The Shudra Sage
Sarala Das, fifteenth century, is the Adikavi of Odia, the first poet, and the man who wrote the first substantial literary work in the language.
And he was a farmer.
Who he was
Born Siddheswar Parida, at Jhankad in what is now Jagatsinghpur district, Odisha, or at Tentulipada nearby, and the accounts place him in the fifteenth century under the Gajapati ruler Kapilendra Deva.
And his community was shudra.
Which he says himself, repeatedly, in his own text.
He calls himself shudra muni, the shudra sage, and the phrase is his and he uses it without embarrassment and without apology.
And he says he was not taught.
The accounts, and his own statements, describe a man with no formal education, who did not have Sanskrit, who had not studied the texts, and who was working the land.
Why this matters more than it looks
Because of what he then produced.
The first major literary work in a modern Indian language is not always by somebody from the learned classes, and this app has documented the pattern across this whole series: Kabir the weaver, Ravidas the leather worker, Nammalvar and Kanaka Dasa and Chokhamela.
But those are lyric poets.
Sarala Das wrote an epic. Eighteen parvas of the Mahabharata, at full length, in Odia verse, plus a Ramayana and a Chandi Purana, which is a body of work on the scale that normally requires an institution behind it: a library, a patron, decades of freedom from other work, and a training.
And he had a field.
The name
Sarala is the goddess.
The Sarala temple at Jhankad, which this app has an entry on, is one of the important Shakta sites of coastal Odisha, and the tradition is that the goddess is the author and Sarala Das is where she wrote.
Which is the standard device for an unlettered poet, and this series has met it several times: Kumaragurupara speaking his first words as a poem, Meykandar given the whole system as a child, Matsyendranath hearing it from inside a fish.
What the device is doing
It is answering a question that would otherwise be asked.
A man of his community, with no training, could not have written this, in the view of the people who would be assessing it, and the tradition supplies the mechanism by which he could have: he did not, the goddess did.
And this app is going to note the other reading, which is available and which the text supports.
He listened.
The Mahabharata was in the air. It was being recited, performed, told and argued about in every village in India, and a person did not need Sanskrit to know it, and a man working a field in fifteenth century Odisha had heard the whole thing many times over from people who had heard it too.
And what he wrote is what an intelligent man does with a story he has known his whole life and has decided to set down in the language he actually speaks.
The Odia Mahabharata Is Not a Translation
And this is the thing about it that is most worth knowing.
What people assume
That a regional language Mahabharata is Vyasa put into the regional language.
Which is what a great many of them are, and there is nothing wrong with that, and translation on that scale is real work.
Sarala Das did something else.
What he actually did
He retold it, in Odia, for Odisha, and put Odisha in it.
The result contains:
- Episodes that are not in the Sanskrit Mahabharata at all, and there are many of them
- Odia geography: rivers, places, and landscape that a person from coastal Odisha would recognise
- Local deities and local cult, woven into the narrative, including a great deal of Shakta material
- Jagannath, integrated into the story, which he is not in Vyasa
- Village life: the detail of agriculture, food, household arrangement and speech, given at a level of specificity that only somebody living it produces
- And a different tone: less courtly, blunter, funnier in places, and closer to how people actually talk
Which makes it a distinct work rather than a version, and Odia scholarship treats it that way.
Why he did it
Because he was not working from a manuscript.
A translator sits with a text. Sarala Das was setting down a story he had received orally, over a lifetime, in a form that had already been reshaped by generations of Odia telling, and what he wrote down is that form.
Which is how epics actually travel, and the Sanskrit Mahabharata is itself the product of the same process at an earlier stage.
And the honest scholarly note
This is not a defect and it is not a corruption.
The idea that there is one correct Mahabharata and that regional versions are departures from it is a modern assumption, produced by print and by the critical editions, and it does not describe how the material existed for most of its history.
There were always many Mahabharatas. The Bhandarkar critical edition, prepared over decades in the twentieth century, exists precisely because the manuscript tradition is enormously various, and the editors were reconstructing an archetype from hundreds of divergent witnesses.
And the regional epics are not corruptions of the Sanskrit. They are what happened next.
Its place in Odia
It is the beginning of the literature.
Before Sarala Das there is Odia, in inscriptions and in fragments. After him there is Odia literature, and everything that follows, including the Panchasakha whose entries come next in this batch, is written in a language he had shown could carry an epic.
Which is a specific kind of achievement and it happens once per language: somebody demonstrates that the vernacular can do the serious work, and after that the question does not have to be asked again.
The Ramayana in Which Sita Kills
And this is the most striking thing Sarala Das wrote.
The Vilanka Ramayana
A short Odia work, and its premise is that the story everybody knows is not finished.
What happens in it
Rama has killed Ravana and the war is over and everybody has gone home.
And there is another Ravana.
Sahasrasira Ravana, the thousand headed one, ruling Vilanka, and he is a different and larger figure than the one at Lanka: older, more powerful, and in some tellings the elder brother or the more formidable relation.
And he comes.
And Rama fights him and cannot win.
Which is the part of the poem that carries it. Not a difficult fight, not a close fight: Rama is defeated, and the accounts do not soften it, and the army with him cannot do anything either.
And Sita takes the field.
In the form of Chandi, or Durga, or in her own person depending on the passage, and she kills the thousand headed Ravana.
What is going on here
Three things, and they are all worth naming.
One. It is a Shakta claim inside a Vaishnava story.
Coastal Odisha is heavily Shakta, the goddess cult there is old and strong, and Sarala Das is a devotee of Sarala, a form of Durga.
And what the Vilanka Ramayana does is establish the priority of the goddess in the most direct available way: there is a problem the male hero cannot solve, and she solves it.
Two. It is not unique and that is worth knowing.
Adbhuta Ramayana, a Sanskrit text, contains the same episode: Sita as Kali or Chandi killing a thousand headed Ravana that Rama cannot defeat, and there are related tellings in Bengali and elsewhere.
So this is a recognised strand of Ramayana tradition rather than one poet's invention, and Sarala Das is working within it and giving it an Odia form.
Three. And it is a comment on Sita.
The Sita of the main Ramayana narrative is acted upon: taken, held, recovered, doubted, tested, and finally sent away, and the tradition has been uncomfortable about all of it for two thousand years.
The Vilanka Ramayana gives her the weapon.
How this app treats it
As what the Ramayana tradition actually is.
There is no single Ramayana. There is Valmiki, there is Kamban in Tamil, Tulsidas in Awadhi, Krittibas in Bengali, Ranganatha in Telugu, Molla in Telugu by a woman potter, the Jain Ramayanas in which Ravana is a tragic figure, the Buddhist ones, the Adbhuta, the Ananda, the Adhyatma, and the ones in Thailand, Indonesia, Cambodia and Laos.
And they disagree with each other, substantially, on purpose.
Which is not a scandal. It is what a living story looks like across two and a half thousand years and forty languages, and the diversity is the tradition rather than a departure from it.
And a reader who has only met one version has met one version.
Where to go
- Jhankad, Jagatsinghpur district, Odisha: the Sarala temple, which this app has an entry on, and the associated Sarala Das sites
- Puri, for Jagannath, whom his Mahabharata brought into the epic
- Cuttack and the coastal Odisha country
And the Odia Mahabharata is available in print and in modern Odia editions, and selections are translated, and it is worth knowing that it exists even if you cannot read it.
The Short Version
Who: Sarala Das, fifteenth century, the Adikavi or first poet of Odia, born Siddheswar Parida at Jhankad in what is now Jagatsinghpur district, Odisha, under the Gajapati ruler Kapilendra Deva. He was of a shudra community, which he states himself repeatedly in his own text, calling himself shudra muni, the shudra sage, without embarrassment or apology, and he says he was not formally taught and had no Sanskrit. He was a farmer.
Why that matters: the first major literary work in a modern Indian language is not always by somebody from the learned classes, and this series has documented the pattern, but those are lyric poets. Sarala Das wrote an epic: eighteen parvas of the Mahabharata at full length in Odia verse, plus a Ramayana and a Chandi Purana, which is a body of work that normally requires a library, a patron, decades of freedom from other work and a training. He had a field.
The name: Sarala is the goddess of the Jhankad temple, one of the important Shakta sites of coastal Odisha, and the tradition is that she is the author and he is where she wrote. That is the standard device for an unlettered poet, and it answers a question that would otherwise be asked: a man of his community with no training could not have written this, so the tradition supplies the mechanism. The other reading is that he listened: the Mahabharata was being recited and performed in every village, nobody needed Sanskrit to know it, and what he wrote is what an intelligent man does with a story he has known his whole life.
The Mahabharata is not a translation: he retold it in Odia for Odisha and put Odisha in it. It contains episodes not in the Sanskrit at all, Odia geography, local deities and a great deal of Shakta material, Jagannath integrated into the story where he is not in Vyasa, village detail at a level only somebody living it produces, and a blunter and funnier tone. That is not a defect: the idea that there is one correct Mahabharata is a modern assumption produced by print and the critical editions, the Bhandarkar edition exists precisely because the manuscript tradition is enormously various, and regional epics are not corruptions of the Sanskrit but what happened next.
The Vilanka Ramayana: its premise is that the story everybody knows is not finished. Rama has killed Ravana and gone home, and then another Ravana comes, Sahasrasira, the thousand headed one of Vilanka, older and more powerful. Rama fights him and is defeated, and the poem does not soften it. And Sita takes the field, in the form of Chandi, and kills him. Three things: it is a Shakta claim inside a Vaishnava story, made in the most direct available way; it is not unique, since the Sanskrit Adbhuta Ramayana contains the same episode and there are Bengali relatives, so it is a recognised strand rather than one poet's invention; and it is a comment on Sita, who in the main narrative is acted upon throughout and who here gets the weapon.
On the Ramayana generally: there is no single one. Valmiki, Kamban in Tamil, Tulsidas in Awadhi, Krittibas in Bengali, Molla in Telugu by a woman potter, the Jain versions in which Ravana is tragic, the Buddhist ones, and the Thai, Indonesian, Cambodian and Lao ones. They disagree substantially and on purpose, and the diversity is the tradition rather than a departure from it.
Quick Answers
Who was Sarala Das?+
The Adikavi or first poet of Odia, of the fifteenth century, born Siddheswar Parida at Jhankad in what is now Jagatsinghpur district, Odisha, under the Gajapati ruler Kapilendra Deva. He was of a shudra community and a farmer, states so himself repeatedly in his own text, calling himself shudra muni, the shudra sage, and says he was not formally taught and had no Sanskrit. He wrote the Odia Mahabharata in eighteen parvas, the Vilanka Ramayana and the Chandi Purana, and his work is the beginning of Odia literature.
Is the Odia Mahabharata a translation of Vyasa?+
No, and this is the thing about it most worth knowing. Sarala Das retold it in Odia for Odisha and put Odisha in it. It contains episodes that are not in the Sanskrit Mahabharata at all, and many of them; Odia geography, rivers and landscape a coastal Odia would recognise; local deities and a great deal of Shakta material; Jagannath integrated into the story, where he is not in Vyasa; village life given at a level of specificity only somebody living it produces; and a different tone, less courtly, blunter and funnier. He was not working from a manuscript: he was setting down a story received orally over a lifetime, in a form already reshaped by generations of Odia telling, which is how epics actually travel.
Is it a problem that regional Ramayanas and Mahabharatas differ?+
No. The idea that there is one correct version and that regional ones are departures from it is a modern assumption, produced by print and by the critical editions, and it does not describe how the material existed for most of its history. There were always many. The Bhandarkar critical edition of the Mahabharata, prepared over decades in the twentieth century, exists precisely because the manuscript tradition is enormously various and the editors were reconstructing an archetype from hundreds of divergent witnesses. And there is no single Ramayana: Valmiki, Kamban in Tamil, Tulsidas in Awadhi, Krittibas in Bengali, Ranganatha and Molla in Telugu, the Jain versions in which Ravana is a tragic figure, the Buddhist ones, the Adbhuta and Adhyatma, and the Thai, Indonesian, Cambodian and Lao ones. They disagree substantially and on purpose, and the diversity is the tradition rather than a departure from it.
What is the Vilanka Ramayana?+
A short Odia work by Sarala Das whose premise is that the story everybody knows is not finished. Rama has killed Ravana, the war is over and everybody has gone home, and then another Ravana comes: Sahasrasira, the thousand headed one, ruling Vilanka, a different and larger figure than the one at Lanka, older and more powerful. Rama fights him and cannot win, and the poem does not soften it: he is defeated and the army with him can do nothing either. And Sita takes the field, in the form of Chandi or Durga or in her own person depending on the passage, and kills the thousand headed Ravana.
Why does Sita kill Ravana in that version?+
Three things are going on. It is a Shakta claim inside a Vaishnava story: coastal Odisha is heavily Shakta, the goddess cult there is old and strong, Sarala Das is a devotee of Sarala who is a form of Durga, and the poem establishes the priority of the goddess in the most direct available way, by giving the male hero a problem he cannot solve and having her solve it. It is not unique: the Sanskrit Adbhuta Ramayana contains the same episode, with Sita as Kali or Chandi killing a thousand headed Ravana that Rama cannot defeat, and there are related Bengali tellings, so this is a recognised strand of Ramayana tradition rather than one poet's invention. And it is a comment on Sita, who in the main narrative is acted upon throughout, taken, held, recovered, doubted, tested and finally sent away, and who here is given the weapon.
Why is Sarala Das called Sarala?+
Sarala is the goddess of the temple at Jhankad, one of the important Shakta sites of coastal Odisha, and the tradition is that she is the author and Sarala Das is where she wrote. That is the standard device for an unlettered poet, and this series has met it several times, with Kumaragurupara speaking his first words as a finished poem and Meykandar given the whole system as a small child. It answers a question that would otherwise be asked: in the view of the people who would be assessing it, a man of his community with no training could not have written this, so the tradition supplies the mechanism by which he could have. The other reading, which the text supports, is that he listened: the Mahabharata was being recited and performed in every village in India, nobody needed Sanskrit to know it, and what he wrote is what an intelligent man does with a story he has known his whole life and decided to set down in the language he actually speaks.
About the author
Pandit Ravindra Sharma · Vedic Rituals & Bhakti, 22+ years
Pandit Ravindra is the Vandnaa editorial team's resident specialist on aarti, chalisa, and daily devotion. He has performed home and temple pujas across Varanasi and Delhi for over two decades and contributes the bhakti-focused articles on this site.
Meet the Vandnaa editorial team →
