The original author in Sanskrit Somadeva was a Kashmiri Shaivite Brahmin who lived in the eleventh century during the times of King Anantadeva. The book is said to behave been composed in around 1070 AD for the wife of King Anantadeva, Queen Suryamati. However Kathasaritsagara is only one part of the larger text called “Brihatkatha” written by Gunadhya, a mythical figure from Lord Shiva’s abode.
Translated by Arshia Sattar, a PhD holder in South Asian Languages and Civilizations from the University of Chicago, teaches Indian literature at several institutions in India and is contributes to several journals and magazines. She has been working with the Valmiki Ramayana for thirty five years.
Story Line:
The book is divided into 10 parts each consisting of many chapters that make one story each. The 10 parts Kathapitha, Kathamukha , Lavanaka, Madanamanchuka, Ratnaprabha, Alankaravati, Shaktiyashas, Shashankavati, Padmavati, Vishamashila are all interwoven around Naravahandatta, one of the seven eternal rulers of Vidhyadharas. They are entwined within each other in such a way that one story leads to another story and then another and another. Its like an endless thread of stories one within each other that have morals attached to each and every story at the end. The reader enjoys them while reading and imagining how ancient tales used to be narrated over bed time or by gurus to their disciples/students. At some point or the other, I am sure that the reader misses the point where he started and may have to go back to find the previous reference. Its such a complex web of stories that is exciting to sail through. Though there have been some stories taken from Panchatantra and Vikram Betaal, most of them might be new to the reader or never heard before, even from our grandparents. The best part is to know how Gods and Goddesses (particularly Shiva and Parvati) were part of the daily life of commoners as well as the elite across the country, as they very frequently interact with them whenever they are propitiated or wished. I started thinking as to whether Shiva and Parvati and other Gods were actually humans with some magical powers, who were worshipped as Gods later. In fact all Gods seemed to be Super Humans. Out of all, one story really surprised me to the core. This story in Alankaravati is about Sita and her two twin sons. Here Sita is said to have only one biological son called Lava with Rama. His twin brother Kush is said to be made by Valmiki out of the blades of Kush grass, later projected to the world as twin brothers born to Sita. This needs more research and facts brought out by experts. Definitely there must be some concrete evidence to prove this when such tale has been in circulation in the 11th century itself. Rest all stories seemed to be real folklores that bring out the real lifestyle, cultures and traditions of people and kings who lived in not so ancient times. Most of the morals of the stories are relevant even today and have great impact on today’s lifestyle of general public in the country.
Pros : The collection of stories have great significance and relevance to how society was functioning in those times. Though there is a mention of Chaturvarna system in force actively, there seemed to be no major hatred or exploitation by the upper castes over lower castes. Moreover, both good and bad people have been portrayed equally with relevant stories with morals ending in a tragedy for the bad ones. On the lighter note, one can find across the length of the book, scores of beautiful novel Hindu names for their new born sons and daughters. Also, I loved how Gods are portrayed as not the invisible ones but those who regularly interact and invite deserving mortals to their abodes to and fro. Wish it could be the same today also. This I think used to motivate those who were narrated these stories to be virtuous and pious in order to be in the good books of the powerful Gods and Goddesses.
Cons: There seems to be a lot of literature that belittles women throughout. Most of the stories are having some reference or the other to portray women as the lustful ones and those who were not faithful to their husbands or one man, but always luring other men for physical pleasures. This is very disturbing to a rational reader. Men on the other hand were shown as loyal to their wives and lovers but fought with each other just to win over their faith on their spouses. Was this the kind of society that existed at that time? Food for thought.
My rating : 2.5 out of 5
No comments:
Post a Comment