Exaggeration by numbers

Crazy Mohan is one of the pioneers of modern Tamil comedy theater. A superb master of pun, his punch lines are remembered and oft quoted even after several years. Obviously puns and situtatioinal jokes do not appeal when translated, but here is a classic take on a hero vs villain encounter:

Villain: I will count till 10, if you dont do what I say...
Hero:    What will you do ?
Villain: I will count till 20 !

One of his best scripts however, is "Tenant commandments", also titled as "An own house becomes a rental house".

A middle-aged guy who is looking for a rental house asks the landlord's son for his name. The young son replies "Patthu". [Patthu has two meanings in tamil - a colloquial short form of the name Padmanabhan and the number 10]. The guy understands it to be "number 10" and says "Why name somebody as just '10'? Your parents could have named you as 110, 1010 or 1,00,010..."

Comedy happens by simply exaggerating a situation. In the train the other day, I overheard a mom and her daughter talking. Mom was mentioning some toy that costs about $20 and the lil girl exclaimed "$20 bucks, wow thats like a million dollars". Quite surely, every one must have heard this dialog or one might even remember saying that in childhood. The trend nowadays seems to be to say "a googol dollars", as my son realized that googol is 10 followed by 63 zeroes and 'infinity' is an overused word used by his friends for everything. Again, exaggeration comes as an element of surprise.

The vast difference between the take off of Greek/Roman and Indian science can be clearly perceived with the invention of zero. While the former could count all the way upto M, the Indians were simply adding zeroes to numbers at will. Once the art of power of zero was figured out by the Mathematicians, it was only an inevitable consequence that the Sanskrit kavi-s realized very early on, if one could get some puNya in one 'namaskara' to bhagavaan, they could easily get a factor of that puNya-namaskara by simply adding a sahasra, laksha or koti to it. So when they realized that was effective, another poet wondered why restrict to "koti" and does a "koti koti" namaskaram. Yet another poet totally unsatisfied with koti of a koti, lifts off the numerical upper limit and simply says "aneka koti" namaskaram.

Very interesting word, "aneka" that is. na + eka = aneka (not one -> implying many). Technically "not one". Contextually "several".

Exaggeration of numbers seems to have been built in Indian culture. It has been used to great effect for several different emotions - laughter, consolation, intimidation, surprise, frustration and so on.

In Ramayana, Hanuman seeks to console Sita by mentioning that there are crores of vAnara-s, the sheer number is enough to defeat Ravana. But you dont have to take Hanuman's word for it. There is a very interesting scene in Ramayana's yuddha kANDa. Ravana, a little perturbed at the arrival of Rama's army in Lanka, sends two of his spies - Sarana and Shuka to Rama's camp to find out the real number of monkeys. But Vibhishana captures them and takes them to Rama for punishment. But Rama, being an ideal king, cautions them and let them go. With that, Rama deals a psychological blow to Ravana. Killing them or capturing them would not only be adharma, but would have also enraged Ravana even more. Sarana and Shuka reach Ravana and start describing the sheer number and power of the vAnara-s.

After describing the powers of the major vAnara-s, Shuka concludes with this:

शतं शतसहस्राणाम् कोटिमाहु: मनीषिण: । शतं कोटिसहस्राणाम् शङ्कु: इति अभिधीयते ॥
शतं शङ्कुसहस्राणाम् महाशङ्कु: इति स्मृत: । महाशङ्कुसहस्राणाम् शतं वृन्दम् इह उच्यते ॥
शतं वृन्दसहस्राणाम् महावृन्दम् इति स्मृतम् । महावृन्दसहस्राणाम् शतम् पद्मम् इह उच्यते ॥
शतं पद्मसहस्राणाम् महापद्मम् इति स्मृतम् । महापद्मसहस्राणाम् शतं खर्वम् इह उच्यते ॥
शतं खर्वसहस्राणाम् महाखर्वम् इति स्मृतम् । महाखर्वसहस्राणाम् समुद्रम् अभिधीयते ॥
शतं समुद्रसहस्रम् ओघ इति अभिधीयते । शतं ओघसहस्राणाम् मह-ओघ इति विश्रुतः ॥
एवम् कोटिसहस्रेण शङ्कूनाम् च शतेन च । महशङ्कुसहस्रेण तथा वृन्दशतेन च ॥
महावृन्दसहस्रेण तथा पद्मशतेन च । महापद्मसहस्रेण तथा खर्वशतेन च ॥
समुद्रेन च तेनैव महौघेन तथैव च । एष कोटिमहौघेन समुद्रसदृशेन च ॥

"100 x 100,000 = 1 crore; 100 x 1000 crore = 1 shanku; 100 x 1000 shanku = 1 mahashanku; 100 x 1000 mahashanku =  1 vrunda; 100 x 1000 vrunda = mahavrunda; 100 x 1000 mahavrunda = 1 padmam; 100 x 1000 padmam = 1 mahapadmam; 100 x 1000 mahapadmam = 1 kharvam; 100 x 1000 kharvam = 1 mahakharvam; 100 x 1000 mahakharvam = 1 samudram; 100 x 1000 samudram = 1 ogha; 100 x 1000 ogha = maha-ogha. Thus surrounded by a thousand crore and a hundred shanku and a thousand mahashanku and a hundred vRunda and a thousand mahavRunda and a hundred padmam and a thousand mahapadmam and a hundred kharva and hundred samudra and a hundred mahaugha of monkey warriors, Sugriva is ready to wage the war with you. Knowing your enemy thus, may your effort be accordingly, O Ravana!"

So you see the power of numbers. Thats why when two people meet often they just say "namaskaram", but when they don't meet often, they simply add a factor to fill the gap and say "aneka koti namaskaram" (several crores of namaskaram). Although, you can get away with this usage in Indian vernaculars, attempting to greet somebody in English "One million hellos to you...", rather sounds embarassing.

Thats yet another point to drive, how translations only translate words and not the cultural quotient.

The relativity theory of superiority

Everybody knows that Hanuman is very humble and always considered him only a daasa of Rama. But how humble was he? Can his humbleness be mistaken for weakness or lack of confidence?

Valmiki establishes the character of Hanuman in such a way that whatever action he took, that was possibly indeed the only best course of action. Throughout the course of sundara kanda, Hanuman makes numerous instant decisions that lead the story from one thrilling frame to another. The whole sundara kanda, frame-to-frame, is about how to take right decisions at the right time.

One such scene is when Hanuman takes departure from Sita. A simplistic retell of the story is just that Hanuman gets the cUDAmaNi from Sita and promises her that he will be back with Rama to free her. But in the details, Valmiki establishes a very deep analysis of human emotions in sorrow. Every dialog of which is something we can relate to easily in our lives.

In foreign lands, especially in remote towns, desis easily get excited by seeing one of their own. One may be from a remote village in South and another from Punjab. But in a foreign town of ten desis, language, religion and other barriers are forgotten and everyone instantly feels 'bhai-bhai'. After a long time, Sita has finally met someone who is acquainted with her husband. She naturally pleads Hanuman to stay secretly nearby for one more day, for it will console her to have someone nearby in the dreaded ashoka vana. Inspite of knowing Hanuman's exploits, she then carefully places a doubt whether Sugriva and his army of monkeys are capable of crossing the ocean and taking on the might of Ravana.

A very tricky question indeed. He has just crossed the ocean after a long journey, seen how huge, glorious yet intimidating Lanka is. He knows Rama is superior, he believes in his own strength, but he does not know the full strength of Ravana and his company yet. There is no indication he had given thought about how other monkeys can cross the ocean. Hanuman cannot say something like 'Yeah ma'm, we will try our best'. He has to completely reassure Sita of the capabilities.

The sequence of arguments he puts forth is very logical. He first mentions the leader, Sugriva is completely committed to the cause (of freeing her). Then he mentions the number of monkeys in his army (thousands of crores of monkeys). That sheer number should give confidence to Sita. Then he mentions their overall qualities - power, perseverance and loyalty to Sugriva. He finally puts forward a statement thats unbelievably astonishing, that silences any doubt of not only Sita, but even the reader.

मत् विशिष्टाः च तुल्याः च सन्ति तत्र वनौसः ।
मत्तः प्रत्यवरः कश्चिन् न अस्ति सुग्रीव संनिधौ ||

mat vishiShTaaH ca tulyaaH ca santi tatra vanausaH |
mattaH pratyavaraH kashcin na asti sugrIva saMnidhau ||

अहम् तावत् इह प्राप्तः किम् पुनः ते महाबलाः ।
न हि प्रकृष्टाः प्रेष्यन्ते प्रेष्यन्ते हि इतरे जनाः ॥

aham taavat iha praaptaH kim punaH te mahaabalaaH |
na hi prakRuShTaaH preShyante preShyante hi itare janaaH ||

All other monkeys are either equal to me or above me in valor. There is no one inferior to me in Sugriva's army. If I could come here in one leap, what to say about others? Superiors are not sent for errands, only the inferiors are, isn't it?

Hanuman was hand picked for this task by none other than the great Jambavan, further entrusted personally by Rama, purely on the basis of his most superior ablities. Yet Hanuman turns it around completely the other way, quoting that only inferior people are sent for errands, which for a moment makes perfect sense to console Sita. He does not say he is the most inferior - that would have shown lack of confidence. He says there is no one else inferior than him. He is humble, yet there is absolutely no lack of confidence.

Simply put, there is no other statement that would have quelled the doubt of Sita, than how Hanuman put it.

Paninian Blues

The brevity of Panini's अष्टाध्यायी has been widely read, wondered, appreciated, criticized, discussed, commented and treatised over the past couple of thousand years. On one end of the Sanskritam literature spectrum are such extremely, almost ridiculously, laser-like focused and concise treatment of subjects in sutram format. On other end stand the lengthy and wordy mega-serial type works from kaadambarI, kathaasaritsaagara, yogavasiShTha (32,000 verses), raamaayaNa (24,000 verses) upto the granpa and granny of all - the mahaabhaarata (100,000) and bhaagavatam. In between are the short-stories focusing as much as possible to the main theme.

Interestingly while raamaayana contains 24000 verses, it has been retold in different variations in a wide variety of formats in different languages, since vaalmIki. In fact the very first 100 slokas contain an abridged version of raamaayaNa by vaalmIki himself. There is a Swati Tirunal's kriti "bhaavayaami raghuraamam" - the story of raama in few stanzas set in different ragas. Very recently was released a visually stunning retell of the story by Sanjay Patel. There is even a eka-shlokI-raamaayaNa which tells raamaayaNa in just one shloka!

आदौ राम तपोवनादि गमनम् हत्वा मृगम् काञ्चनम् ।
वैदही हरणम् जटायु मरणम् सुग्रीव सम्भाषणम्  ।
वाली निग्रहणम् समुद्रतरणम् लङ्कापुरि दहनम् ।
पश्चात् रावण कुम्भकर्ण निधनम् तु एतत् हि रामायणम् ॥

The transformation of a few verses to a delightful and an exquisite kaavya (eg. shaakuntalaa by kaalidaasa) or crunching a big story to a few lines like the above seems to have fascinated Sanskritam poets.

One of the most fascinating पञ्चतन्त्र story is The Blue Jackal. Hunger, sympathy, cunningness, fear, imposture, divine invocation, regality, anger, violence - so much characteristics are packed in a few verses. One can quote several movies on this pose-as-somebody-else-and-take-others-for-a-ride theme and variations. While movies of every language seem to have this kind of comedic setup, the evergreen classic Golmal (Amol Palekar) comes to my mind immediately.

But what if, instead of विष्णु शर्म, पाणिनि had written the पञ्चतन्त्र ? May be he would have reduced the pancha-tantra to pancha-paragraphs.

Lets imagine the blue jackal story, Panini-style. Let paNDita-s forgive me for such a blasphemy.

अरण्ये ।
शृगाल: ।
  - वने कश्चन शृगाल: वसति स्म ।
प्रत्याहारम् भुभुक्षाया: ।
  - स्वस्य भुभुक्षा-कारणत: आहारम् प्रति स: अन्वेषणम् अकरोत् ।
तत्र । (2.1.56)
श्वपदानुसारणात् नीलभाण्डपतितोऽपिसन् ।
    - शुनकै: खेतित: धावित: श्रुगाल: नीलभाण्डे अपतत् ।
परश्च । (3.1.2)
प्रतिपथमेति । (4.4.42)
    - तत्परम् स: वनम् प्रत्यागच्छत् ।
अज्ञाते । (5.3.30)
आत्मने चण्डरव: इति ।
दूतस्य भाग-ब्रह्मणि । (4.4.120)
    - मृगा: तम् न ज्ञातवन्त: । स: शृगाल: "अहम् चण्डरव:, ब्रह्मण: दूत:" इति कथितवान् ।
राजा च । (6.2.59)
वृन्दारक नाग-सिंह-कुन्जरै: पूज्यमान: । (2.2.62)
प्रसंशावचनैश्च । (2.2.66)
    - स्वयम् राजानम् मत्वा सर्वेषु मृगेषु भीति: उत्पादितवान् । मृगा: तं शृगालं प्रशंसवचनै: पूजितवन्त: ।
वृष्टिरादैच् ।
    - एकदा वृष्टि: आकाशात् आगता ।
अन्यैश्च टंकार: ।
    - अन्यै: शृगालै: टंकार: कृत: ।
स्वं रूपम् शब्दस्य (1.1.68)
    - तं शब्दं श्रुत्वा शृगाल: स्वस्य रूपं विस्मृतवान् ।
स्वयं तेन । (2.1.25)
    - तेन शब्देन स्वयं पुर्व-रूपं स्मृत: नीलशृगालेन अपि टंकार: कृत: ।  मृगा: तस्य शब्दस्य अभिज्ञातम् कृतवन्त: ।
हनस्च वध: । (3.3.76)
     - मृगा: चण्डरवम् मरितवन्त: । 

तस्य लोप: । (1.3.9)
    - शृगालस्य लोप: स्यात् ।
तदर्हम् । (5.1.117)
    - स: तद् अर्हति एव ।

The sutram-s with indicated numbers are either a direct lift or lousy modifications of the अष्टाध्यायी sutram-s. The वृत्ति is in blue.

Lie to me O Vibhishana

Recently I have started to watch an interesting TV serial called Lie to Me by Fox network. (yeah, I hear you, how ironic!). Its about a detective agency, Lightman Group, led by Dr. Carl Lightman, finding truth via applied psychology predominantly studying facial expressions. The facial expressions, or microexpressions to be precise, of protoganists are butted with the help of similar expressions exhibited by celebrities and politicians, which are pretty convincing at times, not to mention the good humor. The script is really sharp as well as the apt references to the celebrities and politicians capturing the moment of rubbing their noses or twitching their ears. Obviously there are espisodes with unnecessary elements that feels like "filling up" the one-hour episode, but most of the time the script manages to keep one's attention.

"A demon kidnaps a Queen. The King and his army destroy him. If only Ramayana were that simple."

This is how Amar Chitra Katha advertises its illustrated story book Ramayana. What a lovely one-liner! Of course the book has to cut several corners to make the story simple and to confine in 60 pages, but the original Ramayana (in whatever form we have now, I am not getting into the debate of what was the original-original version by Valmiki) contains fascinating descriptions of human tendencies.

Growing up, no kid can be not awed by Hanuman's superhuman strength, bravery and exploits. Be it the ever-entrenched image of Hanuman carrying the mountain in the APT parcel trucks, leaping to Sun thinking of it as a mango, or setting Lanka to fire with his tail - his exploits form a fertile core of any child's imagination. But after a while, the "Santa Claus" reality sets in, and one starts to look beyond the superhuman strengths. Only now, a more powerful picture begins to emerge as one reads through the original slokas, oozing with juicy details - that of Hanuman's supreme intelligence. Time and again, even in the smallest of incidents, his intelligence sparkles like a diamond and uplifts the story to a new level.

One such relatively minor, but very important incident is the surrendering of vibhIShaNa to rAma. Various accounts simplify this incident so much that it appears like vibhIShaNa came and begged Rama and the latter just accepted him. ACK for eg, devotes 3 pictures for this incident. But in the original story, this incident runs upto 149 slokas, with various monkey counsellors offering different insights and advices to Rama. Rama listens patiently to everybody and makes his own decision, justified by his own dharma. Reminds me of the Hindi proverb, "suno sab ki karo man ki".

After all the monkeys give their opinions and tell Rama "do this, do that", finally speaks Hanuman and gives a brilliant analysis of vibhIShaNa. His thought process is so unobtrusive with striking clarity, it makes me wonder why this is story is not part of MBA courses. If I were a tenured MBA professor, I would ask the students to do a comparitive psycho-beneficial analysis of a merger with a rebel following a breakout in a familial company. Just kidding. No, I was serious.

But our main focus is the beauty of Sanskritam, so I'm going to present a few beautiful sloka-s. While the original sloka is provided, I have rewritten a few of them into prose format, to show that Ramayana, as they say, is indeed atIva saralaa and madhura manjulaa.

न वादान् न अपि संघर्षान् न आधिक्यान् न च कामतः ।
वक्ष्यामि वचनम् राजन् यथा अर्थम् राम गौरवात् ॥

हे राजन्, हे राम, न वादान् न अपि संघर्षान् न आधिक्यान् न च कामतः वचनम् वदामि । गौरवात् यथा अर्थम् (वचनम्) (अहम्) वक्ष्यामि ।
O king! O Rama! I am not talking for arguments sake, nor for competition, nor for superiority, nor out of passion but on account of importance of this matter.

अर्थ अनर्थ निमित्तम् हि यद् उक्तम् सचिवैस्तव ।
तत्र दोषम् प्रपश्यामि क्रिया न हि उपपद्यते ॥

तव सचिवै: यद् उक्तम् अर्थम् अनर्थ निमित्तम्, तत्र दोषम् पश्यामि । अत: न क्रिया उपपद्यते ॥
I am perceiving an error in what was advised by your counselors assigned to look into advantages and disadvantages. It is not possible to judge his character that way.

ऋते नियोगात् सामर्थ्यम् अवबोद्धुम् न शक्यते ।
सहसा विनियोगो हि दोषवान् प्रतिभाति मे ॥

नियोगात् ऋते सामर्थ्यम् अवबोद्धुम् न शक्यते, (परन्तु) सहसा विनियोग: दोषवान् इति मे प्रतिभाति ।
Without entrusting any work, it is not possible to understand his ability. Also one cannot entrust a work sooner to a stranger.

अशक्यः सहसा राजन् भावो वेत्तुम् परस्य वै ।
अन्तः स्वभावैर् गीतै: तै: नैपुण्यम् पश्यता भृशम् ॥
O king! Without possessing a high skill of reading his diversified tones, it is not possible to understand his intentions.

न त्वस्य ब्रुवतो जातु लक्ष्यते दुष्ट भावता ।
प्रसन्नम् वदनम् च अपि तस्मान् मे न अस्ति सम्शयः ॥
I am not seeing any bad intention at all in his talk. His face is bright. A deceitful person does not approach so fearlessly and confidently. His expression too is not bad. Hence, I have no doubt in him.

आकारः चाद्यमानो अपि न शक्यो विनिगूहितुम् ।
बलाद् हि विवृणोति एव भावम् अन्तर्गतम् नृणाम् ॥
It is not possible to hide the facial expressions, even if it is concealed. The internal intent of the person certainly gets revealed by itself.

One interesting word here is bhaavam. From the root bhU - being, bhAvam means "the state of being". Hanuman observes that it is not possible for one to hide one's own internalized state of being.

Thus Hanuman studies two important details - voice modulation and facial expression, which no other monkeys observe. He does not go by words of vibhIShaNa, but goes right into his heart. Finally he concludes his speech in style, second to none of modern software consultants:

"O Rama the best among the wise! I have told this to the best of my ability about vibhIShaNa. After hearing my words, you are indeed the final judge of the issue."

Hanuman's approach is very clinical - first he states the purpose of his own speech, points out the logical errors of others, digs vibhIShaNa's presence, throws in a few quotes, examines his real purpose (ie to become King of Lanka), studies his body language, presents the facts to his manager and finally allows him to make a decision!


Citations:

Source materials have been taken from the valmikiramayan.net website and the Gita Press edition of Valmiki Ramayana.