Divine Order and Divine Evil in the Tamil Tale of Rama

Author(s): David Shulman

Source: The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 38, No. 4 (Aug., 1979), pp. 651-669
Published by: Association for Asian Studies
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2053906 .
Accessed: 18/06/2014 10:54

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.

Association for Asian Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Journal of Asian Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.45 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 10:54:17 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
VOL. XXXVIII, No. 4 JOURNAL OF AsIAN STUDIES AUGUST 1979

Divine Orderand Divine Evil in the

Tamil Tale ofRama
DAVID SHULMAN

rT he followingpages explorea medievalSouthIndianapproachto theproblemof

evil. The problemis, ofcourse,one whichanytradition,anyattemptto make
senseofhumanexperiencein theuniverse,mustface:whyis thereevil in theworld?
How is one to explain the realityof death, of disease, of all the darkforceswhich
people feel within them? For the theistictraditions,thereis the furtherspecific
questionofGod's implicationin evil: whyhas thedeitycreatedsuchsuffering forhis
creatures?In what ways is God's own natureaffectedby the evil at work in the
world? The problem may arise on a fairlyabstractlevel of generalmetaphysical
speculation;or it mayappear,as withJob, in connectionwithseeminglyunmerited
or disproportionate individualafflictions. In eithercase, theintellectualchallengeis
fundamental,and ultimatelyinescapable.
Nevertheless,not all traditions,or forthat matterall voices withina single
tradition,confrontthe problemwith the same directnessand concern.It could be
arguedthata peculiarsensitivity to theexistenceofevil was characteristic of Indian
thoughtin its formativeperiods.1From the time of the Vedas onward,the out-
standingIndian image ofcreationwas thatofthesacrifice,in whichlifeis won only
out of a violentact ofdestruction;thisconceptionofan intimate,unbreakablelink
between life and death was the point of departureforcrucial ideological devel-
opments. The Upanisadic ideal of total freedomfromsuffering throughidenti-
ficationwiththe Absolute,or the returnto thesource,was one answerto theterror
feltto inherein creation.If lifeis a sacrifice
dependentupon death-if anycreature
can surviveonlyby devouringotherlivingbeings-then shouldnotpeople seek to
renouncethisdeath-riddenworldand findperfection in release(moksa)?This world-
negatingidealism of the renouncerhad a majorpart in crystallizing the values of
classical SanskriticHinduism; somewhatparadoxically,it also servedas a counter-
point to the religiouspreoccupationwiththeproblemofevil. Ifone could denylife,
one no longerhad to come to termswithdeath.
Yet renunciationwas not, ofcourse,theonlyanswer,evenifit was perhapsthe
most powerfulof ideals; most Hindus continuedto live out theirlives in society,
i.e., within the imperfectreal world. The theisticcults of devotion (bhakti),
althoughtheyabsorbedall the idealismoftheUpanisadic,moksa-oriented tradition,

David Shulman is Lecturerin Indian Studies
and ComparativeReligion at the Hebrew Univer-
sityin Jerusalem.
I This statementand thefollowingsynopsisput
me in conflictwith a significantbody ofscholarly
opinion, whichhas denied thattheproblemofevil
is importantin Indian religion. The background
651
to this widely held misjudgment will become
apparentbelow. On theproblemofwhetheror not
thereis a problemofevil in India, see the incisive
discussion by Wendy Doniger O'Flaherty, The
OriginsofEvil in Hindu Mythology (Berkeley:Univ.
ofCaliforniaPress, I 97 6), pp. I'-9.

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.45 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 10:54:17 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
652 DAVID SHULMAN

were mainlydirectedat this majorityof people living mundanelives. It is none-

thelessimportantto realizejust how problematictheveryraisingofthequestionof
evil could becomewithinthecontextofclassicalHindu thought.First,thestandard
against whichgood and evil weremeasuredwas, in ancientIndia, a verybroadone
indeed. Moral good was determinedin relationto dharma-a termwhich,as we
shall see below, eludes definition,but which is clearlylinked to the conceptof
universalorder. Since this orderallowed roomforcertaingroupswithinthe social
universeto performtasksconsideredpolluting-dharma in factdemandsthatthere
be kings involvedin killing,farmers who destroythe livingcreaturesof thesoil as
theyplough to producefood,and untouchableswho clearawaythedefilingdebrisof
civilization-a certaininherentrelativismis apparentin any Hindu discussionof
values. Indeed, the extentto whichthis relativismis itselfseen as problematiccan
serveas an importanttestofanyHindu approachto theproblemofevil.
But a seconddifficulty ariseshere. In the theistictraditions,God is seenas the
ultimatesourceofdharma;yetboththeSaiva and Vaisnavacultsgo to greatlengths
in attemptingto purifythe deityofanyassociationwithevil, includingtheimpure
aspects of dharmaforwhich he is, theoretically, responsible.This developmentis
most strikingin the case of Siva, who beganhis divinecareeras theexemplarof all
that is antitheticalto dharma(he is a murderer,an adulterer,an impuredancerin
the cremation-ground).Within the Saiva tradition,especiallyin South India, the
unsavoryaspects of Siva's naturegive way to a conceptionof the god as nirmala,
without taint. This process reachesits conclusionin the worksof the medieval
religiousphilosopherssuchas theSaiva Siddhantins(forSiva) and Ramanujaand his
school (for Visnu); like many of theirroughlycontemporary counterpartsin the
West, these men soughtto explainaway the existenceof evil and to proclaimthe
radicalgoodnessofGod. The humansenseofevil and suffering is now said to be no
more than a productof ignorance,or of the limitationinherentin theirpartial,
conditionedperspective;evil has no partin God. Ramanujain particularnevertires
ofreaffirming Visnu's freedomfromall impurity and imperfection.2
Thus, on the level of basic metaphysicalstatementswe finda denialof thevery
existenceofa problemofevil. But whatofthelevelofindividualsuffering, theissue
so passionatelyargued by Job? Here, too, a solutionhas been put forwardby the
classical Hindu tradition.The law of karma-which makes individualsentirely
responsible for their fate, since it is theirown deeds which bring about their
sufferings or rewards-offersa simple explanationof any specificcase. If someone
suffersin this life, it is no doubt because of evil deeds performedin a previous
incarnation.Countlessstoriesare told in theepics andpurdnasthatdrivehomethis
point. Is the problemof evil, then,satisfactorily resolvedin Hinduismby a com-
binationof world-renouncing idealism,relativisticethics,and the karmadoctrine?
We shall see below thatforone SouthIndianpoet, whoseartwas aboveall a vehicle
forhis devotion,thematterseemedconsiderably morecomplex.
Our text is taken fromthe Tamil retellingof the Rdmdyayaby the twelfth
century(?) poet, Kampan. Kampan's polishedtext,theIramavatdram (The Descent
of Rama), is regardedby theTamils as one oftheirgreatestliterary treasures;it also
offersa particularlyarticulateexpressionof the culturaland religiousideals of the
2
See, e.g., the opening line of Ramdnuja's ydnaikatana): Sri bhagavadramanujagranthamdld
commentaryon the BhagavadgTtd,where God's (Kancipuram:GranthamalaOffice,I956),5rtbha-
p. i.
svarhpais "opposed to all thatis evil and extending gavadgRtdbhAsyam,
solely to what is good" (nikhilaheyapratyanfkakal-

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.45 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 10:54:17 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
DIVINEORDERAND DIVINEEVIL 653

period.3 For Kampan, as forTulsidis and othermedievalpoets of the Rama myth,

theherocelebratedin theSanskritRdmdyana ofVilmlki has becomeentirelydivine:
Rama is the all-powerfulgod Visnu, incarnateon earth.This identification imbues
everyaction carriedout by Rama or by othercharactersin relationto Ra.mawitha
cosmic, mythicsignificance; in describingthegod's earthlyadventures and sorrows,
Kampan developssymbolicmodesof thehumanexperienceofGod. Hence thevery
intricatenatureof the poem, which inevitablyoperateson more than one plane
throughout:the simple events of the narrativehave become moving mirrorsin
whichwe glimpsefleeting,fragmentary imagesofthedivineat workin humanlife.
Given the importanceof the Irdmdvatdram as an expressionof South Indian
religiousideology,any studyof the textoffersvantagepointsfromwhichto con-
sider how the medievalTamil understandingof the universedifferedfromother
Indian perspectives.This problem has two aspects immediatelyrelevantto our
concerns. First, one should note the basic "realism" of the South Indian bhakti
traditionwhich Kampan represents.For Kampan, as forotherTamil bhaktipoets,
the inheritedmythsbecomemeaningfulonlyin thecontextofa basic acceptanceof
the worldin whichtheytakeplace-even ifa consciousness oftheirsymbolicrather
than simplyfactualcontentis nevertrulylost. The storyof Rama is acted out in a
createduniverseregardedas real. This is nottheplace to seekout thesourcesofthis
attitude,but one mustat least observehow radicallyopposedit is to thatstrandof
classical Hindu thoughtwhichwould reducetheworldofformsto a divineillusion,
mdyd.Second, it is oftenimportantto see how Kampan workswith his sources,
above all with the narrativematerial derived from VWlmlki.In the Sanskrit
Rdmnyana,indeed in the Rama cult generally,Ra.ma is, for the most part, an
embodimentof human ideals; he is forHindu India an outstandingexemplarof
social roles-the ideal son, husband, brother,warrior,king, and so on. This
idealismpersistsstronglyin Kampan's poem as well, but hereit seemsat war with
anothercurrentof feeling,one whichregardsdivinityin a less monotonouslight.
This darkerundercurrent emergesat variouspointsin thetext,includingthoserare
momentswhen the epic heroseemsto go astray;since,forKampan, Rama is God,
thesemomentshave becomeimbuedwithimportanttheologicalimplications.This
essay aims to investigatetheseimplicationsas revealedin one of the most contro-
versialepisodes of the story,Raima'scowardly,dubiouslymotivatedslayingof the
monkey-king, Valin.
The storyis well-known.Raima,wanderingin the forestin searchof his kid-
napped wife,Siti, meetsSugriva,the banishedkingof the monkeys,and Sugriva's
minister,Hanuimat. Sugriva seeks Rama's help against his brother,Valin, and
narratesthe backgroundof theirconflictas follows:Valin, the elder of the two
brothers,was kingofthemonkeyswhenhe was challengedbythemonsterMayavin;
Valin pursuedhis opponentinto a cave, at the entranceof whichhe stationedhis
brotheras a guard. Sugrivawaitedat thatspot fora year,but Valin did not return.
When at last blood and foamissuedout ofthecave, Sugriva,concludingthatValin
was dead, blocked the entrancewith a stoneand returnedto his city,Kiskindha.
Althoughhe triedto keep the mattersecret,the city'sministerslearnedof it and
crownedSugrivaking in his brother'splace. But Valin had actuallyslainhis enemy,
and he returnedto Kiskindha to findhis brotherenthroned;not waitingto hear
3On the problemof Kampan'sdate, see K. pan's worldview,see David Shulman,"The Cliche
Zvelebil, Tamil Literature(Leiden: E. J. Brill, as Ritual and Instrument:Iconic Puns in Kam-
I975), pp. I8 I-84. Foran introductiontoKam- pan'sIrdmdvatdram, " Numen,2 5 ( I978), I 3 5-5 5.

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.45 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 10:54:17 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
654 DAVID SHULMAN

Sugriva's explanations,Valin angrilydrovehis brotherfromthe city and appro-

priatedhis wife,Ruma.
Such is the storywhich Sugriva tells Rama, and he adds that he is still in
constantfearforhis life. Rama at thispointannouncesto Sugrivathathe will slay
Valin, "who has made offwith yourwife"(4.5.27, echoed in 4. IO.33 and other
points in thesechapters).The phraseis perhapssignificant; thereis some reasonto
believe thatRama volunteersso readilyto intervenein thefraternal conflictbecause
of the similaritiesbetweenSugriva'sfateand his own loss ofSltd.4In anycase, once
he has been assuredofRama's support,SugrivachallengesValin to a fight.The two
brotherscome together,but Rama, unable to distinguishone fromthe other,
hesitatesto shoot; Sugrivabarelyescapeswithhis life.Rama sendshim back to the
frayadornedwith a floweringcreeperforidentification. This time,as the brothers
struggleand Valin is on the vergeof triumphing,Rama mortallywounds Valin
with a single arrowshot fromhis hidingplace behinda tree.The strickenmonkey
reproachesRama for this cowardlyaction, claiming that it is in oppositionto
dharmaand the warrior'scode. Ratnadefendshimselfbypointingto Valin's lustfor
his brother'swife and his lack of compassionforhis own brother,and with the
argumentthat monkeys,as animals, are in any case the properprey of kings.
Surprisingly,this argumentconvincesValin, who with his dyingbreathsasks for
pardonand begs Rama to showkindnessto Sugrivaand to Angada,Valin'sson.5
This episode has alwaysbeen embarrassing to commentators and to rdmabhaktas
generally.6Indeed, in only one othercontextin the Rdmdyana-Rama's repudia-
tion of Siti afterthefallofLanika-does theherostandso exposedto criticism.The
difficulty is even morestrikingin view of the strongtendencythroughoutthe epic
to idealize Rama (a tendencywhichin latercenturiesbecamestillmorepronounced,
as Rama became identifiedwithGod). Rama is dharmamh7rti, theveryembodiment
of divine orderin the universe.How, then,could he act so cruellyagainstValin,
whoseactionsare, at theveryworst,no morequestionablethanthoseofSugriva:did
not Sugriva, forhis part, covetand eventuallytake forhimselfValin's wife,Tara?
Was not Sugrivatoo hastyin acceptinghis brother'sthrone?And is not Sugrivain
any case a rathercowardly,vindictivecreaturewhoseonlyrealvirtueis his (rather
self-serving)affectionfor Rama?7 Valin, by way of contrast,is portrayedas
essentiallyheroic,noble, and magnanimousby nature.8The onlymajor"sin," aside
fromtakingRuma, thatcan properlybe ascribedto Valin seemsto be his impetuous
behavior when he returnsto Kiskindha and findshis brotherestablishedon his

4 See the discussion by J. MoussaieffMasson, 7For Sugriva's cowardice, see, e.g., 4.II.80;
"Fratricide among the Monkeys: Psychoanalytic forhis appropriationofTara before Valin's returnto
Observations on an Episode in the Valmikiri- Kiskindha, see 4.46.9. As we shall see, Sugriva's
mayana," Journalof theAmericanOrientalSociety, characteris importantto the later traditionfor
95 (975), 672-78. However, Ramaisinanycase didactic purposes.
in searchofan ally,and hasalreadybeendirectedby 8 Kampan follows Valmiki closely in this
themonsterKabandha to seekout Sugrivaas a step respect.It is hard to believe thatthepoet does not
toward findingSiti: VWlmTkiraimayanam (hereafter share the sentimentshe puts in the mouth of
Rdm.), ed. K. ChinnaswamiSastrigaland V. H. Angada weeping over the fallen Valin: "O my
SubrahmanyaSastri (Madras: N. Ramaratnam, father,my father-you did no evil in thoughtor
I 9 5 8), 3.72. I I-27 - action to anyonein all thissea-girtearth,yetnow
5 Ram. 4.2-22 (condensed). you sufferpain. . . . " Iramdvataram 4.7. I42. (I
6 See thesummary ofthecommentators' remarks have used the edition of Kopglakirusnamacariyar
in Masson (n. 4 above),and in V. S. SrinivasaSastri, [Madras: Vai. Mu. Kopalakirusnamacariyar Kam-
Leatures on theRamayana(Madras: Madras Sanskrit pe_i, i967]).
Academy,I949), pp. I44-64.

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.45 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 10:54:17 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
DIVINE ORDER AND DIVINE EVIL 655

throne.Note, too, thatwhile Valin angrilychaseshis brotherout of town,he does

nottryto kill him-despite Sugriva'shallucinations to the contrary- but Sugriva
does in factengineerValin's death. In short,it is not easy to justifyRama's lethal
intervention on Sugriva'sbehalf- to saynothingofRama's inexplicabledecisionto
kill Valin not in open battlebut froman ambush.All ofthiswas quite plain to the
commentators,and has inspiredno small measureof apologetic. As one modern
interpreter of theRama-yazna admits(in his introductionto theValin episode): "The
perfectman takes a falsestep, apparentlycommitsa moral slip, and we ordinary
mortalsstand puzzled beforethe incident.It may be less an actual errorof com-
missionon his partthana lack ofunderstanding on ours;measuredin Eternity,such
an eventmightstandout differently. But untilwe attainthatbreadthofview, we
are likelyto feeldisturbedand questiontheaction."9
As we shall see, Kampan voices similardoubts. Indeed, it is importantto
observeat the outsetjust how directlyKampan confronts the moralissueraisedby
Valin's death. Here is the verse,forexample,whichdescribesRama's firstappear-
ance beforeValin, immediatelyafterthelatterhas beenwoundedbyRama's arrow:
He whoappeared[onearth]tosafeguardthepathofkings
proclaimed
byManuwithout strayingfromtheVeda'struth
camebeforehim[ValinJwhowascrying:
"IftheLordcandeviatefromwhatis right,
what,then,willbe thenature
ofthelowly?
Yet He has done wrongto me!" (74)10

The poet's choiceofepithetdeliberatelyunderlinesthemoralconflict:Rama, whom

Valin is accusingof a seriousbreachof conduct,is none otherthanthe greatLord
himselfcome down to earthwith the expresspurposeofprotectingdharma.In the
exchange which follows,in which Valin passionatelyprosecuteshis case against
Rama, we are neverallowed to forgetthat the issue is not simplyone of honor
among warriors,but rathera painfulconfrontation betweena woundedsoul and its
god -a deitywho consistently appearsas the sourceand thedefenderofdharmain
theuniverse.
Note how farwe have come fromValmiki's approachto the problem:in the
Sanskritepic, with its essentiallyhumanhero,one is concernedto understandwhy
the ideal man acts in this seeminglycruel and unfairmanner;here, too, Rama's
links to dharmaare stressed,but the termsof reference are entirelyhuman and
earth-bound.l WhatevertheexactrelationbetweentheSanskritepic mythand the
concept of Visnu's avatar, it is clear that Valmlki's Rama is portrayedas a man
among other men, albeit a thoroughlyidealized man.'2 Perhaps the most illu-
minating contrastwith the Valmikian hero, so human and yet so inhumanly
upright,is the seriesof utterlyflawedBiblical heroes-the craftyand mendacious
Jacob, forexample, or the adulterous,murderousDavid. Indeed, it is well worth
askingwhytheSanskritepic and thelatercult ofRama preferthisparagonofvirtue
to a multidimensionalfleshand blood protagonist-or, in otherwords,why the
Valin episode standsout as almost the only instanceof objectionablebehavioron
Rama's part.13
9 R. K. Narayan,TheRamayana(London:Chat- 12 See the discussion of this problemby Srini-

to and Windus, I973), p. 97. Narayanbases his vasa Sastri(n. 6 above), pp. 5-I 3.
workon Kampani. 13 See Shulman, "The Cliche" (n. 3 above), on
10 Cf.4.7. I I 5, where R~ama isdescribed
bythe identificationwiththeideal as theemotionalfocus
poet as "he (who follows)the rulesofManu." ofrdmabhakti.
II Rdm. 4. I6.5; 4. I7. I4- I9.

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.45 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 10:54:17 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
656 DAVID SHULMAN

But our concernhereis withKampan'sview of the incident,and herewe must

emphasizethe appearanceof an entirelynew dimensionof meaning.Valin's tirade
againstRama in theIrdmdvataram (4.7.72-90) raisesissuesaffecting humanunder-
standingof the cosmos: if Rama has erred,thenerrormustacquirean ontological
statusas partof God's own nature.Or, ifit is not a questionoferrorat all, thenis
Valin rightin describingRama as a ferocious,hate-filled lion (ikal eru,88) eagerto
devour others' lives? Or does Valin indeed meritthe punishment he receivesfrom
his god? In otherwords,Kampan is questioningthelinkbetweenGod and dharma:
if thereis a standardof conductrootedin a trulydivineorderin the universe,can
God act to subvertthisorder?How can we understand a deitywhocomesto earthto
protect creatures and to restore the ideal order, yet is capable of ambushinga
creature who has done him no harm, whose moral flaws are notdecisive,and who is,
to top it all, a devotee of this same god? To pursue the Biblical analogy:although
Vlmlki's Rama has no true counterpart in the Bible, Kampan's Valin seemsnot so
farremoved from Job.
Kampan presentsthisproblemwith bold but subtlestrokes.As is usual in the
Iramvatarram, the poetic techniqueis essentiallyone of suggestionand implication
ratherthan of outrightattack. Thus, Kampan's treatmentof the Valin episode
begins witha numberofintimationsofimpendingevil. The firsthintthatall is not
well with the world, at least as the world is seen fromKiskindha,comes in the
fourthverseof theKitkintd kantam,in whichRama standsbeforeLake Pampa in the
vicinityofValin's city:
Thatlakewaslikea coolsaltlessseasurroundedbyland
worldwithitsencircling
in thetopsy-turvy sea,
itslivingbeingsanditsVedicscholars,
whichGadhi'ssonsoughttocreate.(4. I.4)14
Lake Pampa suggeststo the poet an inversionof conventionalorder:the earthis
traditionallyconsideredto be surroundedby the ocean (as the poet acknowledges
with his opening cliche, ota nFrulakam,the "sea-girtearth"),but here it is land
which envelopsa saltlesssea. This inversionwould onlybe naturalin the upside-
down world createdby the frustrated sage, Visv-amitra(Gadhi's son) forthe benefit
ofTrisaniku,a kingwhomVisvamitrahad promisedto help takehis bodyto heaven:
when Indra indignantlysendsTrisaniku head firstback to earth,Visvamitracreates
and peoples an entirelynew universefortheking, locatedbetweenheavenand earth
and spatially(and perhapsalso spiritually)opposed to mundanenotionsof proper
order.1 That Kampan should referto this episode at the verybeginningof the
Kitkintgzka-ntam is surelyno accident: Kiskindhawill be the scene of a startling
reversalofourperceptionofRama, and ofthedharmahe embodies.
Visvamitra,it should be noted, is associatedin generalwith the sortof anti-
nomian role which is properlylinked to the god Siva, the divine antagonistwho
servesas the livingantithesisoftheestablishedorder.16 Amonghis otherroles,Siva

14 Compare Bana's descriptionof Lake Pampa
in Kddambari,kathdmukha (Poona: OrientalBook
Agency, I95 I), 20: Pampa is a new ocean created
by Varuna afterAgastya drank up the sea. The
versequoted above appearsin theintroductionto a
hauntinglamentby Raima,who is forlornly search-
ing forthe lost Sita; thislamentin turnintroduces
the Valin-Sugrivaepisode. The initialnoteofdis-
harmonyand pain soundedin relationto thegod's
experience on earth will later be echoed and
developed furtherin the storyof Valin.
15 Ram. I . 57-6o; IrdmdvatdramI. Io. I o8-I 8.
16 On Visvamitra, see M. Biardeau, "Brah-
manes et potiers," Articleliminaire,Annuairede
l'Ecole Pratiquedes Hautes Etudes,89 (I 97I -72),
5I-52. A folk icon of Visvamitra fromTiru-

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.45 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 10:54:17 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
DIVINE ORDER AND DIVINE EVIL 657

is responsibleforacts of destructionon a cosmic level-both at points of crisis

within the cycleof the fouryugasand, moredramatically,at the end of the cycle,
when the createduniverseis destroyedin thepralaya.17 In this context,we must
note that Kampan depictsValin as a devoteeof Siva (althoughValin also worships
Visnu),18 while the conventionalimageryof thepralayais used by Kampan as the
leitmotifoftheopeningversesoftheValin chapter.
As earlyas verse2, whenSugrivaroarsout his challengeto Valin, thisshoutis
said to have "swallowedtheentireuniversewhichis swallowedby theLord(during
thepralaya)"-a reference to the reabsorptionof the worldby Visnu at the end of
thecosmiccycle.The imageis pursuedin verses3-4, wherethenoiseis said to have
pierced the ears of Valin as he was lyingon his bed in the palace "like someone
restingon a sea of milk."19Thereis no doubt as to the identityof this "someone":
Va-linis implicitlycomparedto Visnu as Anantasayin,the god who sleeps on his
serpent-couchthatrestson thecosmicwatersintowhichtheuniversehas dissolved.
This comparisonof thegod withhis enemyor victimis, we maynotein passing,a
recurrenttrickof Kampan's, and has a definitetheologicalpointattachedto it: the
comparisonhintsat theultimateidentityofGod and theembodiedsoul, an identity
whichthegod's opponentwill eventuallycometo recognize.20
In any case, the firstversesof this chapterevoke Visnu's associationsnot with
orderand form-the usual thrustof Visnu's identification with Rama-but with
the unformedchaos whichfollowstheuniversaldestruction.Pralayaimagessucceed
one anotherrapidlyin the nextfewverses:Valin, hearinghis brother'schallenge,is
enraged,and his angerburstsforth"like theoceanoverflowing its boundsat theend
of the age" (6); his eyesshoot sparksof firewhichwould blind even the mare'sfire
(vata kanal) which destroysthe earth(at doomsday,7); the starsfall fromtheir
places at the touchofValin's crownedhead, whichscrapestheheavensas he risesto
go to combat (9). Valin resemblesthe terriblefire(kalam = kdldgni,accordingto
the commentator)which consumesthe universeat the pralaya (mutivil),or the
Halahala poison (dlam) producedby the churningof the ocean of milk (I2). The
mythofchurningtheocean is mentionedtwicemorein thispassage:Valin promises
to drinkthe sweetlifeof Sugrivaas ifit were"amrtachurnedfromtheocean" (14);
and he even boasts thatwhenthegods and demonsgrewtiredduringthechurning
of the ocean, he, Valin, took over and gave them the amrta(17-i8; again at
I44-45; and in Tara's lament, 8.6, 11-12). The mythof churningthe ocean
describes the creation out of chaos of the phenomenaluniverse,including the

mullaivayil (near Madras) gives him the appro-
priate titlekarimuni,"the black sage"-no doubt
an indicationof his associationwith darknessand
disorder.
17 Biardeau, p. 38; cf. David Shulman, "Tamil
Flood Myths," Journalof Tamil Studies,I2, in
press.
8 Iramavataram 4.7.113, 4.8.7. A panel at the
eighthcenturyKailasanathashrinein Kancipuram
from milk to blood is significant;the Tamil
mythologicaltraditionoftenassociates these two
fluids (and the two colors white and red). See
David Shulman, "The Serpentand the Sacrifice:
An Anthill Myth from Tiruvaru-r,"Historyof
Religions,i8 (1978), I07-37; BrendaE. F. Beck,
"Colour and Heat in SouthIndian Ritual," Man, 4
(I969), 553-72.
Thus, in verse29 Valin is again comparedto
20

depicts Valin with Ravana worshippingthe dtma- Visnu, this timeas Narasimha;and in 30, Valin's
iujgaofSiva. shout extends over the entireuniverse"like the
19 Thisimageis hintedatagaininverse140, at foot of Trivikrama which stretchedacross the
the end of the chapter,when Angada sees Valin earth." Similarly, in retellingthe Bali-Vamana
lying "not on a mountain-likebed of fragrant myth,Kampan comparesBali to Visnu's avataras
flowers,but on a sea of blood." The transition the Boar (Iramavatarami.8. I 8).

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.45 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 10:54:17 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
658 DAVID SHULMAN

antitheticaland mutuallydependentpoles of lifeand death, symbolizedby amrta

and poison.2"The repeatedreferences to thismythin thispassageserveto reinforce
thesuggestionofa hiddendimensionofchaosunderlying theworldofforms.
An uneasysense of impendingdisasteris thus clearlyconveyedby Kampan's
introductionto the Valin episode. Visnu's ties to chaos and destructionare subtly
evoked, and the readeror listener-who of courseknowsexactlywhat is about to
happen-has been carefullypreparedforRama's violentintervention in a morally
ambiguoussituation.At thispoint, Kampan raisesthemoralissuedirectly,in two
very interestingdialogues. The first,and the more poignantof the two, occurs
betweenValin and his wife,Tara. Valin's wife,fullofforeboding,triesto prevent
Valin fromgoing out to battle. She argues that it is unlikelythat Sugrivahas
suddenlygrownstrongenoughto challengehis brotheralone; rather,he musthave
acquiredhelp. Valin laughsat her:ifhe wished,he could destroyall theinhabitants
of the tripleuniverse.Even Yama (Ku,ru, thegod ofdeath)shuddersat thesoundof
Valin's name; anyonewho would help SugrivaagainstValin mustbe a fool(i 6- 20).
Tara thenrevealswhatshe has heard:
0 king,ourfriends aresaying
[ainpinar1
thatonenamedRamahasbecomecloseas lifeitself22
toSugriva,andhascomewithhim
to takeyourlife.(2 I)
Tara here introducesthe crucialconceptof natpu, the friendshipor companionship
which is exemplifiedby Rama's relationshipwith Sugrivaand which,as we shall
ofRama's action.But Valin scornsthisidea:
see, is basic to an understanding
You aremistaken,lady:
onlya womancouldarguethus.
Whatyouhavesaidcouldnotbe true
ofHim whocametoactoutthepathofdharma
fora worldwhich,seeingnoendtoentangling
karma,
23
calledoutinsorrow.(22)

He seesthefruits ofactionshere,andinthelifetocome:
wouldthis[thatyousuggest)thensuithisgreatness?
Whatcouldhegainbyit?
Woulddharma, whichprotects all lives,
destroyitself?
(23)

This, of course, is the fundamentalquestion: will Rama, in aiding Sugriva, be

transgressingthe moral law which he himself,as the great Lord Visnu, has
appointed? Or is Valin misunderstanding dharma because of his arroganceand
egoism? One thingis clear: Valin knowsRama well both as God and as the living
avatarcome to establishdharmaon earth,and it is preciselybecauseValin recognizes
and respectsthis aspect of Rama thathe refusesto believeRama will fightagainst
him. That Valin is devotedto Rama is clearfromverse24, whenhe asks: "Should

21 See Wendy DonigerO'Flaherty,HinduMyths 23

Literally,"to the two kinds of action," i.e.,
(Harmondsworth,Eng.: Penguin Books, 1975), good and evil deeds, bothofwhichchainthedoer.
pp. 273-74; Mahabhdrata,SouthernRecension Cf. the laterSaiva Siddhantinconceptofiruvinai-
(Madras: V. RamaswamySastrulu& Sons, 193 I), yowppu,detachmentfromthe two kinds of action:
I. I2-I5; Rdm. I.45. I5-32, with versesadded Mariasusai Dhavamony, Love of God accordingto
afterv. i 8; Irdmavatdram I .9. 5-26. Saiva Siddhanta(Oxford:ClarendonPress, 197 I),
22 Itn.uyir
natp'amaintu. pp. 2 I4-I 5.

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.45 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 10:54:17 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
DIVINE ORDER AND DIVINE EVIL 659

we cease to praise him who joyfullyrenouncedthe kingdomat the requestof his

stepmother,and insteadbegin to despisehim [if,as Tara believes,he indeedwishes
to aid Sugrival?"Finally,Valin offerstwo morereasonsforrejectingTara's sugges-
tion: Rama could defeatthe entireuniversewith the help of his bow alone; why,
then, would he need the help and companionshipof a mean-mindedmonkeylike
Sugriva (25)? Moreover,Rama, who is an ocean of mercy,is deeplyattachedto his
own brothers,indeedhas no lifeapartfromthem;would he thenintervenein a war
proclaimedbyone brotheragainstanother(26)?
With this, Valin goes offto fight,forTara is too frightened to say more(pian
urai vilampavaicindl, 27); one wondersifshe is moreafraidofherhusband'sangeror
of the answersto his questions.For, as we shall see, theseanswersare mostlyin the
affirmative:dharmacan, and indeed does, destroyitself;and that God seeks and
mighteven be said to needdesperatelythehelp and friendship ofcreaturesas lowly,
as confused,and as terrified as Sugriva,is undoubtedlyone of the majorlessonsof
this entirechapter. But Valin obviouslysuspectsnothingof this, and he is not
alone. In what is perhaps an ironic play on Valin's final argumentto Tara,
Laksmana, the brotherwhom Rama so dearlylovesand who is waitingwith Rama
forValin to emergefromthecity,protestsagainsttheinjusticehe seesaboutto take
place:
I understandnothing, andmyheartis fullofsorrow;
forhe [Sugrivalhasbroughtfierce
Yamahere
to takethelifeofhiselderbrother.
Thisis nottheusualkindofmonkey's war!(32)

Is it righttotrustsomeonewhoactsfaithlessly others?
toward
Will notdharma thusbe ruined?
He whohascomeas anenemytoslayhisownbrother-
whatsupport canheoffer tostrangers?
(33)
The "fierceYama" broughtbySugrivais, ofcourse,noneotherthanRama. This
thewarriorRama does fighthis enemiesto thedeath,
is not a simple identification;
but here we seem to have yet anotherhint of a much morepervasiveconnection
between Rama and destruction.Moreover,Laksmana's doubts about Sugriva's
generaltrustworthiness, givenhis attitudetowardValin, seememinently sensible-
especiallysince Sugrivahas now become Rama's "friend"(na.tpan)par excellence.
These doubts of Laksmana'shave no counterpart in VWlmlki'sversion;theyclearly
heightenthe moraltensionwhichmarkstheTamil text.It is therefore all themore
surprisingto see Rama answeras follows:
How canwediscusstheconductofthesecrazyanimals?
Ifall youngerbrothers
behaved
properlytowardtheirelderbrothers,
couldBharataclaimpreeminence?(34)
Thetruthis thatveryfew
abidebyTruth.
Mostarewithout it.
If,insteadoftakinghelp
whenoffered itbyothers,
weaskiftheyaretrulywithoutflaw,
who,then,canhelpus?(35)

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.45 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 10:54:17 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
66o DAVID SHULMAN

Coming fromthe exemplarof dharma,theseargumentsare littleshortof astound-

ing. Rama claims that monkeysare only animals, and hence beyondthe pale of
ethical behavior;mostpeople are in anycase immoral-and werethisnot so, there
would be no value attachedto theexceptionswho carryout theideal (e.g., Bharata,
the youngerbrotherwho defersto Rama); therefore, people should take whatever
help they can get, when they need it, without examining too closelythe moral
credentialsofthepartyoffering it.
This is one of the few occasions in Kampan, indeed in the Rama literature
generally,wherethegap betweentheideal and therealis explicitlyrecognized.But
is Rama thensuggestingthatthe ideal mustno longerbe considerednormativefor
society?Definitelynot. As we shall see, he insistson judgingValin, his victim,by
the same high standardshe so readilywaivesforSugriva'ssake. But how, then,are
we to understandthisbluntlyutilitarianargument-one could hardlyevencall it a
rationalization-which stands in such sharp contrastto the image of Rama
enshrinedthroughoutKampan's poem? We mightbe inclinedto give moreweight
to Rama's argumentsin thispassageweretheynot, in fact,contradicted byhis own
subsequent statements.For when the woundedValin defendshis conduct toward
Sugrivaand Ruma bysaying,in effect,"I am onlya monkey-your standardsdo not
apply to me,"24Rama strikesback with the universalismimplicitin one strandof
thebhaktiethic:
Does thepathofdharma dependuponthebodywithitssenseorgans?
a wayofknowledge
Is it notrather derivedfromperception?
O youwhoknowwellthegreatness ofthatpath-
wouldyoustubbornly claimyourerror (io8)
tohavebeenright?

Peoplewhocarenotwhatisproperorimproper
areanimals;
butanimals,iftheyenterManu'spath,
aregods.(112)

So much for Valin's claim to impunity:an animal is just as capable of under-

standing, and just as responsible,as a so-called "higher"being. The older rela-
tivisticethic based on the hierarchicalrankingof collectiveentitieshas now been
underminedby the adoptionof absolutecriteria:thegods, as all Hindus know,can
hardlypretendto representvirtue.25 In everygroupthereare some individualswho
are "high" and some who are "low"-not throughbirth, but because of their
conduct( I 5). Valin can plead neitherignorancenora separatesimiandispensation.
For all this, we need not discardRama's answerto Laksmanaas meaningless.
Indeed, the universalisticapproach of the verses just quoted may help us to
appreciateRama's otherwisepuzzling statement.For if monkeysand othermiser-
able creaturesare by no meansbeyondthe scope of dharmicstandards,neitherare
they ineligible for the salvationwhich sinceredevotionbrings. Rama, about to
commitan act ofveryquestionablepropriety, preludesthisactionby affirming that
even the flawed,the evil-ridden,the moral outcastsand failuresare needed and

24
Note thatthisargumentturnsaroundRama's among the flawed and the low-born, there are
claim in the Sanskrittext that Valin, as a mere some who follow the dharmic path, while even
monkey,can have no claim to justice. among the sages and the gods of diversenatures
25
See O'Flaherty, The OriginsofEvil, passim. thereare thosewho do evil.
Kampan puts this idea rather mildly in I 14:

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.45 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 10:54:17 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
DIVINE ORDER AND DIVINE EVIL 66i

loved by God. Bhakticannotdispensewith dharma,but at the same time that it

helps elevateabsolutedharmato a universalvalidityit also impartsto devotionitself
a nearlyabsolutevalue.
Kampan's depictionofthefightbetweenValin and Sugrivabelongsin theseries
of gruesomebattle scenesso belovedof the Tamil literarytradition(and of which
Kampan's own Yutta kdntamofferssome of the finestexamples). Again, pralaya
images abound, but this featureis prominentin muchmedievalTamil war poetry
and probablycarrieslittleextraweighthere,in contrastwiththeopeningversesof
this chapter. The two monkeysclash violently,bitingand clawing at each other
with theirnails, gouging out holes as deep as mountaincaves; blood poursthrough
the fourquartersand colorstheskyredas twilight.Theyhurlmountains,trees,the
earthitselfat one another;still,
Theyfought butneither
wouldgiveway
andas theystruggled,
theirragegrewmoreintense:
redsparksflewup fromtheirwhitehairs,
likefirespreading
throughthedrygrassesofa forest,
andeventhegodswerefaintwithfear.(50)26
At length, as Valin is finallyabout to overpowerSugrivaand dash out his life,
Sugrivasends a desperatelook in Rama's direction.27 Rama takesan arrow,fixesit
on thebowstring,and shoots.
As a needlepiercesa ripeplantain,
thatarrowpiercedthebreastofhim
whopossessed all thepowerofwater,
ofwater-nurtured fire,28
ofvaliantwind,
andoftheearthspreadoutbeneaththesky.
ThusValinfell-
he who,devoidofmercy forhisbrother,
hadsoughttocrushhimonthestonyground,
nowlosthispowerandwasstunned,
as whenthegreatMountMeruis uprooted
bythedoomsday hurricane. (57-58)
Valin is endowed with all the strengthinherentin the constituentelementsof
creation, yet Rama, the Lord of creation,strikeshim down with a single shot.
Valin's firstemotionis amazement:who could have piercedhim with thatarrow?
Was it the gods? Are theystrongenough to have done it? Was it Visnu's cakra
which struckhim, or Siva's trident,or Murukan'sspear,or Indra'svajra? Valin is
determinedto findan answer,and he stillhas thestrengthnotonlyto arrestRama's
arrowbeforeit can emergefromhis back, butalso to pluckit fromhis bodyand look
forits owner'snameengravedupon it. Seeinghimpull out thearrow,theverygods
and demonsare filledwithawe-for who does not marvelat a hero(67)?29 But the

26
Note again the red-whitecolorcombination,
as inn. I9 above.
27
Literally,"he looked in thedirection"(tikku
nokki-nan, 55, not specifyingRama's presence)-
for,axiomatically,thereis onlyonedirectionforall
in need ofhelp.
28 In Hindu myth,water(or Soma) kindlesand
feeds fire;thus the doomsday firein the subter-
raneanmare's-headdevoursthe wateroftheocean
and is neverquenched.
29 Valin's heroicfeatofpullingout Raima's
arrow
recallsthe Tamil mythicmotifof the monkeywho
tries to uproot the immovable linga: thus Valin
breaks his tail at Kaincipuramby pulling at the

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.45 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 10:54:17 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
662 DAVID SHULMAN

real dramabeginswhenValin deciphersRama's name("the mi/amantraofthetriple

universe,the remedyforthe illness of rebirthin this world," 7 I) on the arrow.
Valin at firstlaughs incredulously,then is overcomeby shame. Perhaps,as the
commentatorsuggests,as a true hero he feelsthe shame of his opponentRama's
disgracefulaction. Or he may be chagrinedby the memoryofhis own formerfaith
in Rama, now shownto havebeennaive:
Likeanelephantfallenintoa pitandboundbysnares,
Valin,ashamed,
grewweakandshookhisheadinsorrow;
hesmiledas hethought oncemore,
"Could this be dharma"?(73)

The image of thebond or snareappearsagain in verse69, whereSugriva,who is

"bound by ties of birth"(pirapp' nnumpoicattdrpinzipputa) to Valin, shedstearsof
love in sudden, belatedgriefforhis brother.Both versesrecalltheSaiva Siddhantin
metaphorof the deitywho binds souls, fortheirultimatesalvation,withthe snare
(pas) of life in the world; only the redemptivelove of God can then releasethe
embodied soul fromthis bondage.30Valin is caughtin just such a divinetrap: his
god has inexplicablyattackedhim, and he as yet has no sense of the redemption
which this veryattackhas made possible. Thus, as Rama now appearsbeforehim
(see verse74, translatedabove), Valin, his eyesshootingsparksas redas the blood
issuing fromhis wound, addresseshim with anger mixed with simple wonder:
"What wereyou thinking?!Whathaveyoudone?" (75).
Fifteenversesfollowin whichValin poursout his rageat thegod. The intensity
and poweroftheseversesleave no doubtas to Kampan'ssympathy forValin; indeed,
as an expressionof angerat the deitywho creates,instructs,and thenbetrayshis
creatures,this passage has fewequals in South Indian bhaktipoetry.I do not have
space herefora detailedcommentary on all the verses,but the mainpointsmaybe
thatValin neverquestionsRama's identityas
listed briefly.First,it is noteworthy
God, or even his essential attributeof mercy.In verse 84, forexample, Valin
protestsagainstwhathe can onlyregardas a horrifying lapse, a crimecommittedby
Rama againsthis own nature:
Whatyoudidwasnotheroism,
norrightaction,
norTruth.
Mybodywasnoburdentothisearthofyours.
Why,then,didyouactthus,
withoutlove (Tramanri),
againstyournature?
But if Rama remainsherethegod ofdevotionwho is believedto respondwithlove

Vayulinga (thereafter called Val1ccaran).See Kin- Vittiyanupalanam Press, I932), 40.77-243.

cippurdnamof Civaniinacuvamikal(Kanicipuram: 30 of Arunanticiva-
See, e.g., Irupdvirupaktu
Muttamil accakam, I964), 62. I I7-I9. Haniumat cariyar, 4, in Meykantacettiram(Madras: South
has a similar adventureat Ramesvaram:Skanda- India Saiva SiddhantaWorksPublishingCompany,
pura-na(Calcutta: Gopala PrintingWorks, I959), I972), pp. i88-89. And see the discussion by
3. I.44.82-I I7, 3.I.45.I-90, 3.I.46.I-79; O'Flaherty, The Originsof Evil (n. I above), pp.
Cetupura-nam of Nirampavalakiyatecikar (Madras: I 68-7 3.

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.45 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 10:54:17 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
DIVINEORDERANDDIVINE EVIL 663

to the love of his devotees(iram,"love," is also an importantsynonymforbhaktiin

theIrdmdvatdram),31his roleas thedefender ofdharmais nowbitterlydisputed:

You standthereembracing dharma,

friendship,
andevena mother's love;
butifyou,whilestopping others
fromdoingevil,
perform evildeedsyourself-
is thatnotevil?(76)
With a singlearrow,Rama has utterlyruinedtheparadigmaticvalueofhisavatar:
You havefailedtoprotectthepathprescribed
bythesastras,
thegoodwayofyourancestors,
andthenormsofconduct(cilam).
It is notVilinwhomyouhaveslain,
o valianthero-no,
youhavedestroyed thelimitsimposedbythedharma
ofkings.(89)

You havehighbirth,learning,
victoriousstrength,finecharacter,
lordshipoverthetripleuniverse
andthestrength tosupportthisworld-
how,then,couldyouforfeit all ofthis,
likea personwho,havingwisdom,
forgetsitall?(77)
Valin's argumentsfocuson Rama's unfairness in favoringSugrivaoverValin, on
his disgracefuldecision to shoot Valin froma hidingplace insteadof challenging
him openly,32and, above all, on Rama's abandonmentof the law ofdharmaand his
implicitacceptanceoftheidea that"mightmakesright":
0 lordrichinmercy,
is itonlyforthemonkeyswhowalkthissea-girt
earth
thattheKali Agehascome?
Is itonlytheweakwhomustactrightly?
Whenthemighty do wrong,
do theynotwinfameinsteadofblame?(8o)
As in Valmlki's version,thereis a pointedsuggestionthat Rama's judgmenthas
been warpedby his personalexperienceof loss: "The dharmaofkingsis theproper
possessionofall who are bornin yourfamily,but it seemsyouhavebecomeconfused
3' See lrdmdvatdram I .7. 2-3, I 5, whereiram Europeanthemeof thewarrior's sins:see G. Dum&
and its synonympacai (both words connectedto zil, The DestinyoftheWarrior(Chicago: Univ. of
images of moisture and coolness) are pointedly Chicago Press, I969), passiri. Indra is the out-
opposed to thebarren,desolatestateofmoksain its standing Indian example of this theme. In one
conventionalmeaning of release fromterrestrial South Indian versionof theVrtramyth,Indrakills
life. Vrtrafroman ambush,as Rama slaysValin; theevil
32 This theme of disgrace,pali, harksback to of Brahminicidethen pursuesIndra to his hiding
the heroicethicofthe Canikamperiod: theancient place in a cave in themiddleofthesea. When Indra
heroes sought glory (pukal) and shunned blame complains to Brahma that he has killed many
(peai), especially the charge of cowardice. Thus demons but never beforebeen afflictedby evil,
CeramanPeruficeralatan could fastto deathbecause Brahma explains that Vrtrawas a learned,pious
he had receiveda wound in his back during the demon devoted to Siva, and that Indra slew him
battle of Vennipparantalai(see Purandnz7ru 65). unfairly,while hiding-hence Indra could not
See K. Kailasapathy, Tamil HeroicPoetry (Oxford: escapetheconsequencesofevil. Tiruvdrirppurdamof
Clarendon Press, i968), pp. 88-90. Thereis also Alakai Campantamunivar (Madras: Kaliratnikaram
a convergenceherewith theapparentlypan-Indo- Press, I894), I3. I-53.

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.45 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 10:54:17 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
664 DAVID SHULMAN

afterlosing yourwife . . . If a rdksasahas done you harm,does thatgive you the

right,accordingto Manu's law, to kill themonkeys'king?"(78-79).
Finally, even in termsof realpolitik,Rama has erredin choosingSugrivaover
Valin:
You havechosena strangertohelpyouslayyourfoe,
butat whatcost?
You haverejected lionwhocouldtearapartanelephant
a mighty
infavorofa hare!(86)
So speaksthe anguishedValin. Rama's response(92- 102) is shorter than
Valin's speech, and makes three main points. First, Valin's firstmistake (piiai, I03)
was to let his anger at Sugriva rule his actions; instead of listening to his brother's
explanationsand thenoffering him refugeand forgiveness, Valin drovehimfromhis
kingdom, and would have killed him had he not been afraid to approachSugriva's
mountain hiding place. Second, Valin then ruinedthe chastityof Sugriva'swife
Ruma. Third, Sugrivawas Rama's belovedfriend(I02), and therefore Rama had to
relieve his suffering. We have seen the firsttwo arguments in Valmlki's version;
be
only the secondcan strictly regardedas a real violation of dharma, and, both for
this reason and because of the high value which South Indian society has always
placed on women'schastity,Valin's appropriationof Ruma has becomethe major
justificationfor Rama's action.33Valin focuseson this problemin his reply,in
which he claims that monkeys,unlike men, have no obsession with chastity:
Brahma, the creator,allowed them to unite as theypleased (I04-5). We have
alreadyseen how Rama responds to this claim: the path of dharma has a universal
applicability, and Valin clearlyhas enough discriminationto judge right from
wrong. It is also worthnotinghow Kampan destroysthe symmetry apparentin
Valmiki's treatment of the "monkey's sister-in-law" theme: there, Valin's lust for
a in
Ruma has parallel Sugriva's ardent love forTara. Kampan has reformed Tara's
image considerably,so thatshe now becomesa prototypeof the pious widow who
remainsfaithful to herlostlove.34
Yet the real thrust of Rama's replyseemsto have littleto do withthe nicetiesof
dharma. The point of this passage is not, I think, that Valin's actions are
unequivocallyimmoral-they are, on the contrary,ratherambiguous,as we have
seen. Indeed, theirimportancemaywell lie preciselyin thisambiguity;fordharma,
as the classical Hindu traditionnevertiresof tellingus, is notoriously difficult to
define(si7ksma).Rama himselfexpressesthisidea in his reply Valin to in the Sanskrit
text: "Dharma is subtle and veryhard for[even} the virtuousto understand.. ..
Only the innersoul knowswhat is rightand what is wrong."35There is thus no
clear-cut rationale for Valin's death. On the other hand, Valin's historyand
characterare not irrelevantto his fate. What Kampan wishesto emphasizeis that
Valin has transgressed againsttheethicoflove: wherehe could and shouldhavebeen

33 See George L. Hart, III, ThePoemsofAncient Murugan: On Tamil Literature 'of South India
Tamil, theirMilieu and theirSanskritCounterparts(Leiden: E. J. Brill, I973), p. 212; C. R. Sarma,
(Berkeley: Univ. of CaliforniaPress, I975) pp. The Ramayanain Teluguand Tamil: A Comparative
93-I I9; DavidShulman, "TheMurderous Bride: Study (Madras: LakshminarayanaGranthamala,
Tamil Versionsof the Mythof Devi and the Buf- '973), pp. 94-97.
falo-Demon,"HistoryofReligions,i6 (I976), I20- 35 SOksmah paramadurjizeyaisatda dharmah
46. plava.mgamal hrdisthah
sarvabhitanaimitm vedasub-
34 Thus Sugriva does not marry Tara in hdbuhhe (4. i 8. I5).
Kampan's version. See K. Zvelebil, The Smileof

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.45 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 10:54:17 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
DIVINE ORDER AND DIVINE EVIL 665

mercifuland understanding, he was insteadruthlessand arrogant.Rama's sermonto

the dying Valin has less to do with the elusive letterof the law than with the
attitudes and emotions demanded of the individual in the worldviewof bhakti
religion: "To rage at the weak just becauseone is strongis a perverseuse ofpower"
(ioo). If, as I have suggested,one of the importantlessonsof thisentireepisode is
that God is always readyto help and indeed seeks the companionshipof even the
weak and the foolish,then it should not surpriseus that Valin standsaccused of
failingto show the same qualities of forbearance and mercy-qualities whichthe
Southern bhaktitraditionregardsas centralto its understandingof the divine
nature,and henceas importanton thescaleofhumanvalues.36
But this is not all. There is no reasonto denythatRama's argumentsto Valin
have been meaningfulto generationsoframabhaktas, who no doubtfoundin thema
large measureof genuineconsolationand explanation.But it is clearbeyonddoubt
thatforKampan theywerenotsufficient, forat thispointin theargument,Kampan
suddenlyleaps to a new plane ofdiscourse.It is noteworthy thatthe changeoccurs
not in a speech attributedto Rama, but in a shortstatement-a single verse-
spoken by Laksmana.(Like Laksmana'sspeechat thebeginningof thischapter,this
statementis an innovationin Kampan). Laksmanais replyingto a directquestionby
Valin, who appearsto havebeenpartly(or, accordingto thecommentator, entirely)
convincedby Rama's arguments.Let us assume, Valin says, that it is as you say;
why, then, did you attack me not in open conflictbut while hidden like a cruel
hunter(i i6)? To thisLaksmanareplies:
0 youwhofailedtodo right
whenyouryounger brothersoughtrefuge withyou-
theLordhadsworntoslayyou.
Thinkingthatin battle,outofloveforlife,
you,too,mighttakerefuge withHim,
He hidfromyouandshot.(I I7)37
At firstglance, this hardlyseems adequate: what kind of a god is it who,
knowing that he is bound to have mercyon anyonewho seeks him, forestallshis
intended victim's move in this directionby killing him beforehe can ask for
refuge?38If this is the price of Rama's keepinghis word to Sugrlva,is it not too
much to pay? Laksmana's explanationis, perhaps, a responseto a well-known
patternin Tamil myths-that of the devoteewho forcesthegod's hand. Oftenthe
villain of the myth-a demon such as Ravana, forexample,or Murukan'senemy

36 Both the Vaisnava and the Saiva traditions,
however, offermany examples of extreme and
highlyvalued fanaticismas well.
37 Govindaraja, commenting on the Sanskrit
text(4. I8.45), givesa verysimilarexplanationof
Rama's action, and adds that if Valin had taken
refugewith Rama, Ravana would have followed
suit, and the divine missionwould have thusbeen
frustrated.See Srinivasa Sastri (n. 6 above), pp.
147-48. This notionis allied to theconceptofthe
necessarysacrifice"that is so prominentin the
Mahdbha-rata and relatedfolkmyths.Anotherpos-
sible justificationforRama's ambush,also beloved
of the commentatorson Vilmlki, is of a more
practical nature: Valin is said to have been
promised by Indra that half the strengthof any
opponent who confrontedhim openlyin battle
would be transferred to Valin; thereforeRama, not
wishing to violate the boon, shot him froma
hiding place. Kampan has Valin boast of this
useful gift in 4.7. 19-20. See Srinivasa Sastri,
citing Govindaraja, pp. 158-59.
38 The Southern Vaisnava tradition -efersto
this key idea as prapattior sarangati. See Robert
C. Lester, "Ramanuja and Sri-Vaisnavism:The
Concept of Prapattior Saranagati," History ofReli-
gions, 5 ( I966), 266-82.

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.45 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 10:54:17 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
666 DAVID SHULMAN

Suirapadma-forces the god to granthis requestby resortingto intense,almost

suicidal devotionto thisdeity." The assumptionis thatthegod mustrespondto his
worshipper'sdevotion;bhaktialwaysproducesresults.Sometimes,indeed,problems
arise when the deity is faced with contradictory requestsfromtwo opposed and
equally determinedgroups of devotees.40It appears,accordingto Laksmana,that
Rama has acted to avoid preciselythis sortof situation.As we have seen, Valin is
devotedto Rama, and one mightevensee a double meaningin thephraseLaksmana
uses, "out of love forlife" (npinaiy uyirukk'
iki). It maywell be thatLaksmanais
referring to Valin's love forRarna,who is the truelifeof theuniverse.In anycase,
theversehardlysolvesthemoralriddle.And yetin thenextversewe findthatValin
suddenlymakespeace withhis fate:
Thekingofthemonkeys tookthesewordstoheart.
He thought:"Thisis theLordoftheworld;
hisheartis broken;
hewouldnotdestroy dharma."
Thushewhohadtheblissofhearing theLordspeak
becamecalm,andbowedhishead.(i i8)
What is it thatenablesValin to makethistransition? This timethepoet tellsus
bluntly: Valin suddenlyrealizesthe true natureof his opponent.Or, to be more
precise, he understandswhat it meansto arguewithGod. As we have seen, Valin
has been awareall along thatRama is thegreatgod Visnu, thesustainerofdharma;
this, indeed, is whatgives the dialogue suchpower.But up to thispointValin has
argued fromthe perspectiveof the outragedcreaturewho lives withinhis normal
framework of conditionedrelativity;withinthisframework, Rama's actionappears
cowardlyand mean, even if Valin is no saint himself.But Laksmana'sargument,
which finallypushes the relativenotionsof rightand wrongoverthe brinkof logic
into absurdity,driveshome to Valin the unexpectedtruththatRama, because he is
God, can indeed violatethe code. God does, in fact,shootdown his devoteesfrom
his hidingplace, and thevictim'sprotestsagainstthisfateultimatelyrevealonlyhis
own ignorance,egoism,and subservience to relativity.
True freedomis theresultof
total surrenderto the divinitywho transcendsour categories.4"This is not to say
that our categoriesand ideals are superseded-far fromit. The whole point of
Raima'savataris to reinforcetheseidealsbypersonalexample.
But theyare neverthe whole truth.Indeed, theymay be said to existonly by
virtueof theiroppositionto the entirerealmof chaosand destructionout of which
theyhave emerged.The antitheticalpoles ofsaitand a'satare intimately, inextricably
linked to one another.All forms,includingthe ideal formsembodiedby Rama, are
essentiallythe impositionof limitsupon chaos, i.e., upon the dark substratumof
purepotentialintowhichall formseventuallydissolve.Moreover,as Valin nowgoes
on to tell us, God cannotbe separatedfromeitherpole, just as he is neverboundby
eitherpole-he remainsultimatelytranscendent even whilehe undergoesa terres-
trialcareerin whichboth realms,the chaoticand thedefined,are manifest.In this
way, God is dharmanot merelyin the senseof whatis properand ideal, but in the
sense of all that properlyexists: God is total existence,the worldorderwhich is

39 Forexamples seeDavidShul- coercive

anddiscussion, tapas.
man, TheMythology oftheTamilSaivaTalapurd- 40 E.g., Skandapurana 6. I07. I-77.
nam,(Diss. University
ofLondonI976), pp. 433- 41
In thissenseVilin is stillcapableofprapatti
42. The patternderivesfromthe olderidea of. and,indeed,nowwinssalvation.

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.45 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 10:54:17 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
DIVINE ORDER AND DIVINE EVIL 667

rooted in disorder(just as rt'gis said in the Vedas to be hidden in the nether

world).42The deity'slinkwithchaosmaynotbe immediately apparent,especiallyif
that deity is incarnatebeforeus as the ideal man; but it is preciselyforthisreason
that we must speak of the god's hiddennature-of Rama slayinghis devoteefrom
behind a tree. Rama is manifestas dharmamzurti -this, as we have seen, is how he
appears to Valin as he emergesfromhis hiding place-but he is also capable of
hidden actions( i I 8) whichare no less realthanthoseacts whichreadilycorrespond
to our ideas of fitness.43
Note thatthisconceptionofGod, whichValin now comes
to accept, is already implicit in the opening versesof this chapter,with their
allusionsto Visnu's destructiveaspect.
As an indicationof the transitionnow achieved,the complex,all-embracing
natureof the deity is celebratedby Valin in the succeedingverses,whichforma
hymnofpraiseto thegod who has takenhis devotee'slife:
You shotyoursharparrowand,
at thehourwhenI, thisdog,
mustdie,
yougavemewisdominyourmercy,
o youwhoaretheTrimiurti,
theFirstOne,
theAll andall thatyetremains;44
youareevilanddharma,
enmity andlove.(I 2 I)

You areall livingbeingsandall insentient

objects,
theseasonsandtheirfruit;
likescentwithinflowers,
youdwellwithinall.
You havegraciously taughtme
whoandwhatyouare
o LoneOne, is thesupreme state[ofmoksaJ
stillbeyondme?(I24)

Valin's notionsofdharmahaveclearlyexpanded:
otherthanthisarrowofyours
Is theredharma
whichpiercedmystrongbreastandtookmylife?(I22)

WhatmorehaveI tosee,havingnowseenyou
whohavetheform ofdharma
whichis existence
entire?
(I25)

Note the carefulchoice of words:dharmais "all thatis" (untu)-not merelywhat

inheresin creation.This new
man thinksshouldexist,but also theevil thatnecessarily
and wider conceptionof dharmais, however,temperedby a renewedemphasison
God's graceand love:
42
R1gveda5.62. I. See F. B. J. Kuiper, "The the Veda as marai, "the secret."
Bliss ofAga," Indo-IranianJournal, 8 (964), I20; 44The seeminglyparadoxicaloppositionhereof
Stella Kramrisch,"The Triple Structureof Crea- "all" and "all thatremains"mayreflectthetension
tion in the R.g Veda," Historyof Religions,II betweentheconceptsofthecenter/totality and the
(I963), 272. excluded remnantwhichis the sourceofnew life.
43 Here is one link betweenrdmabhakti and the See Shulman,"The Serpentand theSacrifice"
(n. i9
notion of esoterictruthso characteristic of Indian above).
religionon manydifferent levels. Tamil refersto

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.45 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 10:54:17 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
668 DAVID SHULMAN

0 lord,youaredharma, fitness, andexcellence;

youhavemercy onlivingcreatures
lovesherchild.
as a mother
Forgivemyevilactions-
forhowcoulda doglikeme
understandwithout error
therightnessofyourpath?(i I9)
Valin, who adopts theconventionalbhaktipersonaof the impureand lowly(but
devoted)dog vis-a-vishis master(compareverse12 I above), is also describedin this
verseas "he who gave no thoughtto littlethings,"i.e., he has nowgraduatedfrom
the level of relativejudgmentsand "petty"moralconcernsto a fullerconsciousness
of the divine. Within this new consciousnesshe also experiencesthe need for
forgivenessand the sense of divine love-a love which is not, ultimately,con-
tingentupon moralnorms,but whichfreelyreachesout to thosewho seek it. It is
significantthatthissenseofdivinegrace,so characteristic oftheSouthIndianbhakti
tradition,comes intoplay only afterValin has accepted thecomplexcharacterofthe
deity. Moreover,thecounterpart to thisidea of God's redemptive, maternallove for
his creaturesis Valin's bold statement about Rama in versei i8 (quoted above):God
feelsthe sorrowofhis creation;Rama, too, hasa broken heart.
If Valin can now acceptunequivocallythe deity'srelationswithevil, the result
of this essentiallytragicvision is not sorrowor bitterness,but a suddenand over-
whelmingjoy: by callingRama to slayValin, Sugrivahas wonan "emptykingship"
(ver' araacu)and leftforValin the "kinglystateoffreedom" (vtt' arac' gnakkuvittdn,
I26). We must take a momentto understandthis idea. Like the death of many
demons in bhaktimyths,Valin's death has becomea symbolof a violentsalvation
won at thehandsofthelord; thus,one popularexpositionofthispassagein Kampan
can call itselfsimply"Valin's attainmentof moksa"(Vd1imotcam).45 But an impor-
tant distinctionmust be made here. Most Tamil mythsof thistyperationalizethe
demon's salvationthroughviolenceas the destructionof the demon'segoism and
sense of independentpower: the enemywho sacrifices his narrowunderstanding of
his "selfhood" by dying at the hands of the deity is purified and attainsrelease.46
There is somethingof thisidea in Kampan'sValin episode,too, but herethematter
is morecomplex. Kampan is explicitlyconcernedin thiscontextwiththeodicy.The
focusis not onlyon Valin, but extendsto Rama as well. Valin's salvationcomesnot
througha simple act of self-negation,but froma new perceptionof God. The
freedomValin achieves in his last momentsis derivedfromhis adoption of an
integratedview of the deity: Rama is lifeitselfin its ineluctablerelationto death,
the ideal of good and the realityof evil. God can in no way be separatedfromthe
destructiveforceswhich are necessaryforcreation,fromthe death which is the
substratumof life. Note that this concept of moksaas total acceptance of life is
radicallyopposed to theworld-renouncing ideal ofreleasefamiliarfromtheclassical
Hindu tradition.Kampan's worldviewis tragicin that it acceptsthe necessityof

45 (Madras: Ar. Ji. Pati Kampeii, I974). Val-
miki, too, suggests that Valin attains heaven
(4.18.30-36), but here it is simply a matterof
wiping the slate clean: Valin has erredand been
punished and may therefore be released.
46 This is the explicit formulation of the texts;
but thegreatpopularityofthedemon-devoteealso
seems to depend upon an earlier concept of
sacrifice,or self-sacrifice,as thepath to power. On
the demon-devotee,see O'Flaherty,OriginsofEvil
(n. i above), pp. I 2 7-3 8. The commonpatternof
dvesabhakti-salvation through the intimacy
gained by intense hatred for the deity-is not
relevantto the Valin episode; Valin loves the god
who attackshim.

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.45 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 10:54:17 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
DIVINE ORDER AND DIVINE EVIL 669

evil; but his religiousideal is life-affirming, as befitsa poet who celebratesthe

concretepresenceofthedivinein mundanehumanexistence.
It is not, of course,a simplematterto leave God-and dharma-so defiled,so
remotefromthe ideal. As we saw earlier,a problematicyearningforpurityhas
alwaysplagued the Hindu tradition.A fewcomparisonsmaymakethispointclear.
Note, first,the directionof the developmentwhich we have tracedin the Valin
chapter:Rama's imageas dharmamirti expands,as it were,to includea dimensionof
disorder.This can be comparedwiththeevolutionoftheSaiva tradition:Siva begins,
as we have noted,as theveryantithesisofdharmaand is onlygradually"purified"of
his less attractiveattributes.But there is also an overtly"anti-dharma"party,
illustratedclearlyby thestoryofMaindavya, thesage impaledwithoutproperreason
by a too hastyking. When Man4avya appeals to the personifiedgod Dharma to
explain his unjust fate,Dharma tells him that it is because Mandavya, as a child,
had stuckblades ofgrassinto the tails of littleflies. Mandavya has no sympathy for
these calculations;Dharma is cruelbeyond reason, and Mandavya curses him to be
born fromthe womb of a S'udra.47VIlmiki lets Laksmanautteran even harsher
denunciationofdharmain Rdmayana6.83. I4-44. Finally,let us recallthetornand
tormentedfigureof Yudhisthira,the righteousking of the Mahdbhdrata,who
spendshis whole lifein a searchforan absolute,ideal dharma,and who is forcedto
compromisehis ideal again and again-for dharmais rooted in violence, and
Yudhisthira,the dharmaraja,must lead his familyinto a catastrophicwar. At the
end of his life,Yudhisthirafindshis wickedcousinsand enemiesfeastingin heaven,
while his wifeand brotherssuffer thehorrorsofhell; and, beingtold thatthisfateis
in accordancewith dharma,Yudhisthirafinallyloses hope and cursesthe gods and
theirdharma.But this conflictbetweendharmaand the king of dharmacannotbe
allowed to stand:Yudhisthira'svisionof thedead is dissolvedintoa divineillusion,
or mdyd,whilehe himselfis transported to heaven.48
For Kampan, the resortto mayais no solution;theworldis fartoo realto him.
Let us sum up by returningto Valin's originalquestion:can dharmadestroyitself?
The answersuggestedby Kampan seems to be twofold.On the one hand, dharma
can and does destroyitselfperiodically;indeed,it existsin constanttensionwithan
underlyingand evidentlynecessary adharma,or asat, whichcan eruptintotheworld
of orderas it does into everyhumanlifein the formsof impurityand death. The
ritualexpressionof thisconjunctionof creationand destructionis the sacrifice,out
ofwhichnew lifeis violentlyproduced.On theotherhand,dharmaas totalreality-
includingthe realityof death-is immutable,and is in this sense identifiedwith
God. Rama remainsthe incarnationofhumanideals, whichretainall theiraffective
power and normativeclaims. But to limit God to this role is to condemnhuman
beingseitherto a futilesearchforan impossibleideal on earthor to a finalrejection
of lifein theworld. Neitherof thesepossibilitieswas acceptableto Kampan; forthe
Tamil poet, the willingnessto embrace the whole of life was the true path to
freedom.

47 MahdbharataI. I03. I-38. This is the back- R. C. Zaehner, Hinduism(London: OxfordUniv.

groundto Dharma's birthas Vidura. Press, I962), pp. I I4-24.
48 MahdbhdrataI8. 1-3. See the discussionby

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.45 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 10:54:17 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions