இன்னதாம் என்னல் ஆமோ உலகியல்
Faithful readers of this blog, have been made painfully aware, of my bull-headed obsessions about believability in art. I enjoy only the totally convincingly 'real' or something spectacularly fable-like, struggle violently with most things in between.
Who is to say, this is how things roll in 'reality'?
After meeting Sita, Hanuman ravages through the Asokavanam, hoping his actions will take him to Ravana. Waves of warriors and chieftains are sent to fight him and they meet their gory ends in his hand.
Ravanan's son Akkakumaran then arrives at the scene and sees the monkey. He laughs derisively at the possibility that a monkey could have killed the warriors
வன் தொழில் அரக்கன் நோக்கி, வாள் எயிறு இலங்க நக்கான்;
'கொன்றது இக் குரங்கு போலாம், அரக்கர்தம் குழாத்தை!' என்றான்
The Rakshasa - the one of brutal methods- laughed mockingly showing his sword like teeth;
'it seems it was this monkey that killed the army of rakshasa warriors (as if such a thing were believable)
To his charioteer replies:
அன்னதாம் நகு சொல் கேட்ட சாரதி, 'ஐய! கேண்மோ!
இன்னதாம் என்னல் ஆமோ உலகியல்? இகழல் அம்மா;
மன்னனோடு எதிர்ந்த வாலி குரங்கு என்றால், மற்றும் உண்டோ ?
சொன்னது துணிவில் கொண்டு சேறி' என்று, உணரச் சொன்னான்
His charioteer who heard those mocking words said: "Lord, listen
Who can say how the world works? Speak not derisively
Vali - who fought (and beat) our King (Ravana) was a monkey. Is there anything more to say?
Do bear that in mind as you bravely enter this battle
So I guess wise charioteers predate the Mahabharatha.
The uncomfortable fact - that Vali had once wrestled Ravana into submission - being reminisced at an inopportune moment, may just simply mean 'underestimate not'.
But the expression: 'இன்னதாம் என்னல் ஆமோ உலகியல்?' is captivating in its succinctness . To translate word for word, it would be: w can say of the ways of the world that 'this is how it is'
It is not just uncertainty or randomness or the elusiveness to anticipation. It is all this and more. It is not even about the future - after all he is referring to a past that has failed to instruct the present. It seems to be about human inability to grasp even his own small bubble. It seems to be about : it is not for man to understand. He is most welcome to try. But surely he is not afforded the luxury of wholesome understanding before he can act.