Cranes in Indo-European, Greek and Indian folklore and literature

As Sārus Cranes are vocally very expressive, form life-long pair-bonds and display complex and sophisticated social behaviour they are ideally suited to epitomise the notion of grief and sorrow in circumstances where one of a pair has died.

The krauñcavadha episode was supposed to set the tone of the epic; so the composer had to choose a bird whose social life would be familiar to the listeners; and as the human population at the time of the composition of the Rāmāyaṇa was very small and thus wetlands were more extensive than they are to-day, the Sārus Cranes were common.

Krauñca originally designated the Eurasian Crane. After the Indo-Iranian (II) speaking groups dispersed into the Pañjāb the term krauñca also came to designate the Sārus Crane; who later became known exclusively as sārasa; an etymon which may, like krauñca, have an onomatopoeic origin as the vocal expressions of cranes is their most characteristic feature.

Sārus Cranes in Sanskrit literature

The recognition of the ability of non-human animals to express sorrow is typified by the use of the Sārus Crane as a simile for sorrow in the Rāmāyaṇa. The emphasis in the description in the epic is placed upon the sorrow and compassion of Vālmīki so there must have been an immediate state of affinity between the Sārus Cranes and the sage.

The basic cladistic affinity between species; and the crucial rôle of affective states across clades

Fundamental emotional states, sthāyibhāvas, have corresponding aesthetic experiences, rasas. The aesthetic theory of bhāva and rasa state that there are ten basic emotions, which form the cornerstones of artistic enterprise and of artistic appreciation; eight of these affective circuits, including grief and sorrow, have been identified neuroanatomically as basic motivators for behaviour.

The reproductive neurotransmitter systems in cranes appear basically to be analogous to the corresponding systems in human and non-human mammals so it is likely that the affective response of the composer of this sarga came as a reaction to interspecific stimuli.

Basic empathy, tanmayībhāva, and sneha, affection. A state of close affinity with other living beings such as trees and animals seem natural according to for example the Rāmāyaṇa and Abhijñānaśākuntala, so the saint's reaction would have exemplified the zeitgeist.

Degrees of grief, śoka, and the transformation of grief into the rasa of karuṇa. The anubhāva of the Sārus Cranes' mournful cry indicates the depth of grief in the nirapekṣabhāva of vipralambhaśṛṇgāra, and this inspired Vālmīki to compose the Rāmāyaṇa, regardless of whether his reaction was determined by yogic tāṭasthya, emphatic identification with the vāsanās of another being as in karuṇa or by the sthāyibhāva of śoka.

Sorrow and separation distress calls. The timbre and pitch of the voice are capable of carrying greater emotional impact than any choice of words so the composer of the krauñcavadha episode emphasised both the depth and the universality of sorrow by choosing a monogamous pair of non-human animals with an expressive vocal register to epitomise śoka and karuṇa. The influence of śoka/karuṇa can be explained as separation distress calls, sad music and tales of sorrow, or of separated lovers, seem capable of reaching greater emotional depth in humans than cheerful and contended ones.

1. On account of their remarkable ethology cranes figure prominently not only in Indo-European literature and folklore but also in the legends and art of China, Japan, Australia and North America. Three species of cranes are comparatively well-spread in India, Demoiselle Cranes,Footnote ³ Eurasian Cranes and Sārus Cranes. Both the Demoiselle Crane and the Eurasian Crane are winter visitors in India while Sārus Cranes breed in North India. When the Indo-Iranian speaking groups dispersed into the Pañjāb they were familiar with Demoiselle Cranes and Eurasian Cranes whose etymon *ger- reflected in most Indo-European languages, in Vedic/Sanskrit is krauñca as the usual change from PIE *g to j in Vedic becomes superseded for onomatopoeaic reasons; the term krauñca was during the course of several centuries also used with reference to the indigenous Sārus Crane, who, however, later came to be designated by the term sārasa.

Vālmīki began his tale by being inspired by the sorrow, śoka, of witnessing the grief of a female Sārus Crane as her mate was killed by a hunter; and the Rāmāyaṇa is according to Ānandavardhana and Abhinavagupta pervaded by the rasa of karuṇa, empathy or the aesthetic experience of sorrow. To substantiate why a Sārus Crane could display a state of grief distinctly enough to move Vālmīki to such an extent that he became inspired to compose the Rāmāyaṇa I shall begin with a short description of the ethology of Sārus Cranes.

2. The ethology of the Indian Sārus Crane, Grus antigone. Hindi: Sārus

The average height is 156 cm, but it may be 180 cm, and the Sārus Crane is thus the tallest flying bird in the world. The wing span is about 246 cm. The head and the upper neck are naked and hence orange-reddish, though in the breeding season brighter red. A broad ring of white feathers separates the bare part from the bluish-grey feathers of the lower neck. The primaries and primary coverts are dark grey; and the general plumage grey, but lighter on the belly than on the back. The tail feathers are pale grey and bushy, the legs pinkish and the bill pale greenish with a dark tip. The sexes are alike but the female is slightly smaller than the male (monogamy tends to even out sexual dimorphism); the breeding season stretches from July to April, but peaks in July, August and September. (Ali and Ripley Reference Ali and Ripley1983, II: pp. 141–143).

Being dependent on the presence of wetlands the Sārus Crane moves locally to avoid drought though the behavioural pattern indicates sedentary preference. Sārus Cranes occur today in Uttar Pradesh, Rājasthān, Gujarāt and Haryāna, but only sporadically in Madhya Pradesh and Bihār; they used to occur all over the Subcontinent, from Sind in Pākistān throughout the Gaṅgetic plains to Bānglādesh as well as in the more arid and semi-arid plateau of the Deccan. In India they are now only found where traditional agriculture still is practised (Meine and Archibald, Reference Meine and Archibald1996).

Their food consists of fish, frogs, lizards, grasshoppers, insects and marsh plants. Sārus Cranes affect cultivated and well-watered plains, marshland and jheels. Though congregations of dozens of birds occur in the winter Sārus Cranes usually keep apart in pairs. They pair for life and their mutual faithfulness and devotion have become legendary; and, partly because of the Rāmāyaṇa, Sārus Cranes are protected by popular sentiment where tradition still holds sway. If one of a pair is killed the survivor haunts the scene of outrage for weeks calling distractedly, and some bereaved birds have been known to pine away and die (Ali and Ripley Reference Ali and Ripley1983, II: pp. 141–143).

The vocal repertoire of Sārus Cranes is as complex as that of Eurasian Cranes, but the notes are deeper, more pronounced and resonant. The most conspicuous call consists of a very far-reaching trumpeting which sounds like ‘garrrrooa-garrrooa-garrrooa’. The unison call is usually performed by a pair as a duet, often at dawn and during moonlit nights (Walkinshaw, Reference Walkinshaw1973: pp. 199 and 208). The moment one bird begins his or her mate immediately answers. The necks are fully stretched out and the bills are pointing towards the sky while the body feathers are ruffled and both birds seem to vibrate with excitement. This unison call, which resembles the unison call of the Eurasian Crane (Walkinshaw, Reference Walkinshaw1973: p. 37), seem to strengthen pair-bonding by synchronising reproductive rhythms; besides it also functions as a display of affection. The call also indicates warning, greeting, and a mutual assurance about continuous close presence. The alarm call is a loud shrill cry.

The dance consists of jumping, bowing and circling movements; the two birds stand in front of each other with their necks swinging to and fro so that their bills sometimes touch. One of the birds may jump up into the air and descend with flapping wings (Walkinshaw, Reference Walkinshaw1973: p. 208). To initiate copulation the female stretches her neck upwards and turns away from the male who approaches quickly and steps up on her back while moving his wings; after the copulation he jumps up over the head of the female (Walkinshaw, Reference Walkinshaw1973: p. 201). Otherwise the male may begin by calling shrilly with partly lifted head, the female then adopts the same posture and follows the male a while before she turns round; the male calls again shrilly; the female spreads her wings out and the male approaches her slowly and emits a low-pitched call; the female retracts her neck and points the bill downwards. With flapping wings the male then steps up on her back as she bends slightly forward; then both birds are silent, but after copulation they dance and emit unison calls (Mukherjee, Reference Mukherjee2002).

The Human population of India in 1600 AD was according to one estimate 142 and to another 144 millions (Habib, Reference Habib1982: p. 165) i.e. about 11.5% of the present estimated population for the entire Subcontinent; but it was, according to the available calculations, 31 million around 200 BC and 41 million in 200 AD (McEvedy and Jones, Reference McEvedy and Jones1978; pp. 182–189). The relative rate of increase in population, based on relatively certain estimates from 1600 to 1900, matches however the more uncertain assumptions from 400 BC to 1600 AD (McEvedy and Jones, Reference McEvedy and Jones1978: pp. 182–189). With a population of 41 million around 200 AD the population density at the time of the composition of the Rāmāyaṇa would have been around 25 times less than it is today. Furthermore the population has always been most concentrated in the wetlands. Around 2000 BC there might have been 5 million in the Gaṅgā-Yamunā doāb against 1 million in the Deccan (McEvedy and Jones, Reference McEvedy and Jones1978: p. 182); and the deserts in the northwest were smaller than they are to-day as the monsoonal rainfall has diminished (Bryson and Swain, Reference Bryson and Swain1981; Singh et al., Reference Singh, Joshi, Chopra and Singh1974). Since the climatic conditions were more humid and the cultivated areas much smaller crane habitats would thus have been considerably more extensive than they are today. (cf. Mukherjee et al., Reference Mukherjee and Parasharya2002b, Reference Mukherjee, Parasharya and Soni2001) So these considerations reinforce the impression of the extent of both flora and fauna as described in the Rāmāyaṇa and, e.g. in Kālidāsa's Abhijñānaśākuntala.

3. Etymology of sārasa

Because of a need to distinguish between the cranes (Demoiselle, Siberian and Eurasian) that left in spring to return in autumn and the crane (Sārus) that remained present throughout the year, an appropriate word arose either spontaneously or as a Sanskritisation of a Drāviḍian or a Muṇḍa etymon, or indeed of a lost autochthonous designation, perhaps affiliated with the language strata in north-west India that have precipitated into Hindī to form between 31 and 34% (i.e. 84–93 words) of its agricultural and horticultural terms (Masica, Reference Masica, Deshpande and Hook1979). The Hindī Sārus comes from Sanskrit sārasa (<saras, Mayrhofer, Reference Mayrhofer2001: p. 510), which presumably means ‘the crane who affects swamps and jheels’; or rather ‘the swampy’ or ‘the lake-like one,’ a designation that could fit any crane and indeed any waterfowl such as the Watercock/Kora (Gallicrex cinera), the Indian Moorhen (Gallinula chloropus indica), the Indian Purple Moorhen (Porphyrio porphyrio poliocephalus), the Pheasant-tailed Jaçana (Hydrophasianus chirurgus) or the Bronze-winged Jaçana (Metopidius indicus). Like Sārus Cranes they are all characterised by building their nests in or in immediate proximity to water. However, sārasa- means ‘crying/calling out’ (sa + √ āras/-ati, ‘shout/s’), and sārasyam ‘a call/cry,’ cf. for example sārāva ‘crying,’ and sārambhaḥ ‘angry talk’. An onomatopoiesis would in the case of such a vocal species as the Sārus Crane be more likely to arise naturally than the indistinct term ‘the jheel-affecting one’. Though there apparently is no gloss in any Drāviḍian or Muṇḍa language which might suggest an agglutination of crane-diagnostic phonemes like sārasa it would be reasonable – if the word is not a typical Sanskrit construction like hast-ī/-inī, ‘the handed one’ – to expect an autochthonous origin as the Sārus Crane is endemic to India. The Drāviḍian migration preceded the II speaking tribes by at least one thousand years (McAlpin, Reference McAlpin, Deshpande and Hook1979), i.e. around 2500 BC or earlier, when the Western Group of Mesolithic Austro-Asiatic speaking hunter-gatherers or Neolithic farmer-pastoralists already were well established in the Subcontinent.

3.1 The ethology of Sārus Cranes as reflected in classical Sanskrit literature

The term sārasa occurs with regular intervals in Sanskrit literature, e.g. in the Mahābhārata. (1933) 1.138.11:

but it is especially prominent in the poems of Kālidāsa who had a sahṛdaya's sense of empathy (tanmayībhāva) with Nature; e.g. in Meghadūta 32 (Kālidāsa, 1969):

Daniel Ingalls (Ānandavardhana and Abhinavagupta, Reference Ingalls, Masson and Patwardhan1990: p. 659) translates sārasānām as “of paddy birds”, i.e. the ‘Indian Pond Heron’ or ‘Paddybird’, Ardeola grayii, Hindī: Andhā baglā; but this heron, though usually silent, utters a harsh high squawk (Cramp et al., Reference Cramp, Simmons, Ferguson-Lees, Gillmor, Hollom, Hudson, Nicholson, Ogilvie, Olney, Voous and Wattel1977, I: pp. 278–279) or a high harsh croak (Ali and Ripley Reference Ali and Ripley1983, I: p. 63). Furthermore the calls of Pond Herons are not very far-reaching, and there is no reason to suppose that Kālidāsa should refer to any species other than in the Raghuvaṃśa 1.41 (Kālidāsa, 1972) where he writes:

this is an epithet that could not fit the croaking of a Paddy Bird. Ṛtusaṃhāra 19 (Kālidāsa [?] 1967) has:

(from the lake because of drought); this would refer to local movements; the Ṛtusaṃhāra. 3.8 (Kālidāsa, 1967):

(in the Autumn after the rainy season); also Ṛtusaṃhāra. 3.16 (Kālidāsa 1967)

4. The choice of Sārus Cranes

Could Vālmīki (or the kavi who composed the Bālakāṇḍa) have found another pair of living beings to epitomise the universal notion of sorrow? The choice of a pair of non-human animals would make the universality more striking than it would have been by choosing a human couple. Especially two criteria had to be fulfilled: 1) monogamy; 2) an anubhāva that spoke across clades to leave no doubt about the extent of the sorrow. Such an interspecific anubhāva is a characteristic of poetry, and is for example succinctly expressed by Tomas Tranströmer (Reference Tranströmer2002) in ‘Från mars -79,’ where words, words, words (semantemes) is contrasted to the language (anubhāva) of the deer's track in the snow.

Mammals can express sorrow, e.g. wolves, cats and elephants. Both elephants, dolphins (see Tyack, Reference Tyack, Mann, Connor, Tyack and Whitehead2000: p. 275) and cats use ‘touch,’ sparśendriya, and vocal expressions but they are not monogamous; birds use touch to a lesser extent but they are very vocal, and in some cases monogamous. In Sanskrit literature the ‘Barheaded Goose,’ rājahaṃsa, Anser indicus, Hindī: Rāj hans (cf. Hammer, Reference Hammer2003: pp. 311–317) and the ‘Brahminy Duck,’ cakravāka, Tadorna ferruginea, Hindī: Chakwa, are famous for monogamy (although neither the Barheaded Goose nor the Brahminy Duck breed in India), but their calls appear to be less able to carry affective tones that are perceptible to the human ear than the calls of cranes. Birds such as thrushes whose songs are musical, have calls that are well-suited to indicate alarm or anger but not sorrow. Cranes however, are both extremely monogamous and capable of lending affective quality to their calls. Besides, a species that bred in India would, if the killing had to take place while they mated, be a prerequisite. The Demoiselle, the Siberian and the Eurasion Crane winter in India. The only species of cranes that breeds in India is the Sārus; furthermore Sārus Cranes tend, in the breeding season, to keep apart in pairs. Besides, the behaviour of the chosen species had to be easily recognisable to the listerners of the Rāmāyaṇa; a rara avis would not do.

The behavioural conduct or sociogram of Eurasian and Sārus Cranes has been analysed to consist of about sixty different patterns. The vocalisations they share include peeping, food-begging, nesting-call, contact-call, pre-flight-call, flight-call, alarm-call, guard-call, unison-call, location-call, stress-call, distress-call, moan, hiss and pre-copulatory call; only the Eurasian Crane has a copulatory call. Of twenty-six agonistic displays, such as ruffle-bow and ventral-preen, they differ in three displays but share twenty-three. Concerning pair related behaviour they share all fifteen traits. This expressive diversity (which encompasses more than 60 social ethons per species) places cranes at the apex of social complexity amongst animals at least regarding innate social displays (Ellis et. al., Reference Ellis, Swengel, Archibald and Kepler1998) though an upper limit of fifty different displays has been suggested for non-human animals (Hailman, Reference Hailman1977: pp. 33–34 and pp. 262–264). This explains why the transfer of the term krauñca from the Eurasian to the Sārus Crane was ethologically natural, and it shows that the choice of cranes to illustrate universal sorrow was based on factual observation. The poet who composed the stanzas in the Rāmāyaṇa must have been familiar with the behaviour of cranes and he must have witnessed the killing of a male Sārus Crane during mating and the ensuing reaction of the female – for pratibhā is the ability to sense how episodes of experience can be rearranged in a dramatic and artistically poignant way. It is the degree of the reality of the lived experience that determines the authenticity of the artistic expression, but it is also precisely that which determines the listener's or the reader's subsequent understanding or interpretation.

5. The Sārus Crane and the Rāmāyaṇa

The Bālakāṇḍa, which consists of several heterogenous episodes, seems to have been compiled during the first three or four centuries AD (Brockington, Reference Brockington1998: pp. 374–385), but it is conceivable that the themes of some of these episodes might have been composed at an earlier date. The geographical horizon is still mainly defined by the Gaṅgā-Yamunā doāb and the northern part of the Vindhya Mountains – areas which would have been heavily affected by Sārus Cranes. The celebrated krauñcavadha episode describes how a hunter killed the male of a pair of mating Sārus Cranes in the presence of the sage Vālmīki; and how his spontaneous indignation at this outrage inspired him to curseFootnote ⁵ the hunter and compose the Rāmāyaṇa. Bālakāṇḍa 1.2.8 b. Vālmīki (Reference Bhatt1982):

The attentiveness of the sage is undivided attentiveness, i.e. ekāgratā, as in yoga and meditation; vipulaṃ vanam suggests infinity or infinite variety, i.e. great creative Nature; and tat sarvato may indicate a state akin to adbhutarasa, ‘the aesthetic experience of wonder’ and ‘awe’ or rather a combination of both, i.e. ‘ferly’.

1.2.9

It is likely that carantam indicates a mating dance rather than mating as both birds are calling and as the male Sārus Crane has a pre-copulatory call but no copulatory call. In connection with mithunam, carantam suggests interdependent motion rather than merely ‘wandering about’ while at the same time hinting at an affinity with the sage as he roamed around (vicacāra). At the time when the Rāmāyaṇa was composed the wealth of Nature was all-pervasive, apart from the agricultural areas around the villages as delineated in for example the Gāthā Saptaśatī. Furthermore in the absence of hunting, even though that occasionally was practised by local tribes, animals behave with indifference towards humans, i.e. they adopt the same behaviour as they display towards other animals whom they do not fear or with whom they have no reason to associate. Anapāyinam points to the life-long pair bonding of Sārus Cranes. As Sārus Cranes, because of the influence of the Rāmāyaṇa, have been protected in many areas they may be approached closely even to-day; though this attitude now seems to be disappearing rapidly (Borad et al., Reference Borad, Mukherjee, Patel and Parasharya2002). Prior to the Rāmāyaṇa it is difficult to ascertain any special appreciation of Sārus Cranes.

1.2.10

This stanze depicts a state where the birds are mating. They are conceivably aware of the presence of Vālmīki but not of the niṣāda, who probably was a member of one of the aboriginal tribes of hunters and gatherers who are disparaged by orthodox Hinduism. The saintly attitude of Vālmīki is suggested as the birds are not afraid of him; but the hunter is probably stalking them from a distance while their natural vigilance is diminished because of their excited state.

Leslie, (Reference Leslie1998) assumes that the hunter kills the bird for food, but it could also be on account of the feathers (cf. Gāhākosa 1980/1988, stanza 373). As cranes have a lifespan of more than fifty or sixty years the majority of the birds would be exceedingly tough and it is hardly possible, in the field, to distinguish between old and young birds; however immature indivduals are easily recognisable as their entire head and neck are covered with buffy feathers (Walkinshaw, Reference Walkinshaw1973), but they do not display mating behaviour.

The tragedy here is partly comparable to the legend of ‘The Phoenix and the Turtle.’ Two inseparable lovers, epitomised as birds, are separated and/or killed by evil persons (see Finnis and Martin, Reference Finnis and Martin2003). The male crane would be comparable to the Turtle, who dies first, the female to the Phoenix; and the ‘Foul precursor of the fiend’, to the niṣāda. The theme might display a universal pattern or perhaps it suggests that there are parallel situations that are bound to occur in any culture. For example the illustration Finnis and Martin have chosen, is a 5th century BC Roman mural on a bed of roses which clearly depicts a crane. Both the Roman mosaic and the choice of illustration emphasise the impact cranes have had on the human imagination; and it is no coincidence that Shakespeare – given the basic uniformity of human nature, diachronically as well as synchronically – again and again had to commemorate the condition of the greatest affective impact, namely the sadness of separated lovers, especially if in nirapekṣabhāva, ‘a state without hope’ (see 10.1).

1.2.11

Cranes are exceedingly sensitive even to minor stress factors as Gee and Russman (Reference Gee, Russman, Ellis, Gee and Mirande1996) point out repeatedly – so the killing of her mate would have had a devastating influence on her affective state. As the female is only slightly smaller than the male, but has a longer tail, Vālmīki's immediate gender identification would probably have been based on behavioural traits rather than on external characteristics. The pivotal point here is the anubhāva expressed in rurāva karuṇāṃ giram. After 1.2.11, the MSS Dt, D 4,6,8,9,14 and S (except M4) have:

This distinction clearly reinforces the notion of mating behaviour. The stanza is noted in the critical edition as an interpolation, but as the MS (in the generally trustworthy southern [S] recension) M1 is from 1512 and the MS M2 from 1690; and as the description intensifies the female's grief and thus deepens the impression, the verse fits the context and need not necessarily be spurious.Footnote ⁶ However it seems to be forced because of the monotony of the instrumentals; but that may not mean much in view of the precision of the observation for, especially in oral poetry, patches become unavoidable – quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus. Regardless of this it proves that the author of the lines had no doubt about the species of the bird Vālmīki (if indeed ‘Vālmīki’ did not compose the verse himself) saw as tāmraśīrṣeṇa ‘with copper-red head’ and not with feathers, is characteristic as a Sārus Crane has no red feathers. The cause of the red colour is blood – seen through the naked skin – as the cheeks are devoid of plumage. In the Abhidhānacintāmaṇi, Śeṣa, Str. 1328 Hemacandra (1972: 441) describes the Sārus Crane as

In his commentary to Meghadūta verse 32 (Kālidāsa, 1969) Mallinātha likewise has maithunī, kāmī and gonarḍaḥ, so these epithets must have been widely accepted. Taken in conjunction they fit the Sārus Crane better than any other avian species.

Leslie (Reference Leslie1998) states that this śloka – though probably spurious – is crucial for the correct identification of krauñca as a Sārus Crane. However mithunaṃ carantam anapāyinam and cāruniḥsvanam in 1.2.9 are diagnostic. Both the birds are calling sweetly/musically, cāruniḥsvanam; they are moving around relative to one another, carantam, and they are inseparable, anapāyinam. This leaves two possibilities, the Eurasian and the Sārus Crane, and on account of 1.2.14 kāmamohitam, ‘impassioned by love-making’ it has to be the Sārus Crane as the Eurasian Crane does not breed in India; and neither do the geese that are so famous for marital constancy in Sanskrit poetry.

The repeated reference to a sweetly singing bird in the various translations (which – like a gloss – reveals the image that arises in the mind of a careful reader) signifies that the concept of the characteristics of the species are rather vague. Probably associations to such melodious Turdinae as the Grey-winged Blackbird, Turdus boulboul, the Malabar Whistling Thrush, Myiophonus horsfieldii, or the Malabar Shama, Copsychus malabaricus, are aroused.

Though the exact sense remains doubtful the phrase mattena patriṇā sahitena vai constitute a reference to the spectacular mating behaviour of Sārus Cranes. And this is indeed noticed in the Tilaka and Śiromaṇi commentaries, as pointed out by Masson (Reference Masson1969). The Tilaka commentary (Vālmīki, 1888) has sambhoga-kālatvād vitata-pakṣavatā “with the wings spread out as appropriate to treading”. This observation of gruiform behaviour matches Mukherjee's (Reference Mukherjee2002a) figures ‘Cf, Cg, Ch’ of mating Sārus Cranes as well as the description of ‘Pair related behaviour, F Copulation’ as given by Ellis et al. (Reference Ellis, Swengel, Archibald and Kepler1998). Furthermore, dvijena in this stanza may be a śleṣa – though this figure is rare in the Rāmāyaṇa – to emphasise the notion of kinship between the Cranes and the kavi; however, it might not be a conscious choice but a periconscious echo.

1.2.12

This suggests that Vālmīki becomes offended immediately. Though kāruṇya ‘compassion’ or ‘kindness’ is derived from karuṇa, it is not likely that it is used here as the equivalent of karuṇa as a rasa since the bhāva-rasa concept, even if P.V. Kane's (1961, p. 47) conjecture of 300 AD as the date for the composition of the Nāṭyaśāstra is accepted, could not have had time to influence oral poetry, especially on account of its emphasis on dramaturgy.

1.2.13

‘Then – hearing the crying female Sārus Crane, the Twice-born [thought], because of [his] affinity with sorrow/empathy, this [is] evil, [and] uttered this injunction’:

The dvija here may be juxtaposed to the dvija in the preceding śloka. Vālmīki also felt a sense of identification with the dying bird; this would aggravate the sin of the niṣāda as it would make him guilty of a symbolic brahmahatyā – without doubt the most heinous of all conceivable offences in Hindu India. This śloka suggests the general themes in the epic of exile and suffering.

1.2.14

In other words you shall cease to have a home and a wife, for you caused such sorrow to the Cranes, you shall experience similar sorrows yourself. The hunter is at least guilty of three things; 1) he killed the male Sārus Crane; 2) he killed him while he was making love, and that is considered despicable, like murdering a sleeping person; 3) he killed the Crane in front of the sage. Thus the niṣāda, like Rāvaṇa, breaks the common bond, the harmony, to cause separation. His act is pratilomam, and displays adharma, as he kills the Sārus Crane that symbolises the very champion of dharma, namely Rāma; but also, as is often the case in Indian literature, because the offence is committed against a couple engaged in making love, cf. e.g. Pāṇḍu (Mahābhārata. Reference Sukthankar1933, Ādiparvan 1.109.18–30). This activity was apparently conceived of as an apotheosis of congruence and harmony, hence also the frequent instances of couples (maithuna) on Hindū temples, e.g. at Koṇārka, to ward off evil influence (apotropaic magic). The irrevocable nature of the separation enhances the grief and makes the forlorn cry of the surviving bird all the more poignant – for it hints at the afflictions which will overcome both Rāma and Sītā later.

But Ānandavardhana and Abhinavagupta write as if it were the female, and not the male Sārus Crane, that was killed by the hunter. They think that this would fit the structure of the plot by foreshadowing that Sītā is carried away by Rāvaṇa (the hunter) and that she in the end vanishes into the earth whereafter Rāma is left alone to mourn; so whereas Vālmīki (or the composer of this sarga) tended to stay in tune with the chaos of life the critics wanted a perfect theory to match a perfect plot.

1.2.15

The force of his spontaneous indignation surprises him. What is it I have done to the hunter? Such a curse was imagined to be very effective, and could not like the gift from a God, be taken back; but more significantly is perhaps the implied question ‘What is it I have undertaken to do?’ Namely to write the Rāmāyaṇa.

6. The basic cladistic affinity between species

The affinity between himself and the krauñca pair which gave Vālmīki the cause for cursing the hunter, and which inspired him to begin (that part of) his story might be regarded as a romantic idiosyncrasy. Such a point of view, however, would have been alien to Indian thought in general, e.g. Ṛgveda 10.146; Āraṇyakakāṇḍa (Vālmīki, Reference Divanji1963), Āraṇyaparvan (Mahābhārata, Reference Sukthankar1942) and to some European notions as well, cf. f.ex. Robert Burns’ ‘To a Mouse,’ or Diderot's (Reference Diderot1987) satirical critique of Descartes in ‘Le Rêve de d'Alembert’Footnote ⁷ or William Blake's perceptive insights in ‘The Fly’ which strike some of the same notes as are present in Chuang Tzu's butterfly dream, and in the haikus of Basho. And with usual perspicacity Darwin (Reference Darwin1998, Chapter IV and V especially) delineated the affective similarities in the emotional spectrum of human and non-human animals.

Affective states are fundamental (Panksepp, Reference Panksepp1998a, Reference Panksepp1998b, Reference Panksepp2003; Watt, Reference Watt1998, Reference Watt, Hameroff, Kaszniak and Chalmers1999; Cabanac Reference Cabanac1999). They determine behaviour and motivations. To some extent they are amenable to cognitive influence (Panksepp, Reference Panksepp1998a, Reference Panksepp1998b; Watt, Reference Watt1998, Reference Watt, Hameroff, Kaszniak and Chalmers1999), but cognition is not able to generate affective states; this was clearly seen by David Hume who remarked that the intellect only functioned to serve and further the affections (Hume, Reference Hume1739/1896).

The ability to feel, to know what it is like to be a specific individual (Nagel, Reference Nagel1974), i.e. the state of affective consciousness, originates in basic brain structures such as the periaqueductal grey, the colliculi, the amygdala and the hypothalamus but it reverberates throughout the entire brain (Panksepp, Reference Panksepp1998a, Reference Panksepp1998b; Watt, Reference Watt, Hameroff, Kaszniak and Chalmers1999). The basic emotional systems of animals have primarily evolved because such functions enhanced the efficiency of the organism's interacting with the environment; the ability to escape was increased by fear, to attack by rage, to seek social interaction and nurturance by distress and to reproduce by desire (Panksepp, Reference Panksepp1998b). Human and animal affective consciousness is based on sensory perceptions, motor-processes (Sheets-Johnstone, Reference Sheets-Johnstone1999) and skin-boundary awareness (Sheets-Johnstone, Reference Sheets-Johnstone1998; Panksepp, Reference Panksepp1998a: Reference Panksepp2003; Reference Panksepp1998b) which together form body image sensations (representations) and hence the nucleus of self-consciousness and the realisation of distinctness in relation to the environment. The crucial role of affective states and their interdependence in determining motives, intentions and levels of lived intensity formed some of the most fundamental concepts of Indian theories of art in the form of rasa as developed in the Nāṭyaśāstra (1988), the Abhinavabhāratī (1988) and the Dhvanyāloka (Ānandavardhana and Abhinavagupta 1940).

7. Fundamental emotional states, sthāyibhāva, and aesthetic experience, rasa

Eight basic emotional states have so far been correlated with neuroanatomical circuits and/or neurotransmitter substances;Footnote ⁸

1) seeking/exploration, 2) rage/anger, 3) disgust, 4) angst, 5) sexuality/lust, 6) nurturance/care, 7) grief/separation distress/social bonding, 8) play/joy/social affection (Watt Reference Watt, Hameroff, Kaszniak and Chalmers1999; Panksepp Reference Panksepp1998b). They correspond to the sthāyibhāva (Nāṭyaśāstra 1988, VI.15–17) of

1) utsāha, 2) krodha, 3) jugupsā, 4) bhaya, 5) rati, 6) sneha, 7) śoka and 8) hāsa. The sthāyibhāva of ‘marvel/awe’ vismaya and ‘peace’ śama or nirveda do not seem yet to have been traced neuroanatomically. But Paul Ekman (Reference Ekman1992) assumes that the affective state of surprise/wonder/awe is fundamental and has as such separate neuroanatomical correlates.

In the absence of self-centredness and ‘self-interest’ or ‘egoism,’ ahaṃkāra, in a state of ‘disinterestedness’ tāṭasthya, and of genuine sympathy, the sthāyibhāvas are modulated to become ‘aesthetic experience’ rasa; i.e.

1) vīra ‘heroism,’ 2) raudra ‘fury,’ 3) bībhatsa ‘disgust,’ 4) bhāyanaka ‘fear,’ 5) śṛṅgāra ‘love,’ 6) preyas ‘loving kindness’ (Rudraṭa 1886: XII.3), 7) karuṇa ‘sorrow,’ and 8) hāsya ‘mirth’. The corresponding rasa of vismaya is adbhuta ‘wonder/ferlie’. But ‘aesthetic experience’ should perhaps be understood simply as the emotional experience purified of self-interest (and primordial angst) regardless of explicit aesthetic connotations.

‘Sorrow’ karuṇa, is thus an emotional state, an ability to recognise the emotional state in another living being because of having prior experience of a similar emotional state, as here, in the form of śoka though in the absence of ahaṃkāra experienced as karuṇa; but the prior analogous experience is a prerequisite. When William Blake wrote in ‘A Little Boy lost’:

he also indicated that it is impossible to imagine anything by using deduction and fantasy. Nothing is subjectively real before it has been experienced; for we cannot transcend the limits of our own experiences; and the deepest experience we have had determines the limits of our emotional and conceptual world; and the more basicFootnote ⁹ an emotion is the more identical to similar experiences in other individuals it seems to become both intraspecifically and interspecifically – so irrespective of the considerable differences between species and especially between birds and mammals a sketch of some of the comparable functions of the avian and mammalian sexually active neurotransmitter substances, which to a considerable extent would have determined the behaviour of the female Sārus Crane, might suggest the common basis for empathy and hence the authenticity of Vālmīki's reaction; furthermore, the grief of the surviving crane would have been very conspicuous as the cognitive abilities of some avian speciesFootnote ¹⁰ apparently may even exceed those of Primates and Cetaceans (Catchpole, Reference Catchpole1994).

8. Comparison between the function of sexual neurotransmitter systems in cranes and Mammals

There are also sound physiological reasons for empathy, not only with conspecifics but also with other species. Vertebrates show distinct homology in the structure of the brain; and the central nervous system operates on identical principles across clades. Thus the information transfer within a single neurone is electrical but at the synapses between the neurones it is conducted chemically by a wide variety of specific transmitter substances, viz. amino acids (such as glutamate), biogenic amines (such as serotonin), neuropeptides (such as oxytocin), and various other substances (such as acetylcholine and nitric oxide). There is no neurotransmitter that is specific for humans, i.e. which is not also present in other species.

There is a distinct relationship between avian and mammalian sexual neurotransmitter systems. Nine amino acids form the avian posterior pituitary sexual neuropeptide ‘arginine vasotocin’. When its arginine is slightly modified to form another amino acid ‘leucine’, then arginine vasotocin becomes the mammalian female sexual neuropeptide ‘oxytocin’. On the other hand when the isoleucine in arginine vasotocin is modified to another amino acid, ‘phenylalanine’, then arginine vasotocin becomes the mammalian male sexual neuropeptide ‘arginine vasopressin’ (Panksepp Reference Panksepp1998a: 231). The following comparisons may give a more specific impression of the similarities between gruiform and mammalian neurotransmitter systems.

LH-RH (luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone) increases in cranes the amount of gonadal steroids and determines seasonal reproduction and accessory reproductive development (Gee and Russman, Reference Gee, Russman, Ellis, Gee and Mirande1996); and in mammals it controls secretion of gonadotrophins from the pituitary, preparation of sexual hormones, female sexual arousal and receptivity (Panksepp, Reference Panksepp1998a: 243, 102). TRH (thyrotrophin-releasing hormone) controls the growth hormone and prolactin plus metabolic rates and promotes or inhibits reproductive development in cranes (Gee and Russman,1996); and in mammals it causes metabolic arousal, arousal generally and playfulness (Panksepp Reference Panksepp1998a: pp. 101–102). Estrogens influence in cranes oviduct growth, maturation, deposition of body fat, the formation of secondary sexual characteristics, sexual behaviour and ova developmental cycling (Gee and Russman, Reference Gee, Russman, Ellis, Gee and Mirande1996); and in mammals it causes female sexual receptivity, lordosis and production of sexual pheromones (Panksepp, Reference Panksepp1998a: 240). Prolactin level in cranes induces broodiness and egg production (Gee and Russman, Reference Gee, Russman, Ellis, Gee and Mirande1996); in mammals it stimulates maternal motivation and social feelings and diminishes separation distress calls (Panksepp, Reference Panksepp1998a: pp. 101, 268). ACTH (adrenocorticotrophic hormone) produces in cranes elevated corticosterones in response to stress, influences ovulation and stunts growth (Gee and Russman, Reference Gee, Russman, Ellis, Gee and Mirande1996); in mammals it determines levels of stress and attention, and seems to be able to generate flight and freezing attitudes (Panksepp, Reference Panksepp1998a: pp. 101, 218).

This correspondence in structure and function of affective systems follow the general pattern of evolutionary similarity (Panksepp, Reference Panksepp1998a: pp. 230–231). Arginine vasopressin, oxytocin and opioid systems appear to be fundamental in the formation of social bonds in mammals just as the homologous peptide, arginine vasotocin, appear to be in birds (Panksepp Reference Panksepp1998a: 256; and cf. Panksepp et al., Reference Panksepp, Nelson and Bekkedal1997). Arginine vasotocin and various other neurotransmitters are probably stimulated by pair bonding in cranes and especially by courtship behaviour. In the absence of such stimulation, as for example when one of a pair dies, the resulting neurotransmitter deficiency would generate separation distress calls such as those Vālmīki heard. Both oxytocin and vasotocin are effective inhibitors of distress calls in various species and this indicates that social well-being is caused by the same neurotransmitters that cause sexual stimulation and nurturance (Panksepp, Reference Panksepp1998a: 256). The sudden neurotransmitter depletion in the female Sārus Crane would thus cause arousal of separation distress calls which both in con-specifics and in mammals could trigger a rapid decline in similar neurotransmitter systems, and thus in turn produce a sense of ‘social loss’, śoka, and subsequently maybe a feeling of empathy and ‘sorrow,’ a state of karuṇarasa.

9. Basic tanmayībhāva, identity, and sneha, affection

Kālidāsa's description of Śakuntalā's affection for or perhaps rather consubstantiality with Nature in the form of plants and animals,Footnote ¹¹ bespeaks an attitude of intuitive or spontaneous empathy that as a pronounced vāsanā, would have had to be innate, cf. Yogasūtra IV.8 (Patañjali, 1961). Her sense of tanmayībhāva should perhaps be regarded as an intensified kind of sneha or as a preyas even. This is evident when Śakuntalā in I.17 says (Kālidāsa, 1969):

Here the diagnostic term is sodaryāsneha. Likewise Bhāsa (1996), Pratimānāṭaka V.11, lets Rāma tell Maithilī/Sītā:

Without an innate affinity based on direct experience there is no correspondence or rather no recognition. This experience is necessary both regarding spontaneous ‘care’ sneha (Rudraṭa 1886: XIII.3), or ‘pity/sorrow śoka, and their resultants, preyas and karuṇa. Goethe had to have the understanding of a sahṛdaya in order to appreciate (or to see his own world and himself in) the Abhijñānaśākuntala to the extent he actually did; and Vālmīki took for granted that his listeners could recognise the outrage of killing a Sārus Crane because they were familiar with the behaviour of cranes and could distinguish them from various other species. The basic assumption here is that a harmonic state of affinity with Nature was as vivid to the listeners of the Rāmāyaṇa as it was to Śakuntalā and Sītā. With knowledge of the ethology of Sārus or Eurasian Cranes it becomes possible to share Vālmīki's anger and sorrow.

10. Degrees of grief, śoka and sorrow, karuṇa

Beside the general affinity spontaneously felt with all living beings and the sympathy that arises when seeing any creature in distress there are (at least) two other and probably closely related sources or kinds of empathy. The first is the state of affinity where some of the neurones that are activated in the afflicted object, by cognitive and affective recognition, activate the corresponding audio-visual ‘mirror’ neurones in the subject (cf. Gallese, Reference Gallese, Hameroff, Kaszniak and Chalmers1999; Kohler et al., Reference Kohler, Keysers, Umiltà, Fogassi, Gallese and Rizzolatti2002); the second is the alleged affinity caused by yogic sākṣāt. The Yogasūtra III.18 states (Patañjali, 1961): Saṃskāra-sākṣāt-karaṇāt pūrva-jāti-jñānam “Because of immediate intuition of [prior] perception [there is] knowledge of a previous birth”; and Yogasūtra III.19 Pratyayasya paracitta-jñānam “[Because of immediate intuition of prior perception there is] knowledge of another's mind through an image-concept (pratyaya)”; and Yogasūtra III.17 Śabdārtha-pratyayānām itaretarādhyāsāt saṃkaras tat-pravibhāga-saṃyamāt sarva-bhūta-ruta-jñānam “Because of reciprocal superimposition [there is] fusion of the image-concept, the intentionality and the vocalisation – but by saṃyama (= dhāraṇā, dhyāna, samādhi, Yogasūtra III.4) distinction [between] them [results in] knowledge of the calls of all creatures”.

Vālmīki's reaction here is perhaps rather that of a yogī than that of a sahṛdaya as he is witnessing a real event and not a scene on the stage. But Abhinavagupta writes (Naṭyaśāstra 1988, [1] VI.32, Abhinavabhāratī: 288, line 9–12) about the sahṛdayas:

So it seems that for the true sahṛdaya all the world might indeed be a stage; yet at the time of the composition of the Bālakāṇḍa the concept of rasa (100 BC to 300 AD) was only beginning to take form so Vālmīki's attitude might, pace Abhinavagupta, have been more yogic and harsh than aesthetic; and Ānandavardhana probably regarded a rasa as an intensified or fully developed state of a sthāyibhāva (Ānandavardhana 1940: 390, Dhvanyāloka 3.26; Ānandavardhana and Abhinavagupta, Reference Ingalls, Masson and Patwardhan1990: 16–19). However, the paramount question here is the possible difference between āsvāda and the pratyaya, the ‘awareness’ or the ‘image-concepts’ of a yogī during such an event. Both states imply transcendence of the sukha-duḥkha dichotomy and of ahaṃkāra, i.e. indicate a state of detachment without primal angst; but I cannot see how Abhinavagupta might have envisaged the difference – so faute de mieux it could be explained either by difference of character or perhaps by reactions at different yogic stages or even by reactions to different stimuli. However, Abhinavagupta seems to emphasise that the sahṛdaya has deep empathy whereas a yogī only has little as he is too austere (detached?) to care and hence has no patience with the diversified colours of the emotions. For according to the law of karma, or ultimate responsibility, karuṇa might be considered to be rather superfluous. We are all totally responsible for whatever happens to us.

However, Vālmīki shares both Śakuntalā's and Sītā's consubstantiality with Nature and is strongly affected by the killing of the male Sārus Crane, for he can feel and recognise in himself – not what it is like to be a bat (Nagel, Reference Nagel1974) – but what it is like to be a female Sārus Crane who has lost her mate by a wanton act of cruelty. A similar sense of sorrow and indignation inspired Shakespeare to write ‘The Phoenix and the Turtle’ in commemoration of Ann and Roger Line (Finnis and Martin, Reference Finnis and Martin2003); and this indicates that birds tend to symbolise pair relationships better than other animals. But there appears to be a discrepancy between the indifference, the tāṭasthya, of the yogic attitude that all is well with the world whatever happens and the sense of karuṇa, ‘sorrow’ on account of the aesthetic sense of understanding what it is like; but there is probably also a discrepancy between the tāṭasthya and the spontaneous sense of indignation. I assume that there might be three layers present here. The original core reaction is the spontaneous indignation; the second is the yogic capacity of the sage to stay aloof and the third is the presumably added explanation that Vālmīki is experiencing the rasa of karuṇa in the way Abhinavagupta thought. But it is the spontaneous sense of grief, because of a feeling of identity, tanmayībhāva, that, as the cause of artistic inspiration, is emphasised by Ānandavardhana (1940: 84–85) in the Dhvanyāloka 1.5:

A state of tāṭasthya beyond ahaṃkāra is presumably innate when once acquired – so any experience would take place on an alaukika level in the form of a rasa; but according to Ānandavardhana and Abhinavagupta this is not the case. Śoka is the immediate reaction which after a shorter or longer interval is transformed into rasa. However Ānandavardhana perceived the Rāmāyaṇa to be pervaded by the rasa of karuṇa;Footnote ¹³ Dhvanyāloka 4.5 (Ānandavardhana 1940: 529–530):

Here the grief (śoka) is laukika ‘worldly’, but the versification (rasa) alaukika ‘transcendental’; so the poem is inspired by grief to become aesthetic appreciation of sorrow;Footnote ¹⁴ and the krauñcavadha episode fulfills thus a cataphoric function in suggesting the general theme of the epic, and perhaps also hinting at the Buddhist notion of the fundamental duḥkha of human existence, for this rather late episode added to the shift of focus from a tale of adventure to a more religiously edifying fable.

Yet as Abhinavagupta explains there is a crucial difference between ‘worldly’, laukika śoka and ‘unworldly,’ alaukika karuṇa because the latter is grief detached from personal involvement, it is grief per se, without the burden of the personality (cf. Eliot, Reference Eliot1951), i.e. without ahaṃkāra or egocentricity or ‘ignorance/inexperience’, avidyā, or indeed without ontological fear.Footnote ¹⁵ Such a notion of transcendence is perhaps also implicit in Aristoteles’ Poetics (1982) XIV.2:

This seems to mean that both emotions would have to exist simultaneously; however, these two moods or brain states are hardly compatible on a laukika level, but have – in order to co-exist synchronically – each to be modified to an ‘aesthetic experience,’ a rasa. In order to enjoy sorrowful or terrible incidents an alaukika state, a proper aseity, would first have to be achieved – and to thrill and chill simultaneously with feelings of pity would seem to indicate a reaction comparable to that of karuṇa.

10.1 Sorrow and separation distress calls

Sad and sorrowful music or tales can elicit a variety of responses, such as ‘shivers’ vepathu, up along the spine, and ‘weeping,’ aśru, both sāttvikabhāvas, ‘involuntary signs of emotion’; (Nāṭyaśāstra 1988, VI.22) and a feeling of chills or thrills – a more complex response in which the inherent sadness is tinged by joy. The frequency of chills/thrills is reduced if a rapid decline in endogenous opioids is blocked; so this experience seems basically to be connected with a sense of social loss (Panksepp, Reference Panksepp1998a: pp. 278–279) as communion stimulates release of endogenous opioids such as β-endorphin; however, a periconscious sense of the temporal nature of the experience – maybe an inkling of hope – would help to keep the bitter-sweet sensation from turning sour.

But if sad and sorrowful music or tales, which nevertheless afford pleasure under certain circumstances, trigger separation distress calls because of resembling or suggesting them, and induce more chills/thrills than coherently pleasant tales or merry music then it seems that feelings associated with social deprivation may be more pronounced in humans than feelings associated with well-being or homoeostasis (Panksepp, Reference Panksepp1998a: p. 278) – at least on this level of awareness. Thrills/chills exhibit apparently contradictory aspects in being both sad and yet exciting, but this does not necessarily imply any category similarity with a rasa in which a state of depersonalised affective response is savoured.

Themes dealing with lost love and longing are among the most effective stimuli for human emotional states and furnish the basic stuff of which dreams and dramas are made. Separation distress can follow two different patterns. If the wistful awareness of loss is tinged by the possibility of renunion, it is ‘love-in-separation’, vipralambhaśṛṇgāra Footnote ¹⁶ and a ‘condition with hope,’ sāpekṣabhāva (Nāṭyaśāstra 1988: 306, VI [45–46]), as in the Meghadūta; but the rasa of karuṇa is rather suggestive of a ‘condition without hope’, nirapekṣabhāva;Footnote ¹⁷ for the loss is here irremediable, as eventually it becomes in the Rāmāyaṇa. But karuṇa or ‘sorrow,’ which indicates a state of tanmayībhāva, the sense of (unconditional) relatedness to others and to Nature, is present in both conditions though only in the latter does the sorrow become permanent. Irrevocable circumstances, as in nirapekṣabhāva, may generate the most profound affective responses, because this state is beyond the influence of voluntary parametres, i.e., it is not amenable to change. The condition is absolute, and the reaction would become a sāttvikabhāva, such as ‘horripilation/piloerection’, romapulaka, a spontaneous manifestation of emotion. Affective reactions that are subject to modification by voluntary decisions may be less complete or profound than responses on which conscious decisions in the form of volition has no influence.Footnote ¹⁸

Whereas tragedy was prevalent in Athenian and Elizabethan drama, e.g. Hippolytos, Mēdeia, the Oresteia, and Romeo and Juliet, Antony and Cleopatra, it is absent from classical Indian drama, such as Mālatīmādhava, Abhijñānaśākuntala and Vikramorvaśī. However, in both the Indian epics there is a sense of irredeemable tragedy. Conversely both the Greek epics have comparatively happy endings though the happiness is heavily modified in the case of the Iliad; but contrariwise the basic rasa of the Mahābhārata is śānta, ‘peace’ – peace after all the turmoil and the bloodshed, and in the Rāmāyaṇa ‘sorrow,’ karuṇa, at least according to Ānandavardhana (1940: 529–533, 4.5). But while the ending of the Yuddhakāṇḍa conforms to the general Indian pattern of happy endings, the ending of the Uttarakāṇḍa becomes a tragedy as Rāma causes Sītā to be taken away by the Earth because of his doubts. In fact the rasa of vīra, the ‘heroic’ rasa, is really epitomised by Sītā – rather than by Rāma who continues to harbour suspicions against her (also a reflection of the brāhmaṇical misogynistic influence).

11. Semantemes contra pitch and timbre

The choice of a pair of non-human animals demonstrates the universality of grief. Had it been a pair of humans universality would have only just been plausible, but by taking a pair of birds śoka becomes a force that pervades the whole of Nature and acquires a phylogenetic foundation. This is congruent with the Buddhist and Jain influence regarding ahiṃsā (the wife of Dharma), but it was probably also influenced by the world view of the Proto-Indo European speaking tribes who distinguished between animate and inanimate entities (Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, Reference Gamkrelidze and Ivanov1995: 387–411). Cranes are indeed very well suited to exemplify this universal grief. So for the ‘ground tone’ or the ‘standing wave’, of the Rāmāyaṇa in its present composite form, it would be difficult to find a more fitting icon than a pair of Sārus Cranes – for as cranes belong to a different phylum the general and all pervading notion of śoka, which underlies not only the Rāmāyaṇa, but the life of all living beings, become more unmistakable – as the autochthonic-brāhmaṇical influence gradually changed the Vedic and kṣatriya-oriented nature of the epic.

The sādhāraṇatva or ‘universality’ (Nāṭyaśāstra VI.83: 335 Abhinavabhāratī line 25) is enhanced because it is not the semantic content of a sentence, its tātparya or ‘purport’, but the basic timbre, pitch and intonation in the voice, Footnote ¹⁹ that is the quality of the anubhāva, that carry the real affective content, and which reveals the authenticity of the sthāyibhāva. And indeed the intonation, the pitch and the timbre are to a greater extent able to engender an emotional impact, such as a thrill/chill (a sāttvikabhāva) than any conglomerate of ‘semantemes’, samaya, which merely modify the basic tonal quality with concepts.Footnote ²⁰ So when Abhinavagupta writes samaya it indicates the sādhāraṇatva of the grief. It is the timbre, the pitch and the tone of the cry that carry the impact, for its force is so basic and primordial that it reaches greater depths than both denotations and connotations can convey.Footnote ²¹ The intonation of the voice has a greater capacity to convey a feeling of reality than the signifiers can hope to do; and though the sexuality or love of animals usually is supposed to consist of a mere ‘semblance of rasa,’ i.e. rasābhāsa, Vidyādhara maintains in the Ekāvalī that animals also may experience sexuality or love in the form of a rasa though this would necessitate that animals had the ability to transcend the ahaṃkāra state; but perhaps the notion of ahaṃkāra simply is far more pronounced in humans than in other animals. Vidyādhara (1903: 106, Unmeṣa III) writes: