Archives for March 2019

This paper features on pp. 33-67 of IGNCA’s journal of arts, KALAKALPA, Basant Panchami 2019, vol.III, No.2. The Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Sachchidanand Joshi, Member Secretary of the IGNCA, writes in his editorial, “Professor Pradip Bhattacharya is an acclaimed scholar on Mahabharata…Professor Bhattacharya’s contribution is stupendous.” The paper has been published with 3 colour plates of photographs I took of frescos on the walls of the Silver Pagoda in Phnom Penh, 3.65 metres high, illustrating the episodes contained in these 2 manuscripts of Jaimini which retell unknown episodes from the Ramayana in the Ashramavasika Parva of the Mahabharata.

This was also delivered as the K.K. Handique Memorial Lecture in The Asiatic Society, Kolkata on 4th August 2017 and published the monograph, “Mananena Hi Livati–K.K. Handique Memorial Lectures” edited by Nabanarayan Bandyopadhyay in 2019.

THE “LOST” JAIMINĪYA BHĀRATA

Pradip Bhattacharya[*]

An anonymous narrator tells us that the wandering bard Ugraśravas Sauti told the rishi Śaunaka and his group of sages in the forest of Naimiṣa that Vyāsa composed the Mahabharata after mastering the Veda and what its original compass was (Bhārata of 24,000 slokas without the peripheral tales), the length of its other versions (Mahabharata) and who recite them to different audiences:[1]

“Ṛṣi Vyasa presented this storehouse of knowledge in detailed as well as condensed forms, because the learned of the world are eager to know it at length and in abridgment….

Originally the Bhārata, without the fringe episodes, consisted of twenty four thousand slokas: this, to the learned, is the real Bhārata.

Later he added a list of contents, summarising the epic in a hundred and fifty slokas.

He taught this summary first to his son Śuka, and then to such of his pupils as possessed the same qualifications.

After which, he added another collection of sixty lakh slokas. Of these thirty lakhs are known in the world of the gods.

Fifteen lakhs are known in the world of pitṛs, fourteen lakhs in the world of the gandharvas, and one hundred thousand – one lakh – in the world of men.

Narada recited them to the gods, Asita and Devala to the pitṛs, and Śuka to the gandharvas, yakṣas, and rakṣasas.

Vaisampayana, a pupil of Vyasa, a sage of firm principles and deeply learned in the Vedas, recited them to the world of human beings. I might add that I, Sauti, have also recited one hundred thousand slokas.”—I.1.52, 101-107.

The human world, therefore, has heard a Mahabharata of one lakh slokas recited. In response to Raja Janamejaya’s request, Sauti has heard Vaiśampāyana recite it at Takṣaśilā at Vyāsa’s bidding during the intervals of the king’s snake-holocaust-rite:[2]

“Repeat, exactly as you have heard from me,

The story of the discord between the Kauravas

and Pandavas.”—I.1.60.22

Vaiśampāyana offers a very significant insight into how different recensions of Vyāsa’s composition came to be. He states that Vyāsa had five disciples: Sumantu, Jaimini, Paila, his own son Śuka and Vaiśampāyana himself: [3]

“He compiled the Vedas.

And was called Vyāsa, the Compiler.

Next he taught the four Vedas

And the fifth Veda, the Mahabharata,

To Sumantu, Jaimini, Paila,

His own son Śuka, and to me,

His disciple Vaiśampāyana.

And the Bhārata Saṃhitā

He published through them

Each separately….” –I.63.93-95

Thus Vyāsa had bidden his five pupils to propagate their individual versions based upon what he had taught them. Only the one recited in his presence by Vaiśampāyana at Janamejaya’s sarpa-sattra is extant in full in18 books as recited by the wandering rhapsode Ugraśravā Sauti to the rishi Śaunaka and his group of sages in the Naimiśa forest during intervals of their 12-year-long yajna. Of Jaimini’s version, only his Aśvamedha Parva exists in full where he, not Vaiśampāyana, recites it to Janamejaya. That other parvas by him did exist is sure because at the end (section 68.14-15) Jaimini states that he has narrated 14 parvas to the raja and will now recite the Āśramavāsa Parva. Further, in Section 36, slokas 84-85.5, Sūta (not “Sauti” who transmits Vaiśampāyana’s recital) addresses an audience of ascetics, presumably identical to Śaunaka and his community of sages in Naimiśāraṇya, stating that he has described all that Jaimini had told the son of Parīkṣit. The spelling of the name of Janamejaya’s father (Parīkṣit instead of Parikṣit) provides a clue to Jaimini’s period, as this spelling occurs first in the Bhāgavata Purāṇa. It means, “to look around,” while the Mahabharata spelling means, “remnant (of a ruined family).”[4]

The legend goes that Vyāsa rejected all the other compositions. According to Śrīdhara’s Pāṇḍavapratāpa (Marathi, 17^th century), Vyāsa condemned Jaimini for introducing his own material critical of the Pandavas.[5] This Aśvamedha Parva is of great significance because when Akbar commissioned a Persian translation of the Mahabharata naming it Razmnama (The Book of War, 1584), for the Book of the Horse Sacrifice he chose Jaimini’s version instead of his guru Vyāsa’s, as is evident from the illustrations. We do not know if he made similar choices for the other parvas because his personal copy lies inaccessible in the Jaipur Palace museum.

The Government Oriental Manuscripts Library and Research Centre of the Tamil Nadu State Department of Archaeology has palm-leaf manuscripts in Grantha script ascribed to the “lost” Jaimini Bhārata. Of 15 manuscripts, two that were complete, viz. Sahasramukharāvaṇacaritram (The Deeds of the Thousand-Faced-Rāvaṇa), and Mairāvaṇacaritam (The Deeds of the Dark Rāvaṇa) were critically edited with a sloka-by-sloka English translation in free verse for the first time by Major General S.K. Sen VSM and myself.[6] The Lava-Kuśa manuscript was not included, though complete, as the episode is part of S.K. Sen’s translation of Jaimini’s Aśvamedha Parva.[7] The Setumāhātmyam manuscript from the Āraṇyaka Parva is incomplete, having only four chapters.

The Enigma of Jaimini

Jaimini is the celebrated author of the Pūrva Mimāṃsā and the Jaimini Bhārata. Mairāvaṇacaritam appears to be an independent work included in the Jaimini Bhārata, not claiming to be part of any parva. On the other hand, Sahasramukharāvaṇacaritram, also called Sītāvijaya, claims to be a part of the Āśramavāsa Parva of the Jaiminīya Mahabharata. The way in which Jaimini’s Sahasramukharāvaṇacaritram begins, with Janamejaya’s queries following the return of Sita and her sons to Rama, indicates that it is a sequel to Jaimini’s Aśvamedha Parva account of Lava-Kuśa’s battle with Rama. Unfortunately, those other parvas are yet to be found.

The link with Vyāsa is apparent as in both manuscripts Sita and Hanuman use mantra-infused grass to consume the demons. In Vyāsa’s Udyoga Parva (94. 27-30) Nara demolishes the army of Dambhodbhava by launching iṣīkābhir (blades of grass). Again, in the Śānti Parva (330. 48) Nārāyaṇa takes an iṣīkā, transforms it into an axe with a mantra and flings it at Rudra. Jaimini seems to have taken this concept from his guru.

Further, the invocation to Jaimini’s Aśvamedha Parva repeats Vyāsa’s with a significant difference: he adds his guru’s name in the introductory namaskar:

nārāyaṇaṁ namaskr̥tya naraṁ caiva narottamam /

devīṁ sarasvatīṁ vyāsaṁ tato jayamudīrayet //

Vyāsa is said to have assigned Jaimini the Sāma Veda. In the Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa (c. 250- 550 CE), Jaimini is the interlocutor. According to Monier-Williams, Kautsa is his other name.[8] However, in the Mahabharata, Sauti tells Śaunaka that in Janamejaya’s snake-sacrifice, “The learned old Brahmin Kautsa became the udgātṛ; Jaimini the brāhmaṇa.”[9] In Yaska’s Nirukta, Kautsa is a commentator questioning the meaning of Vedic mantras and his arguments are presented in Jaimini’s Mimāṁsā Sūtra (4^th to 2^nd century BC).[10]

Bulcke[11] assigns Jaimini’s Aśvamedha Parva to the period after the composition of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa (8^th-10^th century CE). It was translated into Kannada[12] in the 13^th century. Its Kuśa-Lava episode is very similar to that in the Padma Purāṇa’s Pātālakhaṇḍa[13] (c. 10^th century CE). Surely, different Jaiminis existed writing under the same name, as with Vyāsa, creating different texts across the centuries following the time-honoured tradition of the guru-śiṣya paramparā.[14] The author of Mairāvaṇacaritam and Sītāvijaya (if they are the same person) would be one such “Jaimini.”

The concluding chapter of Mairāvaṇa provides a clue towards the probable time of its composition. There is a reference to the “six syllable mantra” in sloka 6 of chapter 20. This is rāṁrāmāyanamaḥ that is found in the Rāmarahasya Upaniṣad, which is possibly of the 17^th century. In it, Hanuman instructs Sanaka and other sages how to worship Rama. Again, the paean to Hanuman (sloka 24 of chapter 18) as adept in the Vedas and its limbs and the shastras is paralleled by Tulsidas (1532-1623) in his Vinayapatrikā, where he calls Hanuman vedavedāntavid.[15] His Ramacharitmanas contains the Ahirāvaṇa tale. There is also a Sītopaniṣad celebrating Sita as Shakti but, unfortunately, its period cannot be determined.[16]

Language and Style

The language of Mairāvaṇa and Sītāvijaya is quite pedestrian, strangely devoid of alaṃkāras and rasas.[17] The flamboyant poetry characterizing the Aśvamedha is entirely missing. Though one does come across the usual similes e.g., “burnt like trees in a forest fire,” or bathed in blood “looking like an Ashoka tree in full bloom,” or “arrows raining like rain from clouds,” the Aśvamedha’s striking use of metaphors and rhetoric is absent. The unexpected juxtaposition of opposites, the conceits, which the Jaimini of the Aśvamedha merrily uses, appears to be unknown to the Jaimini of Mairāvaṇa and Sītāvijaya. Consider this from the Aśvamedha Parva:

Nandi could not seize Garuda as an angry elephant cannot seize cotton-wool in a courtyard (21.32); or,

…armour destroyed, Sita’s son stood on the battle-field like the newly-sloughed king of serpents (34.6); or,

Rama’s glowing iron arrows were as useless as a poor man’s desires in a miser’s home (36.58).

Mairāvaṇacarita and Sītāvijaya are bereft of such interesting conceits. The only common feature is the use of hyperbole, especially in battle. The Jaimini of the Aśvamedha exaggerates outrageously. However, in Mairāvaṇa and Sītāvijaya people do not grow on trees, horses do not turn into mares and tigresses, and no rakshasi uses her eight-mile-long breasts as weapons in battle!

The Aśvamedha effectively uses all the nine rasas. In Sītāvijaya and Mairāvaṇa, only vīra (heroic) and bhayānaka (terrible) with a sprinkling of raudra (fury) are seen, with adbhuta (wondrous) prevailing. In Mairāvaṇa, Hanuman increases and decreases his body at will, creates an impregnable fort with his tail, Brahma constructs an amazing defence for Mairāvaṇa’s palace, Mairāvaṇa shape-shifts continually in battle like Mahiṣāsura fighting Durga. In Sītāvijaya, Rāvaṇa has a thousand heads and two thousand arms, his brothers have hundreds of heads, eyes, bellies and hands, the diseases fight a terrific battle, Hanuman is given five heads, grass columns turn into blazing missiles, and so on.

A major difference between the Aśvamedha and these two manuscripts concerns variety. The Aśvamedha has many peripheral stories, tales within tales, e.g. Agni and Svāhā, Uddālaka and Caṇḍī, Mālinī and Yama, Candrahāsa, Bakadālbhya, the golden mongoose, the quarrelling Brahmins, Babhruvāhana’s exploits, etc. Almost all its chapters contain different narratives. The battle sequences, the mainstay of all three texts, are singularly dissimilar. Those in Sītāvijaya are monotonous. The characters change, but the sequence of events is more or less the same in all, except for the last battle in which Sita kills Sahasramukharāvaṇa with a grass-missile. Hanuman also uses mantra-infused blazing grass against Mairāvaṇa, but ineffectually. Here the battle-descriptions read more like the reports of a war correspondent than literature. The exuberance and creativity of the Jaimini of the Aśvamedha’s is missing.

Besides the heroic, the other ruling sentiment of the Aśvamedha Parva is Vaishnava bhakti. All the protagonists worship Krishna even as they fight him, their bhakti masked by the animus they display outwardly as they wish to receive death as his grace. The battlefield is their temple where they worship their deity with weapons. Krishna is worsted by them because the essence of the concept of bhakti is that the deity must be overcome by the intensity of the bhakta’s bhakti.

On the other hand, in Mairāvaṇa and Sītāvijaya there is little bhakti. While the former is dedicated to the glory of Rama and the latter incongruously to Krishna, there is but a single paean to Rama at the beginning and at the end of the former. The latter has paeans to Hanuman and to Sita’s wondrous form towards the end. How can an author, so immersed in Vaishnava bhakti in one work, be almost completely bereft of it and extol Hanuman and Shakti in the two others?

An underlying current of Shaivism runs through the Sahasramukharāvaṇacaritram. The crisis it deals with is precipitated by two insults: the first is by the Trinity to Anasuyā; the second is to Shiva’s avatar Durvāsā at Māndhāta’s yajna. The latter parallels the insult to Shiva at Dakṣa’s sacrifice, which Vīrabhadra and Kālī destroyed, routing all the sages and devas. The names of Durvāsā’s sons who rout the devas are among the thousand names of Shiva in Section 284 of the Mokshadharma Parva[18] of the Mahabharata. The presence of Shiva in Vyāsa’s Mahabharata is quite significant, though understated. Therefore, Jaimini is not blazing an altogether new trail here. The dreadful destructiveness of Durvāsā’s sons is of a piece with other demons originating from Shiva such as Andhaka, Bhasmāsura and Jalandhara. Here Hanuman is a product of Shiva’s seed and is five-faced like him. However, the heads of lion, horse, boar and eagle represent avatars of Vishnu and his mount Garuḍa. This is, therefore, a Hari-Hara image, a fusion of Vishnu and Shiva. Parallel to the pair of Vīrabhadra and Kālī, we have here the pair of Hanuman and the shadow-Sita.

There is a feature that indicates the somewhat casual attitude of the author of these two works. The names of the characters take different forms at different places. Mātaṅgī becomes Sītā, Uṣṭramukha becomes Oṣṭhamukha, Vakranāsa becomesVakranetra and so on. This is a defect noticed in both the texts. The sincerity with which the Aśvamedha was created is missing in these. However, these could very well be copyists’ errors.

The Aśvamedha Parva is characterised by flamboyance of description, be it of a road, a palace, or nature. Consider the rhetoric of the passage in which Vriṣaketu describes a lake to Bhīma (4.11-14):

“…the enjoyment the elephants are getting from these waters is like the pleasure the lustful men get from making love to women. The life-giving water is tinted deep red with the vermilion falling from the temples of these elephants. Since the temples of the elephants are now bereft of charity, the bees have now forsaken them and entered the clump of lotus plants. There is no loyalty among the mean. Picking up the lotus-stalks, the swans are generously offering them to the bees, like those who know the principle of equity among beings. The fish are leaping in the lake as poor people do on getting riches.”[19]

There are many such instances throughout the text.

In Mairāvaṇa, there are only two descriptions: one of Ayodhyā (section 1) and the other of a forest in Laṅkā (section 10, verses 2-6), of which the latter is superior:-

“Having gone up to thirty yojanas,

a maha-forest was afar,

filled with bears, lions, tigers and

other animals and birds,

Nārikela, panasa, āmra,

          pāṭala, tinduka,

kapittha, jambū,nipa, jambīra,

also nimbaka.

Filled with different trees it was like

Nandana.

Entering the forest, they saw a lake

of two yojanas,

Adorned with red and white lilies, crimson

and blue lotuses,

thousand-petalled lotuses and hundred-

petalled water-lilies,

All filled with cackling, teeming with

intoxicated bees,

the lake appeared like a sea adorned with

leaves all around.”[20]

In Sītāvijaya there is only one description, that of the palace that Viśvakarmā built for Rāvaṇa (section 8.33-41):

“In width a lakh yojanas, double that

in length, a fifty-

yojana high excellent wall adorning it,

With four ornamented towers, four gates,

maha-roads, adorned with

ten million palaces each with a

hundred horned doors.

On four sides four lakh maha-markets stood

adorning. The maha-

royal road was provided with countless

large seats.

Five thousand yojanas long was the king’s

palace, furnished

with an unfathomable moat impassable

for enemies,

Many śataghnīs and equipped with

all weaponry.

On four sides, placing Sudharmā and the

other halls with care,

In the centre an immaculate

assembly hall

endued with wondrous attributes, with

a hundred gardens

filled with flags and garlands of pennants,

With qualities superior to the world

of devas, abounding

in markets and shops, mixed herds of maha-

elephants like

the Meru and Mandara mountains,

Inhabited by divine horses swift

as thought, adorned

with lotus lakes full of swans and cranes,

Better than the Trinity’s abodes,

radiant as

newly arisen Bhānu…”[21]

The qualitative difference between the excerpts is obvious. How can a poet capable of describing so beautifully in the first instance hardly display his talent in two of his own works? So is it with the dialogues, of which there is profusion and variety in the Aśvamedha. Dialogue is used to establish characters and situations effectively. In Mairāvaṇa and Sītāvijaya there is only martial talk and the occasional paean. These two texts cannot stand beside the poetic elegance and expanse of the Aśvamedha Parva. It is unlikely, therefore, that their author is the same, although they might belong to the same “Jaimini” school.

Is it the Same Author?

Were Mairāvaṇa and Sītāvijaya composed by the same author? The language and the style seem similar. As in Mairāvaṇa Rama and Lakṣmaṇa are abducted when asleep, so, too, in Sītāvijaya are Bharata and Śatrughna. In both, mantra-infused grass is used as a missile and the supernatural prowess of Hanuman is celebrated.

However, an interesting difference in the colophons of these two works raises a doubt. The colophons in Mairāvaṇa mention Śrī Jaiminibhārata without stating the parva concerned. The colophons of Sītāvijaya ascribe it to the Āśramavāsa Parva of the Jaiminīya Mahabharata. Would the same author composing two stories use different names in the colophons denoting the principal work of which these are parts?

It is pertinent to recall that Vyāsa first composed the Bhārata of 24,000 slokas, without the fringe episodes:-

“Originally the Bhārata, without the fringe episodes, consisted of twenty four thousand slokas: this, to the learned, is the real Bhārata.”[22]

caturviṁśatisāhasrīṁ cakre bhārata saṁhitām /

upākhyānair vinātāvad bhārataṁ procyate budhaiḥ //[23]

Is Mairāvaṇacarita part of Jaimini’s version of the Bhārata? But, then, is it not a fringe episode?

Parallels and Variations

Indian tribes have analogous versions of both the stories Jaimini relates.[24] About the Mundas of Chhotanagpur, K.S. Singh notes that they believe the vānaras were forest dwelling tribes who wore part of their dhoti trailing loose as a tail, as the Mundas and Savaras still do on their dancing ground.[25] The episodes also occur in Ramayana retellings and plays in South East Asian countries. However, there is no mention of these two stories in the Rama tales of Sri Lanka, Tibet, Khotan, Mongolia, China, Japan and Vietnam (Champā).

Sahasramukharāvaṇacaritam or Sītāvijaya

The Agarias, an ironsmith tribe of Madhya Pradesh, tell a tale in which Sita tells Rama about a thousand headed Rāvaṇa in Pātāla. He pulls out from his foot the arrow Rama shoots at him and despatches it to kill the sender. Rama falls. Sita, frightened, goes to Lohripur and asks Logundi Raja to send Āgyāsur and Lohāsur with half an earthen pot of charcoal. By its smoke, she turns black. Carrying the pot in one hand and a sword in the other, she cuts off Rāvaṇa’s heads. Āgyāsur and Lohāsur lick up the blood.[26] Thereafter, according to a tale in Braja literature, Sita becomes Kālī-māī (Mother Kali) in Calcutta.[27]

The Marathi Śatamukharāvaṇa Vadha (19^th century) by Amritrao Oak also narrates the killing of this demon.[28] There are two Tamil tales relating to the hundred-headed and thousand-headed Rāvaṇas, Sadamuka Ravanan Kathai, Sahasramuka Ravanan Kathai, that do not not occur in Kamban.[29] In Telegu, there is a similar Śatakaṇṭha tale, which occurs in Assamese, Oriya and Bengali Ramayanas too.[30]

Both Sāralā Das and Bārānidhi Das wrote a Bilaṅkā Ramayana. In the former, Sita challenges Rama to kill the thousand-headed Ravana whom she ultimate kills. In the latter, Vibhīṣaṇa begs Rama to kill the thousand-headed Ravana.[31] Sarala Das in his Mahabharata’s Vanaparva has Agastya recount how in different aeons Rama slew Ravanas with one lakh, one thousand, one hundred and ten heads. According to the 17^th century Oriya Bilaṅkā Rāmāyaṇa (pūrva khaṇḍa) by Siddheśvara, Bilaṅkā lies 120 yojanas south of Laṅkā. Its ruler, Sahasraskandha, defeats Rama, Lakṣmaṇa and Hanuman. Then Sita obtains a flower-bow and five arrows from Maṅgalā Devi, assumes an enchanting form and shoots the five arrows at the rakshasa, who gets besotted with her. Thereupon, Rama and Lakṣmaṇa cut off his thousand heads with five arrows. In the Uttara Khaṇḍa, assuming the form of Kālī, Sita kills the Rāvaṇa with one lakh heads. In the Bilaṅkā Khaṇḍa by Bārānidhi Das (or Balarāma Das), first Aṅgada and then Hanuman are sent with a truce proposal to Sahasraskandha, who rejects it and flings them far away. Jāmbavān encourages the depressed Rama to fight. Sahasraskandha knocks Rama and Lakṣmaṇa unconscious with his śakti and tries to abduct Sita. However, a gandharva army emerges from her body and slays him.^[32]

In Assamese, there is the play Śataskandharāvaṇa Vadha, the killing by Sita of the hundred-headed demon, which re-casts the Adbhuta Ramayaṇa account as a drama. Here Sita mocks Rama who has been boasting of his prowess in killing ten-headed Rāvaṇa and challenges him to kill the hundred-headed ruler of Siṃhala. Twice the demon picks up Rama with his chariot and places it back in Ayodhyā. The third time he sends his son Ardhaśata (half-hundred) who knocks Sugrīva and Vibhīṣaṇa unconscious, seeing which Rama faints. Hanuman is also struck down and returns to bring Sita. Becoming the fierce Devi, she beheads both demons. To calm her, at Vishnu’s behest, the devas revive Rama and Lakṣmaṇa. Hanuman asks Rama to appease the Devi who will destroy creation otherwise. Terrified at Sita’s form, Rama hides among the devas. The gods ask Hanuman to pacify her. He paeans her; she becomes ashamed and all return to Ayodhyā.[33]

In Bengali, Jagatrāmarāya wrote an Adbhut Rāmāyaṇa (c. 18th century) with eight instead of seven cantos as in the Sanskrit original. Its Puṣkarakāṇḍa, placed before the Uttarakāṇḍa, describes the killing of the thousand-headed Rāvaṇa by Sita.[34] Further, in the Uttarakāṇḍa of Rāmamohan Bandopādhyāya’s Ramayana (1838), the tale is retold along the lines of Caṇḍī’s killing of the demons Śumbha-Niśumbha.[35]

Narrated to Bharadvāja by Vālmīki, the Adbhut Rāmāyaṇa[36] (c. 15^th century) in Sargas 17-27 narrates the killing of the thousand-faced Rāvaṇa, living in Puṣkara, north of Mānasa, by Sita. This Sahasravadana Rāvaṇa, with two thousand arms and eyes, is a son of Viśravā and Kaikasī. Once Viśvāmitra and other rishis visit Ayodhyā and praise Rama for killing Rāvaṇa. Thereupon, Sita smiles and tells them about his elder brother Sahasravadana who has imprisoned Indra and the other gods in Puṣkara, as she had heard from a Brahmin guest in her father’s court. Hearing this, Rama proceeds with his brothers, the apes and rakshasas, an army and Sita to Puṣkara.

Sahasraskandha blows away the entire army to Ayodhyā (the men), Kiṣkindhā (the apes) and Laṅkā (the rakshasas) with the vāyavya (wind) missile. When Rama shoots the Brahmāstra at him, he catches it with his left hand, snaps it in two and with his own arrows knocks Rama unconscious. Incensed, Sita laughs loudly and assumes the terrifying form of Devi with sunken eyes, ravenous, lolling tongue, garlanded with heads, girdled with bones, terribly swift, with a piercing voice, horrifying in appearance, long-nosed, four-armed, bearing bell, noose, sword and skull, matted-haired, with blazing ornaments on her head. She slices off Rāvaṇa’s thousand heads and, tearing off the heads and ripping open the bodies of his warriors with her nails, she dances frenziedly, throwing all creation into turmoil. From her pores emerge terrifying mother-goddesses who accompany her, playing with skulls as balls.

To prevent the earth from sinking into pātāla, the devas pray to Shiva who, assuming the form of a corpse, lies under her feet, bearing her weight. Brahma and all the devas, rishis, the manes and lords of the quarters beg her to stop. She refuses to think of the world’s welfare since Rama lies unconscious. Then Brahma resuscitates Rama, who shuts his eyes at the terrifying sight of Kālī. Brahma tells him this is Sita. Rama, trembling, pranams her. She informs him that she is Maheśvara’s Shakti Śivā and grants Rama divine vision to see her true form. He paeans Sita with 1008 names as the Supreme Shakti and begs her to abandon her terrible form. Sita then resumes her ordinary form. The parallel with Arjuna’s viśvarūpadarśana is clear. Sita remains in the terrible form north of Mānasa and returns in blue-and-red form with Rama to Ayodhyā on the Puṣpaka aerial vehicle. There Rama relates to all how the thousand-faced demon was killed. Saudāmini Devi composed a Bengali version of this in rhyme in the late 19^th century,[37] and Chandranath Basu in prose in 1902.[38]

Rāmadāsa’s Ānanda Rāmāyaṇa[39] (c.15^th century) in the Rājya Kāṇḍa, pūrvārdha, sarga 4, verses 80-85, has the hundred-headed Rāvaṇa with two hundred hands living in Māyāpurī on the bank of Śroṇa river. Kumbhakarṇa’s grandson Pauṇḍraka, born to Nikumbha, asked for his help and the two threw Vibhīṣaṇa out of Laṅkā. Approached by Vibhīṣaṇa, Rama, with Sita, went there and killed both, re-establishing Vibhīṣaṇa in Laṅkā.

Later (sarga 4 verses 85-143, sargas 5 and 6), Vibhīṣaṇa again approached Rama and informed him that Kumbhakarṇa’s son Mūlakāsura, leading rakshasas from pātāla, had driven him out of Laṅkā after besieging it for six months and had pledged to take revenge by killing Rama. This asura was so named having been born under the Mūla asterism and was reared at the roots of trees by bees on drops of honey. Vibhīṣaṇa had to flee at midnight with his entire family through a tunnel. Ordered by Rama, Lakṣmaṇa assembled Sugrīva and all kings save those aggrieved with Rama.

With his brothers and seven sons, Rama flew on the Puṣpaka aircraft to Laṅkā. The battle raged for seven days. Hanuman revived dead monkeys with medicine from Droṇācala mountain. The entire army of the asura was destroyed. Then Mūlakāsura knocked unconscious all the kings with their armies. Kuśa’s arrows flung the asura back into Laṅkā. He sheltered in a cave and began an abhicāra (black magic) rite to obtain weapons and a chariot. Noticing the smoke, Vibhīṣaṇa advised Rama to send monkeys to impede it. At this point Brahma appeared with many devas and informed him that by virtue of his boon the asura could not be slain by any man. However, in an assembly of Brahmins he had abused Sītācaṇḍī as the cause of his clan’s destruction. A rishi had cursed him to be slain by that same Caṇḍī. Hence, only after Sita had arrived should the monkeys disturb the rite. Then Rama directed Garuḍa to bring Sita there, escorted by Hanuman.

Sita, miserable at being separated from her husband for so long, was greeted by Rama who embraced her, kissing her lips and caressing her breasts. Then he instructed her in the art of aiming and releasing all weapons and Lakṣmaṇa prepared a fully equipped chariot driven by Dārūka (Krishna’s charioteer—an anachronism). Rama asked her to ride that chariot and kill the asura.

Thereupon, she despatched her tāmasī (dark) shadow, which got into the chariot. The apes created chaos in performance of the rite now. Furious, the asura rushed to the battlefield. On the way, his crown fell off and he, too, fell down, but went on to face the shadow-Sita. She had large teeth, terrifying eyes, hair like yellow lightning, thighs like palm trees, feet like winnowing baskets, mouth cloud-black and cavernous, lolling tongue, and a huge head. The asura was terrified. She declared her identity as Caṇḍāsītā, the cause of his clan’s destruction. A tremendous battle was waged between the two for seven days, watched from the Puṣpaka aircraft by Rama, Sita and many kings. Finally, using a maha-missile, Caṇḍikā beheaded the asura. Pranam-ing Rama and Sita, she merged into the latter. Brahma, with all the devas, apsaras and bards, paeaned Sita at length.

Rama Brahmānanda’s Tattvasaṃgraha Rāmāyaṇa (17^th century) states in canto 7 that sages complained to Rama about a hundred headed Rāvaṇa living with an asura named Raktabindu beyond the seven seas. Sita wished to kill him, so Rama sent her off with Hanuman and a huge army on the Puṣpaka aerial vehicle. In the battle, Hanuman assumed the terrifying forms of Narasiṃha, Garuḍa, Hayagrīva, and was a manifestation of Shiva. He was paeaned as Pañcamukha Hanuman. Sita assumed a terrible form with 18 arms and slew the hundred-headed demon. The devas chanted a paean to her thousand names.[40]

Jaimini’s version, running to fifty chapters, is very different.[41] The interlocutor is Janamejaya and the narrator is Jaimini. However, in slokas 10-11 of the first chapter, the last verse of the second chapter and slokas 30-31 of chapter 50 at the very end, there is someone who is narrating what Jamini told Janamejaya. This would be a sūta, a wandering rhapsode who remains nameless.

Jaimini alone provides the cause for the birth of the thousand-headed demon along with his brothers, with hundred heads, hundred bellies, hundred tongues and hundred eyes, viz. the insult to Anasūyā by the Trinity and to Durvāsā in Māndhātā’s sacrifice. Bharata and Śatrughna are abducted and married off (without any demur) to the demon’s daughters. In the battle the devas, monkeys, rakshasas, kshatriya kings with their armies, Rama and even the Trinity fall. That is when Sita takes the field, bestowing five heads on Hanuman with which he devours the demonic army. With fiery grass columns she despatches the thousand-headed demon. Rama is not terrified of her, as her form is not horrifying, though wondrous. In Mairāvaṇacaritam Hanuman too uses mantric sacred grass to consume the demon.After being paeaned at length, Sita joins Rama and all return to their abodes. The demon’s city is divided between Citradhvaja and Citraratha, the sons of Bharata and Śatrughna, who are not mentioned in any Ramayana. There is no mention of Bharata and Śatrughna being accompanied by their new wives when the four brothers meet their mothers back home.

What is of great interest is that here Sita does not abandon Rama and her sons to disappear into the bowels of the earth. All kings condemn the washerman (there is only this cryptic mention) and praise Sita, whom Rama embraces. He is given a span of eleven thousand years to rule by Brahma, as in Vālmīki.

Janamejaya is eager to know what further deeds Rama did after the return to Ayodhyā.Jaimini responds by telling Janamejaya that what he has been narrating so far is (part of) the story renowned as Āśramavāsa Parva beginning from the victory of Sita till the death of King Dhṛtarāṣṭra. The closing benediction anachronistically dedicates the work to Krishna, again displaying the Vaishnava bhakti tradition.

Mairāvaṇacaritam

The tale is completed in twenty chapters. Jaimini’s creation is quite distinct from other versions. It is an episode composed not by Vālmīki, but by Jaimini and is narrated by Agastya to Rama to celebrate a wondrous nocturnal deed of Hanuman. He rescued Rama and Lakṣmaṇa who were overcome by enchanted sleep and abducted by Mairāvaṇa to the nether world. According to Jaimini, it is not Lakṣmaṇa but Rama who, enraged with Śūrpanakhī’s amorous advances, cuts off her nose, as Rāvaṇa informs Mairāvaṇa. Indeed, in the entire story, neither brother has any role to play, being asleep throughout.

The story of Mahī (earth) or Mai (collyrium, or black in Tamil) Rāvaṇa is a celebration of Hanuman’s prowess and intelligence. It was far more popular than tales about multiple-headed demons other than Rāvaṇa. Besides Sanskrit, it exists in Gujarati, Marathi, Malayalam, Kannada, Tamil, Nepali, Bengali, Oriya, Assamese, Hindi, Thai, Lao, Khmer, Malay and Burmese and has many tribal variations. It is not surprising that some manuscripts are entitled Hanumadvijaya, the victory of Hanuman.[42]

Acccording to the Birhors of Chhotanagpur, Lakṣmaṇa is able to kill Rāvaṇa as he had taken no food for twelve years, which was the boon Rāvaṇa had obtained. Then Kumbhakarṇa appears, seizes the brothers and takes them to a sacrificial pit before the goddess Kālī-māī. He asks them to eat grains from the ground as animals do before being sacrificed. The brothers ask him to show them how to do this. When he prostrates himself, Lakṣmaṇa beheads him. Kālī-māī laments and asks who will sacrifice to her. Rama asks her to wander all over earth. Thus her cult spreads.[43]

The Ālu Kurumba tribe in the Nilgiri hills of South India have a prose version of the Ramayaṇa in which, when Lange (Laṅkā) is burnt by Alumaru (Hanuman), Cīde (Sita) is burnt to ashes which someone puts into a box and throws into the sea.[44] The box lands up with a Pāṇḍya prince who finds Cīde miraculously alive within it. He sends her to Ayi and Mayi Rāvaṇa, two elder brothers of Rāvaṇa, who live underneath Lange. Rāvaṇa had turned Emme Daruma Raja (Dharmaraja-Yama) and his followers into beetles and forced him to grant immortality to his elder brothers. Gumbagaruna (Kumbhakarṇa) was his younger brother. Rāmaru and Laccumaṇa were told about Cīde’s whereabouts by Gumbagaruṇa who submitted to them after Rāvaṇa’s death.

Seeking her, Alumaru faced a demoness Mangea-Karaci who had a crocodile’s head and hands bound by the curse of Ayi and Mayi. She could become free by devouring Alumaru. He tricked her by expanding his body, then suddenly contracting it, entering her jaws and jumping out. Freed, she obtained him as her husband, told him that Cīde was hidden in Ayi and Mayi’s fort and showed him the path to it. She became pregnant by a drop of his sweat that had fallen upon her. She had a son called Maccavala (strong man-fish). Alumaru succeeded in bringing Cīde back to Rāmaru.

Rāmuru and Laccumaṇa reached a forest seeking to fight Ayi and Mayi, who were waiting for them. Disguised as beggars, they had tracked Cīde to Ayodi. At night, Alumaru made a cone of his tail and hid them within it. Ayi and Mayi, as priests, requested him to show Rāmaru as they wished to offer puja to him. He allowed them entry. Instantly they overpowered the brothers and took them to the underworld through a tunnel, imprisoning them in their Kālī temple.

Next morning, discovering this, Alumaru went down the tunnel but was stopped from entering the fort by Maccavalla. They fought a lengthy duel, neither winning. The demoness Mangea-Karaci appeared and called out, whereupon Maccavalla stopped and Alumaru felled him. The demoness used to gather flowers daily to garland the icon of the goddess. She hid Alumaru, who had taken a miniscule form, in the flowers. Within the temple, he took the form of a priest and located the brothers who were to be sacrificed on Friday. That day Alumru hid behind the idol and ordered everyone to provide food. Huge amounts were poured on the idol from a hole in the roof of the temple. Alumaru ate everything and declared that the next Friday the brothers should be sacrificed. On that day, Alumaru freed the brothers and gave them weapons he had procured in the meantime.

For 22 days the brothers fought Ayi and Mayi, who revived every time they were killed, and doubled on each occasion. Mangea-Karaci told Alumaru that a woman named Āravali could tell him their secret. Alumaru flew to her. She agreed to reveal the secret provided Rāmuru married her. Alumaru agreed provided the litter on which they would sit for the ceremony did not break in two. Āravali agreed and told Alumaru about a lake visited by seven beetles who sprinkled its water on a dead person, whereby he revived and doubled. Alumaru killed six of them and caught the seventh who took human form. He was Emme Daruma Raja who with his followers had been turned into beetles by Rāvaṇa to ensure immortality to Ayi and Mayi. Alumaru asked him to break the litter of the wedding rite. Thus, Ayi and Mayi could be killed. Alumaaru brought Rāmaru and Laccumaṇa to Āravali. The litter broke during the marital rite, whereupon Rāmaru refused to wed her. He installed her as princess of Lange and left for Ayodi. After his return, he was crowned king and Alumaru left for his own land.

In Tamil there is a Mayilirāvanan Kathai. Mayil kidnaps the brothers in a box; Vibhīṣaṇa guides Hanuman to Pātāla Laṅkā where he meets his son Maccagaraban (Matsyagarbhan). After his birth, Vayu Deva had named him and told him of his father.[45]

According to a Tamil tradition,[46] Rāvaṇa approached the demon, Māyil (peacock) or Mai (collyrium, darkness)[47] and sought his help to win the war. The demon, using black magic, took away Rama and Lakṣmaṇa and planned to kill them after conducting rituals in a secret place. Hanuman learnt from Vibhīṣaṇa that the demon’s life in the form of five wasps was kept inside a box in a cave, far away from the seven seas. He went there and brought the casket to the place where the demon was conducting puja. As all the five wasps had to be killed simultaneously to annihilate the demon, he assumed the form of Viśvarūpa Pañcamukha Āñjaneya, with divine powers of all the gods. His form radiated the brilliance of one crore suns and he killed all the five wasps, thereby killing Māyilirāvaṇa. Further, according to “Sudarsana Samhitai,” Mayilrāvaṇa took away the Sudarśaṇacakra and Āñjaneya was asked to retrieve it. He fought a fierce battle with the demon who resorted to maya. The Lord told Hanuman that to kill the demon, who might take the form of an animal or bird or snake, he should possess the powers of all his earlier incarnations like boar, man-lion and horse-headed, as also of his mount Garuḍa. It was then that Hanuman assumed the five-faced form with three eyes in each face. Pārvatī bestowed upon him the lotus, Rama the divine bow and arrow, Garuḍa the pot of amṛta and his wings, and Yama, the noose. Other gods bestowed their entire powers and blessed him. Hanuman killed Mayilrāvaṇa and returned the Sudarśaṇacakra to the Lord.

Mahirāvaṇacaritra in Telegu was written by Madayya Kavi in the 16^th century.[48] In Malayalam there is a Pātālarāmāyaṇam epic in which Pātālarāvaṇa abducts the brothers. Hanuman kills him and rescues them. A killippattu (c.18^th century) also exists on this theme.[49] In Marathi Mukteshvar wrote Ahi-Mahirāvaṇa-Vadha in the 17^th century.[50]

In Assamese there is the poem Mahirāvaṇa Caritraaru Betālacaṇḍīra Upakhyāna by Chandra Bhārati based on book 1 of the Sāra kāṇḍa of Ānanda Rāmāyaṇa, or on Krittibasa’s Bengali Ramayana, or on the Mahānāṭaka. Mahirāvaṇa (sometimes called Mairāvaṇa), son of Rāvaṇa, in conference with his father is spied upon by Hanuman—who has been sent by Jāmbavān who fears the arrival of Mairāvaṇa—in the form of a crow. Despite the advance information, the demon succeeds in putting everyone to sleep, binds the brothers with his snake-noose and abducts them for sacrificing in pātāla to Betāla Caṇḍī.

Hanuman, becoming a kingfisher, questions birds who tell him of the abduction. They carry him to pātāla as a gadfly on the back of a fish-hunting bird machroka (matsyaranka). Staying as an old Brahmin in a flower girl’s house, he gets information that the sacrifice is on the next day. He turns into a crow, is discovered by other crows whom he kills. He reaches Dolani Nagara, the demon’s city. Becoming a fly he lands on the distraught Rama’s thigh within the prison. He finds that the goddess is his mother’s sister. When she refuses to save Rama and Lakṣmaṇa, he spins her about seven times with his tail and flings her a hundred yojanas, splitting open her head. He assumes her form and summons Mahī to bring the brothers for the sacrifice. As a flea, he advises the brothers to tell Mahī to show them how to prostrate. When he does so, Hanuman beheads him with his own sword.

The demon’s queen attacks him and Hanuman kicks her in the belly. She dies, aborting a slippery foetus (named Garbhāsura), shaped like a pumpkin, who fights and Hanuman cannot grip it. His tail flares up with brahma-agni, reducing Dolani Nagara to ashes. The storm of dust and ashes enables him to catch hold of the foetus with his tail and fling him at Rama’s feet. By Shiva’s boon he does not die. Rama curses him to go to earth as a dirt-eating bird, never touched by Brahmins, wandering in Laṅkā uttering his cry. Hanuman returns with the brothers riding the same bird, which unsuccessfully tries to drown them in the sea.[51]

Birendranath Datta refers to the Assamese Rama-Kathā in the Kamrup region about Mahit Rāban and his son Ahit Rāban who is also called Tolka or Telka (slippery) Rāban, a slimy foetus fighting Hanuman who is unable to grapple with it. So he calls upon his father Vāyu who blows dust on foetus so that Hanuman can catch hold of it. However, he cannot be killed, so Hanuman bangs him on ground cursing him to become a cock. Hence cocks always itch to fight.[52]

Anant Kandali (c. 16^th century) has a poem in Assamese, “Mahirāvaṇa Vadha” describing how Rāvaṇa’s son Mahī abducts the sleeping brothers to Pātāla and is about to sacrifice them to Kālī when Hanuman kills him and saves them.[53]

Sabin (Sita) Alun or Rama-Lakhan Alun (song) is the Karbi Ramayana of Assam. It has the same tale of Mahirāvaṇa disguised as Vibhīṣaṇa abducting the brothers to pātāla through a hole in the ground, which Hanuman enters. Finding a sea, he weeps in distress. The sea god’s daughter, as a crocodile, catches the tears. With her help, Hanuman reaches pātāla where, as a crow, he searches and finds the brothers. He tells them to ask Mahirāvaṇa to show how to prostrate. Hanuman asks the deity Singdi if it wants Mahirāvaṇa’s head or those of the brothers. Singdi wants the brothers’ heads, so Hanuman crushes Singdi’s head and throws it into the Khasi hills. Pretending to be the deity, he calls for much food. Finally, when Mahirāvaṇa prostrates, Hanuman crushes his head and carries the brothers on his shoulders to Laṅkā.

Similar is the Bajong-Phura version of Rama-Lakhan Alun sung by the fishermen of Bey in Karbi-Anglong, except that a bird tells Hanuman about the plan to sacrifice the brothers to Singdi. In disguise, Hanuman meets Mahirāvaṇa who tells him about Singdi puja. Advised by the god, Hanuman kills Mahirāvaṇa with a sword and carries the brothers back on his shoulders.[54]

In Assamese there are several works dealing with Hanuman’s adventures in the netherworld with serpents, e.g. Dhananjaya’s Gaṇakacaritra, Vidyāpancānana’s Pātāli Kāṇḍa, Raghunāth Mahanta’s Adbhuta Rāmāyaṇa and Satruñjaya.[55]

In Oriya, in Bikram Narendra’s version,[56] the devas command Nidrā, the goddess of sleep, to overcome everyone in Rama’s camp because they want Mahīrāvaṇa dead. Rama is abducted. The first place that Hanuman searches—we are not told why—is where Sita is imprisoned. Taking the form of a bee, he sees that when Trijaṭā tells her of the abduction, two tears fall from Sita’s eyes from which two devis with four arms and three eyes named Tārā and Tāreṇī appear whom she commands to guard the brothers.

In Mahīrāvaṇa’s prison, Rama is singularly distraught and Lakṣmaṇa has to boost his morale. Getting inside the temple as a bee hidden in a flower garland, when it is placed on the icon of the deity, Hanuman assumes a thousand-armed viśvarūpa and crushes the devi’s head under his left foot. When the demon raises his sword to behead the brothers, the two devis deflect it so that he kills his attendants instead. Hanuman then protects the brothers with his tail and kills the demon’s attendants. However, every time he beheads the demon, the head re-grows. Vāyu deva advises him to tear Mahī in two, and that is how he kills the demon. This portion is anachronistic and has been influenced by the way in which Bhīma—the Wind-god’s other son—killed Jarāsandha in the Mahabharata.

In Balarāma Das’ Oriya Jagamohana/Dakṣiṇī/Dāṇḍi Rāmāyaṇa, Mahīrāvaṇa is Indrajit’s son, killed on the eleventh day of the siege of Laṅkā.[57] Here it is Lakṣmaṇa who kills the demon in Sulaṅkā after being imprisoned there with Hanuman and Suṣeṇa. The story also occurs in Bishvanātha Khuntiā’s Bicitra Rāmāyaṇa almost in the same form, in Bikram Narendra’s Oriya Śrīrāmalīlā and Shishu Ishvara Das’ Nala Carita. In the Bicitra Rāmāyaṇa, when the devi refuses to aid Hanuman, he assumes his terrible form and crushes her, placing his left foot on her head. It is the Wind God who advises the brothers to ask to be shown how to prostrate, and when the demon demonstrates this, Hanuman beheads him. Tārā and Tāreṇī play no role.[58]

According to the Rama Kathā of the Bhils of Northern Gujarat, while crossing the sea, Hanuman rested on an arrow Rama had shot. On that occasion, he ejaculated and his semen was drunk by a fish which gave birth to a boy called Matsyarāja, an aquatic warrior.[59]

The Giradhara Ramayana in Gujarati (19^th century) narrates the birth of Ahi and Mahī Rāvaṇa according to the Agni Purana, Makaradhvaja’s birth from Hanuman’s sweat drunk by a makarī, how Hanuman tricks Candrasenā, Mahī’s wife, who wishes intimacy with Rama, after terrorising the wasps who revive Mahī and Ahi whenever they are killed. He also narrates Hanuman’s hesitation in accepting, as Bhadrakālī, puja from Rama in the nether world and how he rescues the brothers.[60]

The Mewat community’s “Ram-Katha” mentions the killing of Rāvaṇa’s brother Ahirāvaṇa.[61]

The Mizos have “Khena Leh Ramate Unau Thawnthu,” the story of Khena and Rama. Mahirāvaṇa is called Luphirabon, a priest of Lusariha (Rāvaṇa with seven heads).[62] Luphirabon takes the brothers away to a distant land beyond the sea, but Hawlawman crosses the sea and rescues them.[63]

Tulsidas’ Rāmacaritmānas (late 16^th c.) in Awadhi contains the “Ahirāvaṇa Kathā.”[64] After the death of Indrajit, Rāvaṇa summoned his son Ahi. He was so named being born with snakes, because of which he was buried underground. Reared by Rāhū’s mother, he was named in Pātāla by Śukrācārya. He performed ascesis in Nāgaloka worshipping Kāmad Devi for 14 years. He received the boon of being unslayable, except by monkeys whom he regarded as his food. He ruled in Pātāla.

Ahi, put off by Hanuman’s tail-rampart, got in by becoming Vibhīṣaṇa. Putting all to sleep by a mantra, he leapt off with the brothers. Vibhīṣaṇa identified the abductor, as none but Ahi could assume his form. Hanuman, en route, overheard vultures saying that human flesh would be available after the brothers were sacrificed that day.

He proceeded to Ahi’s city where Makaradhvaja as guard refused to give him way. He told Hanuman of his birth from him and where the brothers were. They fought and Hanuman bound him with his own tail.

In tiny form, Hanuman entered the temple, hiding in the flowers being offered to the devi. At the touch of his feet, the devi sank into the earth. Hanuman assumed a terrible form. All felt that the devi had manifested. He devoured all offerings. Ahi, glad, brought the brothers to be sacrificed. Roaring, Hanuman placed them upon his shoulders and seizing a sword sliced off the arms and heads of the demons, binding them all with his tail. Ahi struck him with a sword. Snatching it, Hanuman beheaded him and threw his head into the fire as oblation. While leaving, he made his son Makaradhvaja the ruler.

Krittibās’ Bengali Ramayaṇa (early 15^th century) contains a section named, “Mohīrāboner Pālā” (Mahīrāvaṇa’s Turn or Tale).[65] After Indrajit had been slain, Rāvaṇa was miserable. His mother Nikaṣā reminded him of his pātāla-dwelling son Mahī who was blessed by the goddess Kālikā with the power of invincible maya. Summoned, appearing through a tunnel, he assured his father that he would sacrifice the brothers in pātāla.

Vibhīṣaṇa entered Laṅkā as a bird and overheard the talk. He warned about Mahī’s invincible maya and advised keeping watch all night. Hanuman made a fort with his tail and asked Rama to cover the top with Vishnu’s discus. Sugrīva took Rama on his lap, Aṅgada took Lakṣmaṇa on his. Vibhīṣaṇa told Hanuman not to let through even his own father. Mahī assumed in turn the forms of Daśaratha, Bharata, Kauśalyā and Janaka, but Hanuman refused entry. Finally, as Vibhīṣaṇa, Mahī got entry. He cast magical dust on Sugrīva, Aṅgada and the brothers who fell unconscious along with all monkeys. Through a tunnel, he took them home. Vibhīṣaṇa arrived, was threatened by Hanuman, reassured him about his identity and discovered the tunnel. Sugrīva pointed out to Hanuman that to restore his reputation, he must bring back the brothers.

He entered the tunnel, investigated Pātāla and saw the palaces of Bali, Bhogavati city of the Nāgas, Kapila rishi and, finally, Mahī’s city. He perched atop a tree as a small monkey on the bank of a lake. An old man noticing him told others that the devi did not grant immortality to Mahī but a boon that he would not be slain by any except his food, viz. humans and monkeys. Now both had arrived here. An old palace maid came to fill water and told other women that two young humans who lay imprisoned in the king’s palace would be sacrificed to Mahāmāyā that day.

Hanuman went there in the form of a fly and reassured the brothers. As a fly, he went to Yogādyā Devi and told her that if she had ordered Mahī to make this sacrifice, he would sink her with the temple in water. The devi smiled and said that when Mahī asked Rama to do pranam to her, Rama should say he did not know how to do so and ask Mahī to show him. When Mahī performed pranam, Hanuman should take the devi’s khaḍga and behead him. Hanuman informed the brothers of the plan.

At this stage Krittibās narrates that Brahma informed Indra and the devas that a gandharva Śakradhanu, who used to dance and sing before Vishnu, once laughed at Aṣṭāvakra rishi’s twisted limbs and was cursed by him to be born a terrible rakshasa and be liberated by Hanuman.

All happened as planned: the attendants fled, Hanuman freed the brothers, killing Mahī. Hearing this, Mahī’s queen was furious, declared that she was discarding the devi and with an army showered arrows on the brothers. Hanuman kicked her in the belly, killing her. Her ten month old embryo Ahirāvaṇa was born with 8 arms and 4 heads. He attacked Hanuman with his hands and feet. Hanuman could not grip him and called upon his father Pavana, who raised a dust storm. Hanuman could then grab the infant by his legs and smash him on the ground. He killed all others who attacked. The devi asked who would serve her in pātāla. Hanuman then took her out of pātāla. Through the tunnel, they returned to the camp.

Balarāma Bandyopādhyāy’s introductory hymn to his Bengali Ramayaṇa states that after Mahīrāvaṇa had been killed, Devi Yugādyā, whom he worshipped, was taken by Hanuman to Kṣīragrām in Bengal where she is offered puja.[66] The episode also occurs in the poems on Rama by Shankara Kabichandra, Jagadrāma and Dāsharathi Rāya. In Jagadrāma’s Bengali Ramayana, Mahīrāvaṇa is a secret devotee of Rama. Hanuman enters the temple as a bee and, knocking down the goddess, assumes her place. After Mahīrāvaṇa and Ahirāvaṇa have been killed, Makaradhvaja is made ruler of the kingdom.[67]

Eknath’s (late 16^th century) Marathi Bhāvārtha Rāmāyaṇa (canto 6, verses 51-54), the Kannada Mairāvaṇa Kālaga and the Gujarati Narmakathā Kosha also contain the tale of Mairāvaṇa.[68]

Greater India

Curiously enough, the stories of Sita killing Rāvaṇas with more than ten heads do not occur in the Ramayanas of South East Asian countries, which celebrate Rama and Hanuman (as his son) most of all, nor is the episode depicted in any sculptures.

Jayata of Pāṭan, Nepal, in 1337 wrote a Sanskrit play, Mahīrāvaṇavadha Nāṭaka. According to W.L. Smith, it ispossibly “the oldest datable version of the story in any language.”[69] In it, before Laṅkā is attacked, Vibhīṣaṇa receives warning from the rakshasa Nīla that Mahīrāvaṇa has been summoned by Rāvaṇa. Hanuman, thereupon, encircles the camp with his tail-rampart. Vibhīṣaṇa goes to bathe in the sea. The demon, assuming his form, gains access to the brothers and, binding them in his nāgapāśa, abducts them for sacrificing to devi Kālikā. Hanuman, in tiny form, hides in flowers taken to the temple. When asked to prostrate, Rama answers he does not know how to do so. The brothers then argue over who should be sacrificed first. Hanuman manifests and kills the demon. Garuḍa is summoned to free the brothers from the snake noose. Then the three return to their camp.

The abduction of Rama and Lakṣmaṇa by Mairāvaṇa is found in numerous Lao, Thai and Malaysian versions.[70]

In the Thai Rāmakien Rāvaṇa sends his mermaid daughter Suvannamacchā (Golden Fish, called PuteriIkan in the Wayang Kulit Siam) to destroy the causeway. Hanuman catches and weds her.[71] Their son Hanuman Ikan or Matchanu is adopted by the demon Maiyarap, the grandson of Sahamālivan (Mālyavāna?) whom Rāvaṇa asks for help. He abducts Rama, putting the monkeys to sleep with his magical powder. Hanuman meets his sister Virakvan who has been ordered to fill a jar with water in which her son will be boiled alive. She hides Hanuman in her upper garment in the form of a lotus fibre, reaches him to Rama and tells him how to kill the demon whose life has been kept on Citrakūṭa mountain in the form of a fly by his guru Sumegha. Hanuman beheads Maiyarap and brings Rama back, installing Virakvan’s son Vaiavika as king and Matchanu as crown-prince of the underworld. This is the Tamil story of Mayilirāvaṇa.[72] The Thai Khon (masked play) invariably features Maiyarab the magician and the Floating Lady (Vibhīṣaṇa’s daughter who is forced to assume Sita’s form and float as a corpse in a river near Rama’s camp).[73] There is mention of Hanuman’s son Asurāphad too in chapter 25 of the Rāmakien.[74]

In the Malaysian Hikayat Seri Rama,[75] during the journey to Laṅkā, Hanuman’s sperm falls into the sea and is swallowed by a fish, producing his son Hanuman Tuganggah who is raised by Rāvaṇa’s son Gangga Mahasura, ruler of the sea. He becomes the guard of the pātāla fortress ruled by Rāvaṇa’s son Pātāla Mahārāyan (the Tamil form of “maharaja”) who assumes Hanuman’s form to enter the monkey army, puts Rama to sleep with a magical ointment and abducts him. Following him, Hanuman meets a princess who has come to collect water for her son’s bath. It has been foretold that her son will succeed Pātāla Mahārāyan (this is clearly taken from Jaimini’s tale). Hence, the demon has decided to kill him along with Rama. Hanuman promises to make her son king and she hides him in the form of a lizard in her vessel, taking him within the fort. At the entrance, Hanuman duels with his son Tuganggah, defeats Pātāla Mahārāyan and rescues Rama who awakens only when Vibhīṣaṇa washes off the magical ointment. The next day, Rama kills Pātāla Mahārāyan.

According to the Shelāber recension of the Seri Rama, the demon first despatches two chiefs (as in Jaimini). Later, as a worm he gains entry, takes Rama away by way of a lotus-stalk to the netherworld (as in Jaimini). The princess here is the sister of Ameer Arab (perhaps the Islamicization of Ahirāvaṇa) who is Rāvaṇa’s maternal uncle and has imprisoned his sister’s son. Hanuman hides as a bird in the princess’pot,then kills Ameer Arab and makes his nephew the king.[76] These incidents occur in Jaimini’s composition.

The Indonesian Hikayatcheritera Maharaja Rāvaṇa[77] has Hanuman Turagangga (or Tugangga) as the son of Hanuman Panchasona (long-lived) born of his sperm that dropped when he jumped to Langkāpura. Sent by his mother, he tears to bits with his nails a water demon (Gangga Serayan) and his wife who are destroying the bridge being built from Ligur to Langkāpura. He also kills with his nails Rāvaṇa’s son Gangga Mahaya Sura who lives in the sea, along with his four ministers Sura Gangga, Indera Gangga, Wira Gangga and Singa Gangga. Rāvaṇa sends forth his son Petala Maharayan from the underworld, who appears by the power of God (dengankudrat Allah tala—showing the Islamicization without changing the character). The battle continues for three months. First Sura Petala and Wira Petala are killed and finally Hanuman Turagangga kills Petala Maharayan. He magically abolishes the fire and rain of tin that Indrajit creates and then creates an iron fort to protect Rama’s army from Kumbhakarṇa’s fiery arrows. After the battle, he returns to his land, presumably under the sea.

The Javanese wayangs (puppet plays) have Kuntala Mariyam as the son of Rawana, and his brother Trigannga, a white monkey. He abducts Rama and Lesmana and battles Anoman till discovering that he is Anoman’s own son. His mother was Rawana’s wife.[78]

In the Malaysian Wayang Siam ranting (branch story), Hajal Sri Betara Nala captures Seri Rama and Lakshmana, then abducts Sita Dewi. Pak Dogol, taking the form of Dewa Sang Yang Tunggal, fights Hajal who is created from a drop of his sweat, and reverts to that form. Seri Rama, Lakshmana and Sita Dewi are rescued.[79]

In another ranting story, Hanuman Bongsu is Hanuman Kera Putih’s son by Puteri Bongso, daughter of Perbuana, younger brother of Rawana. He kicks his way out of her womb on hearing her weep over her father who has been pierced in the chest by Raja Sibigadong, ally of Rawana, who takes over Langkapuri. Hanuman Bongsu seeks out Seri Rama, who realizes this is his grandson (Hanuman KeraPutih is Seri Rama’s son) and with his help re-establishes Perbuana in Langkapuri.[80]

In the Laotian Ramayana, Hualaman (Hanuman) expands his palm to protect the camp. The king of Pattalum from the underworld abducts and imprisons Rama in an iron cage. Hualaman rescues him.[81] The Rāma Jātaka (c. 15^th-16^th century) of Laos also has the episode of Miarab (Mairāvana).[82]

In the Burmese Mahā Rama (late 18^th-early 19^th c.), Gombadina (Mahirāvaṇa) carries Rama away to the underworld by magic.[83] In the drama Thiri Rama (late 18^th-early 19^th c.) by Nemyo Nāṭaka Kyaw Gaung, Mahirāvaṇa is the son of Rāvaṇa by his second queen Appathari.[84]

Among Balinese Wayang plays there is the Hanoman Watuganggain which Hanoman meets his son Watugangga.[85]

In Cambodia, on the walls of the Silver Pagoda in Phnom Penh, extending for 642 metres, reaching a height of 3.65 metres, frescoes of scenes from the Ramayana were painted during 1903-04 by a team of 49 artists led by Oknha Tep Nimith Theak.[86] Among these is a huge fresco depicting Waiyreab’s (Mairavana’s) abduction of Rama and his rescue by Hanuman. Hanuman, becoming huge, placed Rama within his mouth. Guards were outside awaiting the morning star. Waiyreab shot a lighted glass sphere into the sky at midnight to make it seem that the morning star had risen. So the guards slept. Waiyreab’s sleeping potion drugged Hanuman who fell asleep and from his open mouth Waiyreab stole the sleeping Rama putting him in a cage. Mairavana flies off with the sleeping Rama. There is no sign of Lakṣmaṇa. Waiyreab also captured the Yeak (Yaksha) Waiywaet who tried to stop him from engaging Rama. Hanuman is shown entering the temple by breaking its spire and killing the demon with a sword. At the extreme right are two Rama and Waiywaet asleep. The foreground is badly damaged, but people can be seen milling about and two cages, one with the sleeping Rama and another with a small monkey (Hanuman?). He enters the prison by becoming a tiny insect and hanging from the skirt of an old woman, Dara Khuorn. The guards weigh her and the balance breaks, whereupon Hanuman becomes huge and flies away with Rama’s cage leaving him on Mount So Kan Chan in the care of goddesses. Rama is shown fast asleep, within a cage on a mountain (as in the Ānanda Ramayana) while Hanuman sits with joined palms and four gods or goddesses keep watch. Returning, he killed Waiyreab by locating his soul, whose location was revealed by Dara Khuorn, and gave the kingdom to Waiywaet and his own son Machanub to rule. Returning, he broke open the cage and carried the sleeping Rama to his abode. On waking, Hanuman reported all that had happened, but Rama did not believe him.[87] In the Thai, Laotian, Burmese, and Malaysian Ramayanas too it is only Rama who is abducted.

Many films have been made about the story since 1922[88] in Marathi, Tamil, Hindi and Telegu: Ahiravan-Mahiravan Vadh (Marathi, silent, 1922), Mahiravana (silent, Tamil, 1923), Chandrasena (Mahirāvaṇa’s wife who helps Hanuman) by V. Shantaram (Marathi 1931, remade by him in Marathi, Tamil and Hindi in 1935), Mahiravana (Telegu, 1940 and 1957), Hanuman Patal Vijay (Hindi, 1951 and 1960) by Homi Wadia who also made Chandrasena (Hindi, 1959), Hanuman Vijay (Hindi, 1974). Not a single film, however, has been made about Sita and the Thousand-Headed Rāvaṇa. In the recent television serial on Star Plus channel, Siya-ke-Ram (2016), however, this incident features as episode 256.[89]

In Sanskrit, Canto 8 of Advaita’s Rāmaliṅgāmṛta (1608) recounts how Ahirāvaṇa and Mahīrāvaṇa take Rama-Lakṣmaṇa to the netherworld and how Hanuman kills them with the help of his son Makaradhvaja and a Nāga’s daughter in love with Rama. According to Rāmadāsa’s Ānanda Rāmāyaṇa (c.15^th century), Rājyakāṇḍa, sarga 14, slokas 23-24, the two Aśvinīkumāras on being cursed by Vishnu’s doorkeepers Jaya and Vijaya were born as Airāvaṇa and Mairāvaṇa, friends of Rāvaṇa.^[90] The Sārakāṇḍa, sarga 11, slokas 72-129 narrate their story. After Hanuman had revived Lakṣmaṇa and the monkeys by bringing Droṇācala from the sea of milk—in the process meeting Bharata who decided to go to Rama’s assistance with all the rajas—Rāvaṇa sent emissaries to Pātāla to summon his friends, the mighty, great and savage Airāvaṇa and Mairāvaṇa. Hearing the state of affairs, they rushed to Laṅkā and proceeded to Rama’s camp to abduct the brothers, only to find that an unassailable rampart had been made by Hanuman with his tail. By the skyey path, the two entered the monkey army. Finding the brothers asleep on a slab of stone, they lifted them with the stone and took them to Pātāla.

Hanuman, discovering them gone, proceeded on foot to Pātāla. On the way, in the south of Laṅkā in Nikumbhila cave, a pregnant pigeon told her spouse of her desire to eat human flesh. He told her that Rama and Lakṣmaṇa would be sacrificed by the daityas before the Devi and then their flesh would be available. Hearing their words, Hanuman went ahead and at the entrance found Makaradhvaja who seized him and asked him who he was. Hanuman stated he was Rama’s emissary and had come to find them as they had been abducted to Pātāla by two demons. He sought information about them. Makaradhvaja then asked him after the welfare of his father, Añjani’s son. Astonished, Hanuman asked him who was Hanuman’s wife and how he was born. He answered that after burning Laṅkā, when Hanuman was cooling his tail in the sea, he spat out the phlegm congealed in his throat, which a makarī swallowed, whose son he is. Hanuman revealed his identity. Makaradhvaja pranam-ed him and informed that before leaving for Laṅkā, the asuras had resolved to sacrifice the brothers to Kāmākṣī Devi. Accordingly, this would be done the next day. He advised Hanuman to go to the temple and rescue them.

Hanuman shrank to the size of a mote of dust in a sunbeam and quietly entered the temple. From there, in a devi-like voice he commanded that puja be offered through the window that day and, thereafter, by any means, the brothers be sent in with their bows and quivers, adorned with forest flowers. He threatened that anyone who had a glimpse of the devi would be struck blind. Hearing this they were assured that the devi was pleased and contented that day and through the window offered puja and poured in piles of food and sweets, crores of jars of pañcāmṛta and fruits. Devouring them, Mārutī roared again that this was too little food and she was still very hungry. Astonished, the daityas sent messengers to collect all foodstuffs from shops and citizens’ homes and poured all that mountainous heap into the temple. No food was left even in the palace. Children had nothing to eat. Tremendous tumult broke out in all households.

Then, with bow and quiver, adorned with forest flowers, the brothers were sent in. Seeing them, Mārutī embraced them. Opening the doors, he challenged the demons and, coming out, the brothers in a moment slew the daityas raining arrows. But they rose repeatedly, every time they were slain, even a hundred times.

Surprised, Mārutī wandered through the city seeking for a way to kill them. In a solitary place, he found a woman who was a nāga’s daughter and the mistress of Airāvaṇa, having been raped by him. She said that Mairāvaṇa also looked upon her with wicked intentions. She did not have the strength to please them both sexually. One was a friend, the other an enemy. The death of both would content her. If Rama made her his wife, she could tell Mārutī how they could be slain. Hearing that, Mārutī said that provided her bed did not break under Rama’s weight, he would become her husband. Satisfied, she said in the past some children were piercing bees with thorns. The two daityas freed the bees. Pleased, the bees said they would protect the daityas from death. The bees remained in the demons’ bedroom and brought excellent amṛta, sprinkling its drops on them at the moment of death. They were crores in numbers and would have to be killed. Mārutī did so and directed one bee, who took shelter with him, to hollow out the bed of Airāvaṇa’s mistress. The two daityas being thus slain by the brothers’ arrows, Makaradhvaja was anointed king in their place.

As they were about to leave, Mārutī requested Rama to proceed to the nāga maiden’s apartments to see its wondrous beauty, smilingly take the lovely, beautifully dressed and ornamented lady by the hand, sit on her bed and break it by his weight. After this happened, in response to her anguished prayer Rama said that having discarded this body she would become a Brahmin maiden and conduct lengthy ascesis. As Kanyākumāri, a Brahmin’s daughter, she would be born on earth. In her third birth in the Dvāpara Yuga she would become his wife Jamavantī.^[91]

Rama climbed on Mārutī’s shoulder happily. Assigning the kingdom to ministers, Makaradhvaja carried Lakṣmaṇa, avatar of Śeṣa who carries the universe, on his shoulder. Thus, the brothers reached Lankā and were greeted by Sugrīva and the monkeys.[92]

The matter of Jaimini’s Mairāvaṇacaritam[93] is virtually the same, except that:-

• There is no Airāvaṇa.
• Mairāvaṇa gains access to Rama and Lakṣmaṇa by assuming the form of Vibhīṣaṇa and carries them off in a magical box.
• Entry to the underworld is via a lotus-stalk known to Vibhīṣaṇa.
• Hanuman’s son by a makarī is named Matsyaraja.
• The entry to the palace is through a magical bridge Brahma made that collapses if an enemy steps upon it.
• The demon is killed a hundred times but keeps resurrecting. His life lies in the seven horns of a seven-headed bee, which Hanuman destroys and then pulverises him.
• Rama and Lakṣmaṇa remain asleep.
• Mairāvaṇa’s sister Durdaṇḍī is the helper here, not a serpent princess.
• Her son Nīlamegha is crowned king of the netherworld and marries Mairāvaṇa’s daughter.
• Matsyaraja becomes Nīlamegha’s general.

The bard states that this narrative was not related by rishi Vālmīki, who considered that the bringing of the medicinal herbs by Hanuman was heroic enough, but was narrated by Jaimini.

The final benedictory verses state that the Ramayana or the Mahabharata must be in every village, otherwise an expiatory vow must be observed. Hanuman’s twelve names are given as the mantra for success.

One would have expected the Hanumannātakam[94] or Mahānātakam to narrate these wondrous exploits of Hanuman alongside Sita and his rescue of Rama and Lakṣmaṇa. Strangely enough, they do not feature in this Sanskrit play whose author is supposed to be none other than Hanuman himself.

[*]An Indian Administrative Service officer, he retired as Additional Chief Secretary to the Govt. of West Bengal. The only Indian selected as International HRD Fellow by Manchester University and the Institute of Training and Development, UK, he has over 40 published books on various subjects and specialises in Comparative Mythology, Public Administration and Transactional Analysis. His PhD is on the Mahabharata.

[1] P. Lal: The Mahabharata of Vyasa: The Complete Ādi Parva, Writers Workshop, Calcutta, 2005, p. 19.  I have amended verse 101 to conform to the original Sanskrit.

[2] Ibid. p. 256.

[3] Ibid. p. 282. I have amended the last two lines to make it a faithful translation.

[4] S.K. Sen, (ed. Pradip Bhattacharya), The Jaiminīya Aśvamedha Parva, Writers Workshop, Calcutta, 2008, p.303, fn.435.

[5] Ibid. pp. 17-18.

[6] Pradip Bhattacharya & Shekhar Kumar Sen, The Jaiminiya Mahabharata, A Critical Edition with English translation, 2 vols, National Mission for Manuscripts, New Delhi, 2017.

[7] S.K. Sen op. cit.

[8] M. Monier-Williams: English-Sanskrit Dictionary, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1960, p. 316.

[9] P. Lal op.cit. p. 233. BORI edition Adi Parva, 48.6.

[10] David B. Zilberman:The Birth of Meaning in Hindu Thought, Springer, 1988, p.101

[11] C. Bulcke: Rama Kathā: Utpatti aurVikas, Hindi ParishadPrakashan, Allahabad, 2009 reprint p. 140.

[12] D. Sanderson: Jaimini Bharata in Canarese with translation and notes, 1852.

[13] Bulcke, op.cit. p. 569.

[14] Sen, op.cit. pp. 19-24 has an excellent discussion of this.

[15] Bulcke, op.cit. p. 540-541.

[16] Bulcke, op.cit. p. 119.

[17] This section draws upon the insights of Shekhar Kumar Sen.

[18] Pradip Bhattacharya, The Mahabharata of Vyasa, Book Twelve, Part Two: Moksha-Dharma, Writers Workshop, Kolkata, 2016, p.592 ff.

[19] S.K. Sen, op.cit. pp. 98-99.

[20] Bhattacharya & Sen, op.cit. vol. 1, pp. 115-116.

[21] Bhattacharya & Sen op.cit. vol.2, pp. 442-443.

[22] Lal, op.cit. p. 19.

[23] Mahabharata, Adi Parva, 1.106, BORI edition.

[24] K.S. Singh & B.N. Datta (ed): Rama-Katha in tribal and folk traditions of India, Anthropological Survey of India & Seagull Books, Calcutta, 1993.

[25] K.S. Singh ibid., p. 50.

[26] T.B. Naik, in K.S.Singh ibid. p.35.

[27] Bulcke, op.cit.p.500 fn. 1.

[28] Bulcke, op.cit. pp. 204, 501.

[29] Saraswathi Venugopal, p. 103 ibid., quoting T.P. Meenakshisundaran, TamilumPiraPanpadum, 1974, p. 118.

[30] W.L. Smith, Rāmāyaṇa Traditions in Eastern India, Munshiram Manoharlal, New Delhi, 2^nd edition, 1995, p. 137.

[31] Nilmoni Mishra, “Ramayana in Oriya literature & Oral Tradition,” in V. Raghavan (ed.) The Ramayana Tradition in Asia, Sahitya Akademi, New Delhi, 1980, pp. 624, 626.

[32] Bulcke, op.cit. pp. 193, 500, 501; W.L. Smith, op.cit. p. 145.

[33] W.L. Smith, op.cit. p. 141.

[34] Ibid. p.192. D.C. Sen, The Bengali Ramayanas, p. 251

[35] D.C. Sen ibid. p.228.

[36]Adbhut Rāmāyaṇa, with Hindi translation by Ram Kumar Rai, PrachyaPrakashan, Varanasi, 2010; with English translation by Ajai Kumar Chhawchharia, Ayodhya, 2009.

[37]http://poetry.sangamhouse.org/2014/10/the-adbhuta-ramayana-by-saudamini-devi-translated-by-arjun-chaudhuri/

[38] Chandranath Basu, Adbhut Rāmāyaṇa.

[39] https://archive.org/details/HindiBookAnandRamayan, pp. 412-422; W.L. Smith, op.cit. pp. 136-137.

[40] Bulcke op.cit. pp. 136, 501; Raghavan, Studies onRāmāyaṇa, p. 161.

[41] For synopsis cf. Introduction to the Critical Edition by Bhattacharya and Sen, op.cit., pp.xlviii-li.

[42] Mss nos. D 12215 and 12216 in the Government Oriental Manuscripts Library, Madras, vide D.B. Kapp, “The Ālu Kurumba Rāmāyaṇa,” p. 124.

[43] T.B. Naik in K.S. Singh ibid., p.47

[44] D.B. Kappop.cit. pp. 125, 129, 132-137.

[45] Saraswathi Venugopal, in K.S. Singh, p.101 ibid.

[46] T.A. Srinivasan, “Hanuman’s special avatar as Annihilator,” The Hindu, 7 March 2003.

[47] W.L. Smith, op.cit., p. 146.

[48] Mukherjee, Sujit, A Dictionary of Indian Literature, p. 219

[49] N.V. Krishna Warrior, “Rāmāyaṇa in Malayalam literature & folklore,” in Raghavan ibid. p.213. K. Satchidanandan, “Ezhuthaccan’s Adhyātma Rāmāyaṇa and the Rāmāyaṇa Tradition,” in A.K. Singh (ed): Rāmāyaṇa through the Ages, p. 186.

[50] Bulcke op.cit. p. 204.

[51] S.N.Sarma in K.S. Singh ibid. p.114-115. W.L. Smith, op.cit. pp. 149-151

[52] K.S. Singh ibid. p. 125.

[53] Biswanarayan Shastri, “Rāmāyaṇa in Assamese Literature,” in V. Raghavan ibid., p.591.

[54] Rong Bong Terang, Prem Kanta Mohonta, B.K. Gohain, Swami Bangovinda Parampathi, p.198, 208 ibid.

[55] W.L. Smith, “Mahiravana and the Womb Demon,” IndologicaTaurinesia 10, 1982, p. 223.

[56] W.L. Smith, Rāmāyaṇa Traditions in Eastern India, pp. 148-149, 180.

[57] W.L. Smith op.cit. p. 148.

[58] W.L. Smith, “Mahiravana and the Womb Demon,”op.cit. p. 223.

[59] Bhagvandas Patel, “Rom-Sitmani Varta, the Rāmāyaṇa of the Bhils”, in A.K. Singh ibid., p. 255.

[60] U.N. Dave, “The Girdhara Ramayana,” in A.K. Singh ibid. p.293.

[61] Umar Farookh Mewati & Satyendra Singh, “Mewat Jogiyon ki Ramkatha”, in M. Kaushal, A. Bhalla & R. Pant: Ramkatha in Narrative Performance and Pictorial Traditions, IGNCA, New Delhi, 2015, p.296.

[62] K.S. Singh ibid., p. 179.

[63] Lalruanga & B. Datta, p. 222 ibid.

[64] Tulsidas’ Rāmacharitmānas pp.727-741

[65] D.C. Sen, op.cit. pp. 180, 252-283 provides a translation. Bulcke provides a summary, op.cit. p. 479.

[66] Ibid. p. 118

[67] W.L. Smith, op.cit. p. 152

[68] Bulcke, op.cit., pp. 479, 154

[69] W.L. Smith, op.cit. pp. 147-148.

[70] K.R. Srinivasa  Iyengar (ed.): Asian Variations in Rāmāyaṇa, p.269; V. Raghavan, ibid. p.8

[71] Bulcke, op.cit. p. 440.

[72] M.C. Subhadra Diskul, “Valmiki’s Rāmāyaṇa and the Thai Rāmāyaṇa of King Rama-I” in L.P. Vyas (ed): The Rāmāyaṇa: Global View, pp.146, 149, 150. Ghulam-Sarwar Yousof, “Ramayana in Southeast Asian Traditional Theatre Performances,” in Kaushal op.ciṭ. p. 92. Bulcke, op.cit. p. 480.

[73] Chamlang Saraspadnuke, “Rāmāyaṇa in Thai Theatre,” in Raghavan ibid., p.255 and Raghavan, Studies on Rāmāyaṇa, p. 412.

[74] Bulcke, op.cit., p.481.

[75] S. Singaravelu, “The Literary Version of the Rama Story in Malay,” in Iyengarop.cit. p.283.

[76] Bulcke op.cit. p. 480

[77] R.K. Ramakrishnan, “Hikayat Maharaja Rāvaṇa in the Indonesian Version of the Indian Rāmāyaṛa,” in his Rāvaṇa and Laṅkā, pp. 145-149.

[78] M. Saran and V.C. Khanna, The Ramayana in Indonesia, p. 162.

[79] Ghulam-Sarwar Yousof, “Rāmāyaṇa branch stories in the Wayang Siam shadow play in Malaysia”, in Iyengar, ibid., p.307.

[80] Yousof, p. 318 ibid.

[81] S.Sahai, “The KhvayThuarophi”, in Iyengarop.cit., p.294.

[82] V. Raghavan, Studies in Ramayana, Dr. V. Raghavan Centre for Performing Arts, Chennai, 2009, p. 406

[83] U Thein Han & U KhinZaw, “Rāmāyaṇa in Burmese Lit. and Arts,” in Iyengarop.cit., p.305.

[84] Ibid. p.307.

[85] I. Nyoman Sedana, “Rāmāyaṇa in Balinese Performance,” in Kaushalop.cit. p.139

[86] Personal communication from Ms. Chan Monirasmey, Tourist Guide of Phnom Penh, who has provided an excerpt from Chatomuk Mongkul’s The Royal Palace, Phnom-Penh that mentions the frescoes.

[87] Preap Chanmara, Chan Vitharin, San Phalla, The Reamker painted by Chet Chan, Reyum institute of Art and Culture, Phnom Penh, 2002, pp. 19-20.

[88] http://www.imdb.com

[89] http://www.siyakeramsp.com/2016/08/siya-ke-ram-30th-august-episode-256-hd-images.html The episode can be seen at  http://www.hotstar.com/tv/siya-ke-ram/sita-kills-sahastra-ravan/1000151036, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X93FgkwqmhA and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMfUrc7enh8

[90]Ānanda Rāmāyaṇa, p. 475; Bulcke op.cit. p.478 summarises.

[91] Bulcke, op.cit. p. 479 fn. 1 notes that the Tattvasaṃgraha Rāmāyaṇa (6.6) also indicates this.

[92] Bulcke, op.cit. p. 154.

[93] For a detailed synopsis cf. the Introduction (pp. xlvi-xlviii) in Bhattacharya & Sen, Critical Edition, op.cit.

[94] Mannalal Abhimanyu ed.: Hanumannāṭakam, ChowkhambaVidyaBhavan, Varanasi, 1992 2^ndedn.