Ramayanam and Divya Prabhandam

[Guest guest]

Dear All

I am fortunate to attend the ongoing lectures at

Narada Gana Sabha on Ramayana and Divya Prabhanda by

Dr.Venkatakrishnan. I want to share with this group a

beautiful message he gave.

 

In Ramayana we find that whenever, Sita is by the side

of Rama, those who confront Rama are saved from death

(Surpanakha, Kakasura etc) All the Destructions take

place when Rama is not in the company of Sita. The

Divine Mother does not give up on anybody! Kamban

makes this truth come out of the mouth of Vali in a

moving poem:

 

Koviyal Dharmam Unkal Kulattuthithorkku Ellam

Oviyathu Ezhudavonna Uruvathai Udamai Anro

Aaviyai Janakan Pettra Annathai Amizhdin Vantha

Deviyai Pirinda Pinnar Thigaithanai Polum Seikai Enran

 

The brief import is: Rajaneedhi is the rightful

possession of all your ancestors. After separation

from your Life and the Devi who came from Amrita, you

seem to have forgotten what to do.

 

The accusation of Vali is that in the absence of The

divine mother, Rama seems to have forgotten his dharma

of protection and compassion for even the wicked.

 

It was moving to hear this and I thought I will share

this with the forum.

Regards

G.Srinivasan

 

 

 

Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.

http://mailplus.

[Guest guest]

Sri:

SrimatE rAmAnujAya nama:

Dear VaishnavAs,

In rAmAyanam, after vAli is shot by Sri rAman, he

accuses rAman for the adharmA done to him, hitting

from behind. Then Sri rAman comes to him and explains

vAli's sinful activities such as keeping his

brother's wife as his own, etc.. He also tells him

that as per dharma sAstra these kind of sinful

persons can be killed even by hitting from behind.

However, Sri rAman out of His compassion to vAli tells

him that the pain he had so far is enough as a

prAyachitham for his misdeeds. He will relive him

from the pain and allow him to continue his life.

But, vAli on the otherhand, having understood his

mistakes, suddenly becomes rAman's dear devotee and

wants to die now. Because he thinks the death

from Supreme Lord is more auspecious and it is rare

opertiunity so that he can attain higher spiritul

status. Not sure whether he attained mOksham.

 

This is the story adiyEn watched in Ramanand Sagar's

video of Ramayanam. If above story is true, then

adiyEn thinks there is no adharmA done by Sri rAman

against vAli, which contradicts kamba rAmAyanam.

Can someone share what exactly is mentioned in

vAlmiki rAmAyanam?.

 

adiyEn

rAmasAmy rAmAnuja dAsan

 

 

----------------------------

 

 

 

 

Dear All

I am fortunate to attend the ongoing lectures at

Narada Gana Sabha on Ramayana and Divya Prabhanda by

Dr.Venkatakrishnan. I want to share with this group a

beautiful message he gave.

 

In Ramayana we find that whenever, Sita is by the side

of Rama, those who confront Rama are saved from death

(Surpanakha, Kakasura etc) All the Destructions take

place when Rama is not in the company of Sita. The

Divine Mother does not give up on anybody! Kamban

makes this truth come out of the mouth of Vali in a

moving poem:

 

Koviyal Dharmam Unkal Kulattuthithorkku Ellam

Oviyathu Ezhudavonna Uruvathai Udamai Anro

Aaviyai Janakan Pettra Annathai Amizhdin Vantha

Deviyai Pirinda Pinnar Thigaithanai Polum Seikai Enran

 

The brief import is: Rajaneedhi is the rightful

possession of all your ancestors. After separation

from your Life and the Devi who came from Amrita, you

seem to have forgotten what to do.

 

The accusation of Vali is that in the absence of The

divine mother, Rama seems to have forgotten his dharma

of protection and compassion for even the wicked.

 

It was moving to hear this and I thought I will share

this with the forum.

Regards

G.Srinivasan

 

 

 

 

Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.

http://mailplus.

[Guest guest]

Dear Vaishnavaaas,

In this connection, I would like to give a reference

to you, (probably, most of you would have read it):

 

"Moondru Vinaakkal" by Dr. Justice Mu. Mu. Ismail -

Vaanathi Pathippagam, Chennai-17.

 

You will surely appreciate the way the Valli vatham is

justified within the purview of Kambaramayanam and

Valmiki Ramayana, by the author. The author first

narrates the approach of both Valmiki and Kambar

separately. Then, the writer raises three questions

and answers them within the purview of ithihaasaas and

Shaastras:

1. Does Vaali deserve to be killed?

2. If so, by Lord Rama?

3. Is the method adopted by Rama to kill Vaali right?

 

Even, Harikatha kalakshebams or any other staunch

vaishnavaas don't give a convincing reply to this.

But, Dr. Mu. Mu. Ismail has done it very emphatically

and unambiguously. I think this book should be read

by every Raamabhakta.

Devarajan MK

=======

--- Ramasamy <kailasr wrote: > Sri:

> SrimatE rAmAnujAya nama:

> Dear VaishnavAs,

> In rAmAyanam, after vAli is shot by Sri rAman, he

> accuses rAman for the adharmA done to him, hitting

> from behind. Then Sri rAman comes to him and

> explains

> >

> Your use of is subject to

>

>

>

 

______________________

Missed your favourite TV serial last night? Try the new, TV.

visit http://in.tv.

[Guest guest]

--- govind srinivasan <gsvasan2002 wrote:

> Dear All

> I am fortunate to attend the ongoing lectures at

> Narada Gana Sabha on Ramayana and Divya Prabhanda by

> Dr.Venkatakrishnan. I want to share with this group

> a beautiful message he gave.

>

> In Ramayana we find that whenever, Sita is by the

> side

> of Rama, those who confront Rama are saved from

> death

> (Surpanakha, Kakasura etc) All the Destructions take

> place when Rama is not in the company of Sita. The

> Divine Mother does not give up on anybody!

 

Dear Sri Srinivasan,

 

Not really, there were raksasas killed even though

Sita Devi was with Sri Rama and Laksamana. In Aranya

Kanda, Viradhda (gandharva Tumburu who was cursed by

Kubera) was killed by both Rama and Laksamana plus

Khara, Dusana , Trisira and their amy of raksasas was

also killed by Rama (after Surpanaka's incident) in

presence of Sita and Laksamana.

 

Regards

Bala.

 

 

=====

 

Balakrishnan A/L Muniapan

 

Mobile: 6-016-4838038

 

http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/District/9622/resbala.html

 

 

 

 

New DSL Internet Access from SBC &

http://sbc.

[Guest guest]

--- Ramasamy <kailasr wrote:

> Sri:

> SrimatE rAmAnujAya nama:

> Dear VaishnavAs,

> In rAmAyanam, after vAli is shot by Sri rAman, he

> accuses rAman for the adharmA done to him, hitting

> from behind. Then Sri rAman comes to him and

> explains

> vAli's sinful activities such as keeping his

> brother's wife as his own, etc.. He also tells him

> that as per dharma sAstra these kind of sinful

> persons can be killed even by hitting from behind.

> However, Sri rAman out of His compassion to vAli

> tells

> him that the pain he had so far is enough as a

> prAyachitham for his misdeeds. He will relive him

> from the pain and allow him to continue his life.

> But, vAli on the otherhand, having understood his

> mistakes, suddenly becomes rAman's dear devotee and

> wants to die now. Because he thinks the death

> from Supreme Lord is more auspecious and it is rare

> opertiunity so that he can attain higher spiritul

> status. Not sure whether he attained mOksham.

 

Dear Sri Ramasamy,

 

One more reason is that nobody can kill Vali with a

direct fight even Ravana lost to Vali as well as other

asuras such as Dundubhi, Mayavi and etc. Vali with his

necklace given by Indra (his father) will be able to

get 50% of the strength of his enemy in direct fight.

 

Because this benediction received by Vali that he

would acquire the half the powers of his opponent in

combat, no one could have faced and won with him in

battle.

 

The only way to kill Vali without violating the

benediction was to kill him from a concealed position.

While Rama was never bound by this, in order to honor

the benediction of His devotee, he choose to take an

apparently inferior position.

 

Rama also had given his word to Sugriva Maharaj that

he will kill Vali and remember at that time Sugriva

was struggling fighting for survival and Rama must do

something to safe his devotee ( kaunteya pratijanihi

na me bhaktah pranasyati, B. Gita Chapter 9).

 

Regards

Bala.

 

 

 

=====

 

Balakrishnan A/L Muniapan

 

Mobile: 6-016-4838038

 

http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/District/9622/resbala.html

 

 

 

 

New DSL Internet Access from SBC &

http://sbc.

[Guest guest]

This is in reply to the mail by sri ramaswamy who wrote...##

> > In rAmAyanam, after vAli is shot by Sri rAman, he

> > accuses rAman for the adharmA done to him, hitting

> > from behind. Then Sri rAman comes to him and

> > explains

 

As far i know there is no mention of rama hiding behind a tree during

the killing of vaali. valmiki does mention that rama and other monkey

leaders were behind the tree, during the first encounter of sugriva

and vaali, wherein rama doesn't shoot at vaali ...but when sugriva

goes to fight vaali again, with a garland on his neck, the author(i.e

valmiki) doesn't mention that rama was behind a tree.

Again the statement that rama was behind the tree is made by

vaali, who is lying on the ground caught in the jaws of death...A man

who is severely injured and is nearing his death does not have any

kind of reasoning left in him...he will just say anything...I think

this statement is also made by valmiki in valmiki ramayana....i don't

remember the exact sanskrit verses...If any other member knows it,

he/she can update us about it.

 

Rgds

murali

> --- Ramasamy <kailasr> wrote: > Sri:

> > SrimatE rAmAnujAya nama:

> > Dear VaishnavAs,

> > In rAmAyanam, after vAli is shot by Sri rAman, he

> > accuses rAman for the adharmA done to him, hitting

> > from behind. Then Sri rAman comes to him and

> > explains

> > >

> > Your use of is subject to

> >

> >

> >

>

>

____________________

__

> Missed your favourite TV serial last night? Try the new, TV.

> visit http://in.tv.

[Guest guest]

I beg to differ. It is a popular myth that Rama did not kill Vali in straight

combat because of the fact that Vali's necklace would bestow him with half of

Rama's strength. (By the way, while the strength of the wearer of the necklace

would increase by half the strength of the opponent, nowhere has it been stated

in Valmiki Ramayna that the strength of the opponent would diminish to that

extent. This is a finer point to be noted.) More over, Indra's necklace could

obviously have had no effect on Rama! What is Indra and who is Rama!

 

Kamban mentions about the necklace of Indra in only one verse. He does not

attach any importance to it. In Valmiki Ramayana, when Vali was lying on the

ground during his last moments, the Poet has this to say: (translated from

Sanskrit)

 

"Even though he lay fallen to the ground, neither grace nor life breath nor

vital energy nor prowess left the body of the high-minded monkey. The

well-known excellent bejewelled chain of gold bestowed (on him) by Indra (the

ruler of gods) preserved the life, vital energy and grace of Vali, the (the

foremost of monkeys)." (Kishkindha Kanda, Canto XVII, Sloka 3 and 4)

 

Rama was standing before him at this time. If it was true that half of Rama's

strength would have been received by Vali, in the case of a straight fight, then

the question arises as to why Vali did not receive it now! Why could he not

rise up now! Rama was standing before him. And half his strength should have

been received by him, as Valmiki indicates that the chain was still active in

its power and was preserving his vital energy. Therefore the argument that Rama

had to kill him from behind the tree due to this reason, does not hold water.

 

Right Hon'ble Srinivasa Sastriyar points to the fact that Rama did not kill Vali

during the first fight between him and Sugriva. 'I could not identify or

differentiate between the two of you,' he says. We know that Sugriva resumed

his fight with a creeper worn around his neck. When the necklace of Indra was

shining so bright on the chest of Vali, was it possible that Rama could not

differentiate between these two? There are so many interesting points of deeper

significance in the Vali episode.

 

Kamban gives seven valid reasons justifying the killing of Vali, through Rama.

Rama advances six arguments and the seventh one is put forth by Lakshmana. In

Valmiki Ramayana, only two arguments are advanced.

 

Kamban depicts the association of Sugriva as 'sarana gathi'. There was no pact

between Rama and Sugriva. There is not even a single verse that Sugriva utters

in Kamban, that assures Rama that he would assist him in the search for Sita,

until the killing of Vali. Hanuman handles the situation until then.

 

It is also not right to say that Vali turned a devotee of Rama 'suddenly.' He

had great respect for Rama much before that. That is why he scoffs at Tara when

she forewarns him about Sugriva's association with Sri Rama. He ridicules her

and says, "Nor should any anxiety be entertaind by you from the side of Sri Rama

on my account. How can Sri Rama - who knows what is right and cognizes his duty

- perpetrate sin (in the form of killing one who is innocent?" (Kishkindha

Kanda, Canto XVI, Sloka 5)

 

Here is a parallel from Kamban. ‘thambiyar alladhu thanakku vEru uyir imbarin

iladhu ena eNNi Eyndhavan’ He lives on this earth with the sole thought that his

younger brothers are his very soul. His quality is such. ‘embiyum yaanum utru

edhrindha pOrinil’ (when such being the case) in the battle between my brother

and I, ‘ambu idai thodukkumO aruLin aazhiyaan’ Do you think that such a person

**who is like the very ocean of mercy** would shoot his arrow on me?

 

I have written the Vali Episode in detail, as depicted in Valmiki Ramayana as

well as in Kamban in 65 instalments in ChennaiOnline, running to about 75 A4

size pages. This is a very vast subject that cannot be written in one mail.

But, I have my own reservations about discussing this any further, knowing the

scant respect that many have for Kamban in this list. I was deeply hurt when

people went to the extent of questioning the character of Kamban, when there is

no authentic version available on his life, especially so when Kamban has in

hundreds of verses in the Ramayana emphasised the value of character.

 

Thanks for your patience.

 

Hari Krishnan

 

 

 

-

"Balakrishnan M" <balakrsna007

<bhakti-list>

Friday, November 29, 2002 7:40 PM

Re: Ramayanam and Divya Prabhandam

 

 

| Dear Sri Ramasamy,

|

| One more reason is that nobody can kill Vali with a

| direct fight even Ravana lost to Vali as well as other

| asuras such as Dundubhi, Mayavi and etc. Vali with his

| necklace given by Indra (his father) will be able to

| get 50% of the strength of his enemy in direct fight.

|

| Because this benediction received by Vali that he

| would acquire the half the powers of his opponent in

| combat, no one could have faced and won with him in

| battle.

|

|

| Regards

| Bala.

|

[Guest guest]

dear sri balakrishna,

Invincibility of vaali(i.e VAALI GETS 50% OF THE STRENGTH

OF HIS ENEMY IN DIRECT FIGHT) due to the presence of necklace given

by indra, is not mentioned in valmiki ramayana. It appears in kamba

ramayana, i suppose. other members please correct me if i am wrong.

 

Rgds

V.Murali

> BALA KRISHNAN WROTE :

>

>

> One more reason is that nobody can kill Vali with a

> direct fight even Ravana lost to Vali as well as other

> asuras such as Dundubhi, Mayavi and etc. Vali with his

> necklace given by Indra (his father) will be able to

> get 50% of the strength of his enemy in direct fight.

>

> >

> Regards

> Bala.

>

>

>

> =====

>

> >

>

>

> New DSL Internet Access from SBC &

> http://sbc.

[Guest guest]

The necklace of Indra is very much mentioned in Valmiki Ramayana, in detail. I

have quoted chapter and verse in another mail. On the contrary, Kamban has

mentioned the presence of the neckalce just in only one verse. However, the

power of the necklace to bestow Vali with half the strength of the opponent is

not mentioned by Valmiki. That story has a different origin. Right Hon'ble

Srinivasa Sastriyar has this to say on this:

 

"You know Indra gave a gold garland to be worn by Vali always, especialy when he

went to meet teh enemy in battle. This was believed to have some mystic power

to make Vali strong and to assure him of vitory. But whether it had anything

more than that **is not mentioned by our Poet**. But somewhere else it is

narrated and Govindaraja brings it up." Sastriyar refers to the commentary of

Govindaraja, the great commentator of Valmiki Ramayana. He gives the commentary

of Govindaraja of Sloka 39, Canto 11, Kishkindha Kanda. The Sloka is this:

 

"Replying to him thus and throwing (about his neck) a chain of gold gifted (to

him) by his father, the mighty Indra, Vali stood prepared for an encounter (with

the demon), highly enraged." This sloka is part of Sugriva's narration of the

strength and special powers that Vali enjoyed. The encounter this Sloka refers

to, is the encounter between Vali and Dundubhi.

 

Srinivasa Sastriyar then points to the commentary of Govindarja on this sloka,

which, as translated by him reads thus:

 

"You will acquire all the strength of your enemy if he comes in front for

battle." It is **complete** strength that the commentator is mentioning.

However, nothing is mentioned about acquiring half the strength of the opponent.

As I have quoted in another mail, in Canto 17 of Kishkindha Kanda Valmiki speaks

vividly about the necklace. But even there nothing is mentioned about its

special powers to bestow Vali with half the strength of the opponent. Once

again, the necklace of Vali **is nothing more than a popular myth**.

 

I am surprised to see that Sri Murali associates this 'necklace story' with

Kamban. I have not come across more than a single verse, in Kamban that speaks

of the necklace. Even that verse simply says 'Vali was wearing the necklace

given by Indra' and nothing more. Kindly do tell me where in Kamba Ramayana has

it been mentioned that Vali would acquire half the power of his opponent.

Please do give reference. Let my ignorance be wiped clean.

 

Hari Krishnan

 

**If at all it is needed**, I am willing to send the two instalments that I had

written on this 'issue of necklace', to this list.

 

 

 

-

"vmkrishna26" <vmkrishna26

<bhakti-list>

Saturday, November 30, 2002 12:21 AM

Re: Ramayanam and Divya Prabhandam

 

 

| dear sri balakrishna,

| Invincibility of vaali(i.e VAALI GETS 50% OF THE STRENGTH

| OF HIS ENEMY IN DIRECT FIGHT) due to the presence of necklace given

| by indra, is not mentioned in valmiki ramayana. It appears in kamba

| ramayana, i suppose. other members please correct me if i am wrong.

|

| Rgds

| V.Murali

 

Dear SrI Hari Krishnan:

 

You are welcome to share your write-up in the list.

 

-Moderator.

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Harikrishnan,

You are right about Necklace. There is no reference about necklace theory in

Kamba Ramayanam. And moreover if VALI had that power thru the NECKLACE, he need

not have had a war for years with Dhundubi and Maayaavi. So the necklace theory

does not hold FIT.

I request you to post your "Writings" on that if Moderator permits..

We can discuss vaali vatham in detail here as it is one of the controversial

subjects.

My query on conventional statement.:

There is no reference that vaali abducted Ruma spouse of sukrivaai and vaali

does not accept that anytime. May be as sukriva ran away for life, he left Ruma

back. If we say that RAMA killed vaali as he had attached RUMA spouse of

sukrivaa, then he should have done the same to SUKRIVA as he had attached Thaara

after vaali's demise according to Valmiki. So this theory does not seem to FIT.

Regards,

Nanmaaran

 

 

 

 

Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Nanmaaran,

 

The fact that Vali coveted the wife of Sugriva is very clearly mentioned in

Kamban. The version varies from that of Valmiki here. Neither Sugriva, nor his

ambassador, Hanuman, disclose the details to Rama in the first instance - or

during the first meeting. They simply state that Sugriva needs protection from

Vali. The first meeting between Rama and Sugriva is very interesting. 'I need

your help,' says Rama. 'Kabanda told me about you. I have come to solicit your

assistance,' he says. Instead of answering Rama, Sugriva seeks redressal of his

own grievance. 'My brother is tormenting me. I need your protection,' he says

and Rama, without another word assures him of it, being the 'ocean of mercy'

that he is.

 

Afterwards, Hanuman skilfully makes all the moves, instead of Sugriva directly

handling the situation as in Valmiki. This gives the advantages of fulfilling

the requirements of 'saranagathi'. Thus, we see that it is Hanuman who suggests

that Rama be put to the test of shooting his arrow through one of the seven sal

trees. ('I am convinced of what he is capable of,' he tells Sugriva. 'Still, in

order that your faith in him is strengthened, we will ask him to perform this

feat.') We see Sugriva putting Rama through two tests of strength in Valmiki

Ramayana. 'One of these two is sufficient,' he says initially. But after Rama

does the first, he insists that Rama performs the second feat as well. This is

circumvented in Kamban's version - as a devotee who seeks saranagathi is not to

put his lord to test. And the number of test, as suggested by Hanuman, is

limited to one. And this forms the basis for the rest of the arguments that are

advanced in clearing the slur of Vali Vadham. Please note by slur I mean the

strong criticism of great commentators, not excluding Govindaraja.

 

Please also note that I do not mean to belittle the work of Valmiki. It is as

perfect as the creation of Brahma. But Kamban had the advantage of the ages, he

had studied Valmiki very closely, together with all critical studies that had

been collected over hundreds, nay, thousands of years and worked with his

material true to his calibre.

 

Coming back to Ruma. Rama, after his pledge of friendship has lunch at

Sugriva's place and notices that the feast is served by men and the wife of

Sugriva is absent. He then calls for details. Hanuman, with the nod of Sugriva

narrates him the story. 'She has been covted by him,' says Sugriva very clearly

and without any room for doubt in Valmiki's version.

 

Now, on the question of Tara. The difference lies in the fact that Ruma was

coveted when her husband was alive. Tara lived with Sugriva after the death of

Vali. This has to be read in the context of their lifestyle. The lifestyle of

Vanaras. And also, this has to be discussed with due respects to Valmiki. No

small mind could have produced such a great work as Ramayana. It is not that

Valmiki was not aware of the implications of what he depicted. It is for the

reader to read the ithihasa properly and understand it in the right context and

right sense.

 

However, Kamban shows her as leading a life of widowhood. In the famed scene of

Lakshmana going in person to question in anger about the delay in organising for

the search of Sita and encountered by Tara with "the gold string of her girdle

hanging loose and her slender frame bent low" Kamban gives a totally different

picture.

 

The angry Lakshmana is subdued by the arrival of Tara with all signs of

widowhood, because he is moved to tears. Moved to tears because he was reminded

of his mothers - Kausalya and Sumitrs (not Kaikeyi!) - who would be, thought he,

similar in all respects in appearance as widows of Dasaratha.

 

Another thing I would like to remind. There were three different versions of

Ramayana even during the period of Valmiki. Valmiki, Vasistha and Bodhayana.

The version of the Telugu poet Bhaskara is different from the original. The

version of Tulasi Das is quite different. Valmiki is considered to be more

authentic, which fact is acknowledged by Kamban. Versions differ from place to

place and country to country. The Indonesian version, we understand, is a lot

more different from what we know! Each has a superiority of its own and has to

be understood in the backdrop of times and cultural metamorphosis.

 

Now I know that there will be questions from scholars scoffing and belittling

the version of Kamban and even virulent and vituperative attacks on Kamban. I

am sorry I would not be able to answer baseless questions.

 

Regards,

 

Sincerely,

Hari Krishnan

 

 

-

"Nanmaaran" <nanmaaran

<bhakti-list>

Saturday, November 30, 2002 10:14 PM

Re: Ramayanam and Divya Prabhandam

 

 

| Dear Shri Harikrishnan,

|

| My query on conventional statement.:

| There is no reference that vaali abducted Ruma spouse of sukrivaai and vaali

does not accept that anytime. May be as sukriva ran away for life, he left Ruma

back. If we say that RAMA killed vaali as he had attached RUMA spouse of

sukrivaa, then he should have done the same to SUKRIVA as he had attached Thaara

after vaali's demise according to Valmiki. So this theory does not seem to FIT.

| Regards,

| Nanmaaran

[Guest guest]

Namo Narayana,

 

Valmiki Ramayanam is treated as an authentic work

because, Bramha himself blessed Valmiki and told him

that all that you write - 'the charitram of Rama' is

Sathyam and only Sathyam. Whatever happened is what

will be an outpour from your mouth.

This was a special blessing from Bramha. This is the

reason why our Poorvacharyas consider Valmiki Ramayana

as undisputed. I think we should not brush aside this.

 

If we believe in Ramayana and the way it all started ,

then we must accept the fact that all other Ramayanas

are but the emotional versions of the origin.

 

In no way am I trying to compare any of the versions.

It is an individual style and anubhavam that is the

beauty of any poet and all these versions only enhance

ones liking and we are lucky to be able to enjoy all

these anubhavams.

 

However, Valmiki Ramayanam(I once again iterate) is

considered the original version.I do not remember the

details now. I will look up and try and post a gist of

the origin, probably from the Krouncha pakshi episode

to the Starting of Ramayana.

Ramanuja dasi

 

 

 

--- Hari Krishnan <harikrishnan wrote:

> Dear Sri Nanmaaran,

>

> The fact that Vali coveted the wife of Sugriva is

> very clearly mentioned in Kamban. The version

> varies from that of Valmiki here. Neither Sugriva,

> nor his ambassador, Hanuman, disclose the details to

> Rama in the first instance - or during the first

> meeting. They simply state that Sugriva needs

> protection from Vali. The first meeting between

> Rama and Sugriva is very interesting. 'I need your

>

 

 

 

Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.

http://mailplus.

[Guest guest]

It would be wonderful if u could condense the

information and take the trouble to post the same.

Many members will be benefitted.

Thank u for the info and I would be glad if you could

indicate where one can pick up this book. A lot of our

members including me are not too fluent in reading and

understanding Tamil.

 

Ramanuja dasi

thanks

 

 

--- Devaraja Iyengar <devasgiri wrote:

> Dear Vaishnavaaas,

> In this connection, I would like to give a reference

> to you, (probably, most of you would have read it):

>

> "Moondru Vinaakkal" by Dr. Justice Mu. Mu. Ismail -

> Vaanathi Pathippagam, Chennai-17.

>

>

 

Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.

http://mailplus.