have certainly indicated the name of that language in his Epic.
Suppose that language is spoken in the
Epic only in the Ashoka vana scene, then there is every chance that Valmiki had
mentioned that name in that scene. But we don’t seem to get across the name of
a language that we are familiar with at present. Or else the name must have
been there (in the Ashoka vana scene), and we are missing it. This is possible
only if the name has a meaning that escapes our attention - something like we
have been saying – Madhuram. We miss out this name interpreting Madhuram
vaakyam as sweet word and not the language called Madhuram.
But why then Valmiki did not mention the name of that
language while saying that hanuman decided to speak in that language?
This can happen
(1) if that language was the only language spoken by human beings
(Maanusham vaakyam) during his times and therefore he felt no need to mention
it. (2) If Valmiki had depicted characters
earlier in the epic who had spoken that common language. If Madhuram language
was spoken in previous scenes, there would not arise a compulsion or need to
express the name of the language in which Hanuman decided to speak.
Both these situations look logical and
do not require the poet to explicitly make a mention of the name of the human
language. From the musings of Hanuman on which language he can speak to Sita, it
is known that there were only two languages then – Sanskrit, the language used
by Pandits and a Human language which common people used. Since the Epic is
written in Sanskrit and the perception is that people in those days were
conversing in Sanskrit, it is logical to expect the author to express the
switch over to the human tongue whenever it happened. The use of words such as
Madhuram vaakyam, Madhuram vaacham, Madhuram
aksharam etc could well mean that the character spoke in Madhuram language.We
can visualise the same for us too. Suppose I am writing a story in English
where I would be talking in English to some and in Tamil to some others.
Wherever the conversation is in English I would not be writing that I spoke in
English. But when I speak in between in Tamil to someone, say my colleague or
my relative, I would write that I told him / her in Tamil such and such a
thing. The same tendency can be seen in the Epic in the mention of Madhuram
Vaakyam at several places where the meaning as sweetness does not fit.
If we analyse the Ramayana from the beginning,
it is seen that at many places people had spoken in Madhuram vaakyam – where it
does not necessarily mean that they spoke in sweet tone or sweet words.
For example, let us look into the scene
where Hanuman meets Rama and Lakshmana for the first time. Then also he must have
had the dilemma about which
language he must speak. That dilemma came from
a very valid reason (as in the situation to speak to Sita in Ashoka vana)
because Sugreeva was hiding in the forest and the sight of well-bodied brothers
(Rama- Lakshmana) had sent shivers into his spine. The strong bodied physical
appearance of Rama and Lakshmana with bows in their hand did not match with the
matted locks and woody garments of an ascetic that they were wearing. This gave Sugreeva a genuine concern about
their true identity and intentions. He suspected that Vali could have sent them
to know his whereabouts. So he asked Hanuman to go to them and find out their
identity and the purpose to be there. He thought that Hanuman should not go in
his usual appearance and wanted him to appear like an ordinary human being.
There he did not mention the language that Hanuman must use but it goes without
saying that Hanuman would have spoken
to Rama and Lakshmana in that scene in the Human tongue – the Manusham Vaakyam! If Hanuman had chosen to speak in Sanskrit, that
would have aroused the curiosity and suspicion of the two whom Sugreeva
suspected to be the spies of Vali. Therefore it is logical to
expect Hanuman to have spoken in the common human language in his first
interaction with Rama and Lakshmana. This was the same language which he spoke to
Sita in Ashoka vana. Interestingly
and expectedly, here also comes ‘Madhuram
Vaakyam”.
After Hanuman had finished speaking to
Rama and Lakshmana, making enquiries about them, Rama begins to speak, addressing Lakshmana: “Soumitri, with this minister of Sugreeva, the
knower of sententiousness and a pleasant worded one, and one with friendliness
you exchange pleasantries with that enemy destroyer Hanuma... “[4-3-27] (**)
Here the translator had written
‘pleasant worded one’ for “vaakyanjnam Madhurai vaakyai”!! (वाक्यज्ञम् मधुरैः वाक्यैः स्नेह युक्तम् अरिन्दम VR 4-3-27)
Let
me reproduce this sloka here as I find it to be of crucial importance with
reference to Madhuram Vaakyam:
तम् अभ्यभाष सौमित्रे सुग्रीव सचिवम्
कपिम् |
वाक्यज्ञम् मधुरैः वाक्यैः स्नेह युक्तम् अरिन्दम ||
वाक्यज्ञम् मधुरैः वाक्यैः स्नेह युक्तम् अरिन्दम ||
Rama
says, ‘Lakshmana, you talk to this
minister of Sugreeva having the knowledge of Madhura Vaakyam (bhasha). This
destroyer of enemy has come for friendship.”
Translating
Madhurai Vaakyai as above is more suitable than using sweet or pleasant words
for the same.
An
interesting feature is that in most editions of Valmiki Ramayana, the chapter ends with this sloka.
Only in some editions and in commentaries that came up around 1600s, nearly 8
verses have been added after this, all of which speak about Hanuman’s Vedic
knowledge, knowledge of grammar and speaking skills. Usually Valmiki Ramayana is considered to
be Veda itself and it is said that there is little or no attempt to make
interpolations. But this addition made in the recent past deserves a probe into
why the tradition of preserving the original content was violated or why this
interpolation was made. The
interpolation seems to have been motivated by Rama’s reference to “vaakya jnam” in Hanuman’s speech. What was Rama
referring to by this? If we assume that Rama was only referring to the cleverly
worded speech by Hanuman in Madhura bhasha, there is no need or scope to
develop that idea further. We must take note that Valmiki mentions Vaakya jnam
along with Madhurai vaakyai. If Hanuman had spoken in the human tongue
(Madhuram Vaakyam) , it makes a perfect justification for why Rama had said so.
Only if we think that the Madhurai vaakyai means sweet or pleasant words, the
scope arises for probing why or what kind of sweet words Hanuman spoke.
By
1600s this human tongue was almost gone and many regional tongues had come to
stay with their own rich literature and grammar. So there is scope to believe
that people of that time were perplexed at what Rama had meant and therefore had
interpreted it as expertise of Hanuman in Vedas and Sanskrit grammar. But a
little thought on which language Hanuman could have spoken in his first meeting
with Rama and Lakshmana makes us deduce that Hanuman could not have spoken in
Sanskrit. The loss of memory of a common
Maanusham vaakyam has happened, in spite of the dedicated continuation of the
tradition of recital of Ramayana for ages in this country. This loss can be attributed
to the violent disturbances in people’s life for many centuries due to Muslim invasion.
Many languages of India took distinct shape during this period with a
transformation from the old roots in languages of Ayodhya (Awadhi) and other
regions of the North.
Looking
further back in time, we can see that there existed a much older language which
satisfies the qualification as a naturally evolved Human language. This
language was used by Kalidasa in Vikramorvashiyam in the specific context of King Pururava asking the animals in the forest about
the whereabouts of Urvashi. Thinking on why Kalidasa chose to express these
specific verses in that language which was known by the name “Apabhraṃśa” (
means “corrupt” or “non-grammatical language”), this is indicative of a common, natural
language that man in his natural habitat could have evolved, with which he
managed to understand his fellow human beings and also the other living beings
around him
It
must be noted that from Apabrahmsa descended almost all the North Indian
languages. There is scope to believe that further back in time this Apabrahmsa
– in its early form existed for many millennia! Absence of interference and
imposition by outside forces could have helped in the prevalence of this
language for long. But this language was not known by the name, Madhuram.
However it’s meaning as
“corrupt” or “non- grammatical” language
makes it an equivalent of what olden works of Tamil call as “Kodum Tamil”
which means “stunted Tamil” or “corrupt Tamil” or “Non- grammatical Tamil” as
opposed to Grammatical Tamil nurtured by Sangam Assemblies. This Kodum Tamil was spoken in regions
outside Tamil lands. We would see those details later.
For
the current article, we are identifying the places where the Human tongue or
Maanusham vaakyam was spoken in Valmiki Ramayana and the name by which that
language was called during Ramayana times. The interpolation in the context of
Hanuman’s first meeting with Rama and Lakshmana could just be a way to find an
explanation for the Madhuram vaakyam which seems to crop up every now and then
in Ramayana with little relevance to the context, giving the commentators have
a tough time in finding a logical explanation for it.
For
example, in Aranya khanda, after killing Mareehca, Rama was returning to his hermitage. On the
way he saw Lakshmana coming in search of him. This shocked Rama as he was
expecting Lakshmana to be guarding Sita. He held Lakshmana’s hand and asked in
harsh words (parusham ) why he left Sita and came out. Here Valmiki also uses
the terms “Madhura udarkam” (“uvaacha madhura
udarkam
idham parusham aarta vat” / उवाच मधुर उदर्कम् इदम् परुषम् आर्तवत् | 3-57-17)
What
did he talk harshly in Madhura udarkam? If Madhuram means sweet, does this fit with
the context when Rama is anguished that Sita has been left alone. He does speak parsuham vaakyam –
harsh words, but speaks them in Maduram
tone? It can not be so. Earlier in the Epic, it is said in
many places that Valmiki uses meaningful words having great relevance. Such
being the case, the Madhuram here can not be a sweet or soft or melodious word.
Rama’s tone must have exhibited anguish, worry and fear. The presence of
Madhuram in this sloka had made commentators split their head and they
ultimately came out with an explanation by reading ‘udarkam’ along with
Madhuram as “thinking
of the future he spoke in sweet / Madhuram vaakyam!!
Udarkam
means ‘future’ or ‘consequence’ or something that is going to come later. What
is that something that is to come later which can be said in Madhuram vaakyam?
This is the head splitting mystery for the commentators. So they arrived at an
explanation that this act of Lakshmana (in having left Sita alone) was
crucial for the purpose of Ramavatara (namely death to Ravana) such that this
paves the way for the abduction of Sita. Having this futuristic (udarkam)
purpose in mind, Rama told in Madhuram udarkam!!!
What
an absurd explanation!! Instead if we think that Madhuram was the language,
then on seeing Lakshmana,
Rama was anguished at what would happen to Sita (futuristic / udarkam) and
spoke harsh words (parusham) in Madhuram language!
This
also fits with a natural response in such a situation for any person expressing
his anger and anguish in the tongue which is common or one’s own mother
tongue! (Applying this logic to
Pururava, in Kalaidasa’s work, we can say that Apabrahmsa was the natural Human tongue. Since Purura preceded
Rama’s times, he must have spoken in Madhuram vaakyam only. Over the millennia,
this name came to be called as Apbrahmsa. In Kalidasa’s times, that olden,
common language was called as Apabrahmsa )
We find similar expressions in the scene of Rama leaving for the forest. Sumantra was the
charioteer transporting Rama to the forest and he was naturally very sad. In
that context Valmiki says that Rama kept talking to him various topics that
were dearer to him – in Madhuram !
स
तम् अध्वानम् ऐक्ष्वाकः सूतम्
मधुरया गिरा
तम् तम् अर्थम् अभिप्रेत्य ययौवाक्यम् उदीरयन् (2-49-18)
तम् तम् अर्थम् अभिप्रेत्य ययौवाक्यम् उदीरयन् (2-49-18)
The “Madhurayaa
gira” in an attempt to console Sumantra does not sound appropriate to the
context. Even if we think that Rama is indeed speaking in sweet voice, a little
later in verse 2-52-21, he kept talking in Madhuram vaakyam to Sumantra who was
uncontrollably crying. Rama kept repeating what Sumantra must do once he
reaches back Ayodhya. He told what he must convey to the King and the three
queens and to Bharatha and how he should handle the situation for the next 14
years when Rama would be away in the forest. These are repeated again and again
by Rama in Madhuram vaakyam to Sumantra who was weeping and seemed to have lost
his balance. In such a context repeating what he wanted to convey makes perfect
sense. But repeating them in Madhuram
tone does not convey the mood.
रामः तु मधुरम् वाक्यम् पुनः पुनर् उवाच
तम् (2-52-21)
“Madhuram vaakyam
puna panar uvaacha” – Rama kept talking in Madhuram vaakyam again and again. That
does not seem to be the apt description. But thinking that Sumantra was a common man, it is apt for Rama
to have spoken in the Human tongue to convince him that he need not grieve over
the developments and what he must do on returning to Ayodhya.
Again Madhuram comes in an inappropriate context of grief. Sumantra comes
back to Ayodhya and meets Kausalya. Kauslaya is inconsolable and asks Sumantra to
take her to Rama. Valmiki says that Sumantra starts speaking to her in a chocked
voice and in faint accent (सज्जमानया) 2-60-4)
His words of
consolation starts in the 5th verse and ends in the 15th
verse where Valmiki states “hlAdanam vachanam sUtau dEvyA Madhuram abravIt”
ह्लदनम्
वचनम् सूतो देव्या मधुरमब्रवीत् (
2-60-15)
It is mentioned that he said “hlaadanam vachanam” (refreshing words), but
once again why “Madhuram abravIt” following that? Did he tell refreshing words and he spoke
that sweetly?
Where he has to speak convincing, reasonable and refreshing words to make
her think that Rama and others are not at all grieving but are rejoicing, and the Kavi has characterized that as ‘hlaadanam vachanam’, there is no scope
for sweet Madhuram there. But the sentence makes sense if we interpret that “he spoke refreshing words in
Madhuram” (language). In that situation the charioteer who is trying to
console the Queen, would not speaking in Sanskrit, but in the language he is
conversant with – the language in which he can convey his thoughts easily.
Moreover the mood of the scene is of pathos and it is absurd to expect the
Charioteer to speak sweet words in Sanskrit.
The use of “Madhuram” in these kinds of contexts makes it appear that this
word was not exactly intended to be an adjective with a meaning “sweetness”. It could actually mean a language. If Valmiki did not mention it specifically as
a language, it could be because it was common knowledge in those days that
Madhuram was a language and was the only popular human tongue which everyone
spoke. Unless
a common human tongue was the mother tongue of many people in Bharat at that
time including Rama or Sita, it was not possible for Hanuman and Sita to have
talked in the language in Ashoka vana!
The conversation between Hanuman and
Sita in Ashoka vana is of crucial importance in deducing or detecting the name
of the common spoken language of those times, because the entire conversation
took place in that language only. There
also “Madhuram” stands out distinctly as shown in the
numerous contexts above. Let us go through this word used in the conversation
between Hanuman and Sita which took place in the language of common man.
1 Hanuman
decides to talk to Sita in the language of human beings, and decides to choose
a language which had unalloyed truth (avithaTHam). There Hanuman mentions ‘madhuram
avithaTHam jagAdha vAkyam’
/ मधुरम् अवितथम् जगाद
वाक्यम् (5-30-44)
. That is, he thinks of using unalloyed, truthful, madhuram sentences. Normally, while interpreting this, most people
use the meaning sweet for madhuram
and explain that Hanuman wanted to speak to Sita truthfully and sweetly. Here the word vAkyam is singular. Hanuman is not going to speak just
a single sentence, but many. ‘Therefore,
the vAkyam here denotes language and
not sentence’, says Narayana Iyengar. *** That is, Hanuman
thought of speaking in a language of unalloyed truth. Apart from this place,
pointed out by Narayana Iyengar, this word madhuram
has been deployed at many other places. In the entire Valmiki Ramayana for qualifying speech with adjectives, there are
many words: like hitham - beneficial,
dharmayukta - righteous, chAturya - dexterity, vistara - detailed, etc. But the word madhuram appears in doubtable contexts
as explained before. The meaning sweet does not fit in appropriately at all
places.
2 Hanuman
decides beforehand how he should talk to Sita. “I will present auspicious and righteous words and
make Her listen to me. I will bring out all in madhuram speech” श्रावयिष्यामि
सर्वाणि मधुराम् प्रब्रुवन्
गिरम् ( 5-30- 42&43).
While it is possible to attribute meaning sweet to madhuram, we should note that he uses plural for the words vachanAni (words) and sarVaNi
(all), but madhuram and giram (speech, language) are singular.
Besides, madhuram is used as noun and
not as an adjective. So it is not sweet speech, but madhuram language.
3 While
starting to speak to Sita, Valmiki mentions that Hanuman whispered so that she
alone could hear in madhuram vAkyam / संश्रवे मधुरम् वाक्यम् वैदेह्या व्याजहार ह (5-31-1).
When one whispers we say one speaks softly and not sweetly. So madhuram as an adjective does not fit in
here.
4
Hanuman climbs down
from the tree after telling Rama’s story in madhuram
language, (point 2 above) and speaks to Sita with folded hands. Here, Valmiki
says ‘madhurayA girA’ शिरसि अञ्जलिम् आधाय सीताम् मधुरया गिरा (5-33-2)
5
The next context of “Madhuram” is startling. Hanuman describes Rama. He says
‘satyavAdhi
madhura vAkdhevO vAchaspathi yathA’
- Rama speaks truth and like the lord of speech Vachaspati, speaks in madhuram! Comparing Rama with Vachaspati gives us more
insights into Madhuram. Who is this Vachaspati? He is the god of speech or
language. Sanskrit, the Deva bhasha, does
not need a god or lord, but the human speech or human language is required to
have a god and he is Vachaspati.
This is not the
first time we come across Vachaspathi in Valmiki Ramayana. After hearing
Hanuman tell about Rama’s story from his hiding in the tree, Site is happy
first and then confused wondering if it was a dream. Finally she prays to
Vachaspathi that what she heard must be true. (5-32-14). That
Vachasptahi is the Vaak Deva –
Lord of speech. What she describes for Vachaspthi is same as that is found in
verse 8-89 of Rig Veda for Vaak. There is another verse on Vaak Deva in Rig
Veda (10-125). This verse makes it amply clear that this is the Lord of Speech of the humans.
In verse 5 in that Hymn (10-125), it is said that this Lord makes the man
become a rishi or a Brahman by its blessings. This reminds us of the way
Valmiki transcended from a robber to a sage and a great poet.
It
is believed that Brahaspati or Guru (Jupiter) was known as Vachaspathi. But the
2 Rig Vedic hymns on Vaak mention that deity as “queen” – a female! This
indicates that she is Saraswati Devi, who is known as VaaNi and Vaak Devi. In
Tamil, she is known as “VaakkaL” – the one who lords over Vaak! (There is
indigenous derivation of Vaakku in Tamil - Vaakku'
is what is 'vaarkka-p-paduthal' – that which
springs). Every song that was inaugurated at the Tamil sangam
Assembly started with a prayer first to Saraswati (also known as Naa-MagaL in
Tamil, meaning deity of tongue or speech) and then to Shiva known as Irayanaar.
(Eg: Thiruvaluva maalai inaugurated at the last sangam assembly during the time
of Pandyan Rudra sanmam in 1st century AD or just before that). Why
I am saying these details from Sangam and in Tamil is that she is the consort
of the four faced Brahma and at many places where Brahma appears in Valmiki
Ramayana, he speaks “Madhuram vaakyam!!
If Vaak Devi is
one who lords over human speech, and her consort speaks in Madhuram vaakyam ,
this reflects what I have been saying all along – that Madhuram was the name by
which human tongue was known. The naturally formed human language was Madhuram
– sweet and therefore it came to be called as Madhuram. This will be discussed
in 4th part of this series.
In the present
context, Rama speaks Madhuram like Vachaspathi. If madhuram language was spoken
by Hanuman and by Sita, it is natural to expect Rama to have mastered that
language. It fits well with the contexts where we highlighted earlier in this
article that Rama spoke in Madhuram language.
6. When Hanuman tried to go near Sita
and speak, She got a doubt whether he was Ravana in monkey’s disguise. She was afraid and so sat
in a place and turned her face away. She said ,“ If you were Ravana, you are
increasing my agony and that is not good for you” Any poet while narrating this should have
mentioned that Sita uttered those words in agony or in anger. But Valmiki
writes that after a deep sigh She told those words in madhura svara(5-34-13) अब्रवीत्
दीर्घम् उच्छ्वस्य वानरम् मधुर स्वरा
.
Can we ever imagine that she told sweet words or in sweet voice, after taking
a deep sigh that it was not good for Hanuman? Sweetness for madhurm in that sloka is inappropriate.
7.
Later, even though Sita found Hanuman to be genuine, she wanted to test
Hanuman to know how far he was aware of Rama’s personality. So she asks Hanuman
to describe Rama. Valmiki writes that she asked him in serene words to describe
Rama. But the word madhuram also come
along!
‘uvAcha vachanam shantham itham madhurayA girA’.
(5-35-1)
Normally people translate this as : She spoke words serenely and spoke sweetly’.
Normally people translate this as : She spoke words serenely and spoke sweetly’.
But we should note that once having said
that she spoke serenely, where was the necessity to say she spoke sweetly? But
if we understand gira to mean speech
and not voice, then the entire sentence can be translated as : She spoke words
serenely in madhuram language’.
8.
After hearing Hanuman describing Rama, Sita gets confidence in Hanuman
and so she starts telling about herself. First she enquires about Rama’s
welfare. As she waits for Hanuman’s response, Valmiki again brings the word madhuram!
‘iti iva dhevi vachanam mahArTHam
tham vAnarEndhram madhura arTham ukthvA’
इति
इव देवी वचनम् महाअर्थम् |
तम् वानर इन्द्रम् मधुर अर्थम् उक्त्वा (5-36-31)
तम् वानर इन्द्रम् मधुर अर्थम् उक्त्वा (5-36-31)
Here also people would normally translate
as : ‘Thus Sita told the Vanara words with great meaning, with sweet meanings’
‘mahArTHam’
and ;’madhura arTHam’ coming successively
confuse us. So all commentators combine the two and translate as ‘great meaningful’ and ‘sweet meaningful’ as adjectives for the
words vachanam (words or speech) and ukthvA (having spoken). This way the
translated sloka does not look
appropriate. On the other hand, if we substitute the word madhuram to mean the name of a language, then we can translate,
like: She spoke great meaningful
words in madhuram language.
This fits in aptly.
We should note that the word madhuram
again and again appears in the conversation between Hanuman and Sita. If
we interpret Madhuram as sweet in all the 8 places shown above, it somehow
smacks of a lack of imagination for using various other suitable words. But then thinking of how Valmiki wrote every
word of the Epic with apt and hidden meanings, Madhuram gets a different
relevance.
For it to be naturally
evolved human language, it must have been understandable by the animals and
birds in the natural habitat of man. In Ramayana we
have birds and animals speaking with humans. Rama speaks to trees and animals
asking them about Sita’s whereabouts. Sita cries out in Madhuram vaakyam while
she was being carried away and the animals look at her up on hearing her
vaakyam. Were such narrations true or the poet’s imagination?
But thinking of the nature of the Human
tongue – on how Vaak Devi extends over all living beings as per the Rig Vedic hymn of 10-125, it is logical to expect that
the other entities such as Jataayu, Sampathi, Jambhavan and Vanaras could have conversed in the
human tongue.
Surfing through Valmiki Ramayana, we
find that, Jataayu first addresses Rama in Madhuram.
स तौ मधुरया वाचा सौम्यया प्रीणयन्न् इव |
उवाच वत्स माम् विद्धि वयस्यम् पितुर् आत्मनः (3-14-3).
उवाच वत्स माम् विद्धि वयस्यम् पितुर् आत्मनः (3-14-3).
Jataayu can not be expected to speak in Sanskrit.
It is in Madhuram, Angada proposes to other monkeys to commit suicide by fasting
because they could not complete the mission given by Sugreeva of finding out
Sita. Can anyone write that
Angada proposed in sweet words to commit suicide? But Valmiki writes!!
वाचा मधुरया अभाष्य यथावत्
अनुमान्य च (4-53-6)
Angada addressed the vanaras in Madhuram
vaacham and said that they had no other way than finishing their lives by
fasting unto death.
Similarly in Sundhara Khanda, Dadhimukha complained to Sugreeva that the vanaras headed by Angada and Hanuman had destroyed the Madhuvana and beaten him and other security guards of the Madhuvana. Dadhimukha was in tears and in pain from the beatings, while he conveyed the news to Sugreeva. Sugreeva in turn conveyed this news to Rama and Lakshmana who were with him at that time. But how did he convey? What did he actually say? He said that Dadhimikha had come to tell in "Madhura Vaag" (मधुर वाग्) the news of the destruction of the Madhuvana by the vanaras!
एतत् अर्थम् अयम् प्राप्तो वक्तुम् मधुर वाग् इह (5-63-21)
Would anyone beaten up well and fled from the scene to inform his superior of the atrocity tell the news in "sweet words"?
Again in Uttara Khanda, just before shedding his mortal coils, Rama gives a piece of advice to Vibhishana in "madhuraṃ ślakṣṇayā girā" (7- 98-21)
विभीषणम अथॊवाच मधुरं शलक्ष्णया गिरा
Everyone was stupefied at the developments of Rama planning to leave the earth. And there was no Madhuram in the words of Rama spoken to various people. But on seeing Vibhishana who had come to see him on hearing the developments, Rama used Madhuram speech! The selective use of Madhuram in the context of talk with Vibhishana can at best be about speaking in the language that Vibhishana was conversant with.
It is in contexts like this, it becomes
known that the word Madhuram was not used by Valmiki to mean 'sweetness'. It is by itself the language or dialect in which people had spoken their pains, sufferings, fears etc.
Another speciality is that in most
places where Madhuram seems to convey that it is a language, there are seen
adjectives that convey that it was spoken with meanings. We find proof of exact
replication or reproduction of meanings from Madhuram to Sanskrit and Sanskrit
to Madhuram. There we find a strong
evidence for Madhuram as Tamil as it was spoken throughout India in Ramayana
times – which is some 7000 years before present. We will see that in the next
part.
(to be continued)
(**) The text
and meaning of Valmiki Ramayana taken for this article can be read in this
website: http://valmikiramayan.net/
***
The English translation of Sri Narayana Iyengar’s book “ Vaanmeegarum thamizhum”
can be read here: http://tashindu.blogspot.in/2006/12/valmiki-and-tamil.html
