The Caritas as a Continuation of an Oral (Historical) Tradition: Analysis of Two Passages from Bhusana and Daityari

What are the exact words used for ‘holy men’ in the passage above? Are they identical in meaning to mahantas and mahajanas in Daityari’s passage? The words ‘holy men’ appear there too: ‘the holy men discuss [this tale] in various ways [versions].’

Could the meaning of the epithet srimanta, in the context of the sentence above, be made more clear?

It is interesting to note that, as in Daityari, the caritakara has referred to an oral tradition of the carita. Daityari refers to ‘holy men’ discussing the Guru’s tale (katha) in ‘various ways.’ So also, Bhusana says: ‘all the great pandits used to recount this tale to others joyfully.’ A lively tradition is indicated.

Both the caritakaras—Daityari and Bhusana—were, it seems, witness to this oral tradition. Both are now going to put facts, hitherto only transmitted orally, into writing. Daityari says that he has—possibly at the instance of some of the participants of these carita sessions (‘carrying out their word’) themselves—put it down in the same form in which he has heard it from the Mahantas. This would further imply that either Daityari himself was also a participant—as a listener—in this oral tradition or that he was provided with the facts relating to the Saint’s life, recounted at these carita sessions, by other participants [senior to him]. It should be noted, however, that Daityari does not say that he was ordered—in the literal sense of the term—to compile a (written) carita by any particular Mahanta. He only says that he was asked [possibly requested] by some Mahajanas to put the tale (katha) to verse. At this point, at least, he does not name any person.

In the case of Bhusana, there is a fond reminiscence of the oral tradition. ‘Previously’, says Bhusana, ‘all the great pandits used to recount this tale to others joyfully’. But all of them have reached the abode of vaikuntha and now, ‘who recounts these tales (kathā)?’ We should note that, unlike Daityari (in the passage in question), Bhusana is not-at least in this passage-carrying out the word of the Mahajanas. His motivation seems to be based purely on his own inner urge to recount—record, rather—the life and deeds of the Guru before these facts fade away from the devotees’ collective memory. Unlike Daityari, he does not refer to ‘holy men’ [still] discussing the tale in ‘various ways.’ Nor is there any statement to the effect that he [himself] has ‘heard it from the Mahantas.’ Instead there is commitment that he, the caritakara, will put down ‘whatever comes to mind’ by the grace of the ‘holy men’. 

From these two passages, it would be correct, perhaps, to view the (written) carita as a particular recension of the original, oral, carita tradition.