Bow's story -10 -

[Guest guest]

SRIMATHE RAMANUJAYA NAMAHA.

 

Two questions have been raised in the Bow’s story –10,

to which I wish to attempt some answers and expect and

accept comments / corrections / concurrence from

fellow devotees. I gather some courage to venture into

this - though I am more on the side of being

disqualified for my little knowledge of Shastras and

puranas– purely out of conviction that the aim of our

shastras and sruti is not to reveal anything outright

but to make us to delve, think, probe, discuss and

deduce.

 

The questions are

(1) In her conversation with Anasuya, sita says that

the shiva-dhanush was obtained by her father Janaka

from Varuna in a maha-yajna. Is this not contrary to

the version found elsewhere, that it was given to the

Videha king, Devaratha? Then which version is right?

(2) If sita as a 6 year old girl could move the heavy

shiva-dhanush effortlessly, why could she not protect

herself when Ravana lifted her up?

To find a convincing reply to the first question, let

us remember that cross-references and interpretations

using similar versions expressed in the same source do

help in arriving at a better understanding. In my

limited knowledge, let me quote 2 instances of such

mix-up (perceived so) in Valmiki Ramayana and how

learned persons have resolved them.

 

One occurs in Sundara khandam when Hanauman was

witnessing Ravana’s outburst against Sita when she

refused to budge. His wife Dhanyamalini pacified him

and brought him back to his palace. Later when Hanuman

recounted this incident to fellow vanaras on his

return, he said that Mandodhari pacified Ravana. This

is not seen as a mix-up nor of something to doubt the

veracity of the incident that occurred, but as a

proof that Ravana’s patta-mahishi too was present when

he visited Sita. Both Mandodhari and Dhanyamalini (who

were accompanied with scores of other wives of Ravana)

seemed to have persuaded Ravana to retire to his

place. The mention of one at one sarga and the other

at another sarga, does not negate the presence of both

at the time of incidence.

 

Another incident is that of Rama telling Sita at the

end of the war (before agni-pravesa) to go to

Lakshmana or Bharatha. This is interpreted by

pandithas, not as being derogatory (not to mean any

anartham) but only as an advice to take refuge in

them for protection, like how a mother is protected by

her sons. Suffice it to say that for umpteen number of

times it has been said in Valmiki ramayana itself that

lakshmana is like her son.

 

Based on the interpretations such as these, let us

analyse the first question. That the dhanush was given

by Rudra to Devaratha is a fact considering that more

than one instance can be cited to substantiate this

(by cross-reference). At the same time let us not

ignore the fact that Sita does not say that Varuna

gave it Devaratha, she merely says that varuna gave it

to her father Janaka (who was the son of Devaratha.)

So something exists in-between, a reference to which

may exist in some other source. But by interpretation

(like how it is done in the 2 instances quoted above),

we may be permitted to say that it was true that this

bow was given by Rudra to Devaratha and it was also

true that Varuna gave this to Janaka. It is possible

that it had gone into the hands of janaka by means of

a yajna in which the Varuna-devatha formally transfers

the bow to Janaka. That is, Janaka comes into

possession of this bow (though by now a family

property) by means of some rituals in which the

devathas pray for the bow (this is what Sita says to

Anasuya) to be given to Janaka and Varuna undertakes

the act of giving it. Thus both the information about

the possession of the bow are to be treated as facts

told by Valmiki.

 

Taking up the second question, I wish to look into two

pieces of information drawn from Valmiki Ramayana

itself.

One is that Bhagavath-sankalpam takes place only

during certain kaala-dEsha- vartha maana. The

Vishnu-veeryam was present in the Shiva-dhanush only

at the time of samhaaram of Thripura asuras (refer

previous postings of bow’s story) and not later when

the war broke out between Vishnu and shiva. Likewise,

shiva placed His veeryam in the dhanush to make it

extremely heavy only when Ravana came to lift it up.

Even otherwise it was heavy ( by some standard) is

another point. Whether it was heavy when Sita as a

little girl moved it is yet another point to ponder.

 

The question that comes to my mind here is whether

Ravana recognised Sita, when Surpanaga told him of the

story of Rama and Sita and persuaded him to avenge

them for the humiliation she suffered. Ravana didn’t

betray any remembrance of the incident at Janaka’s

court nor any knowledge about Sita’s existence. He

listened to Surpanaka as though he was hearing about

her for the first time. The reasons are easy to

understand. It was by a kind of selective amnesia that

he would not have wanted to remember Sita’s

swayamvara, where he suffered a humiliation to his

valour (in having failed to lift the bow). That

perhaps was a strong reason mentally, to wish to take

her to show how valiant he was. Because at every

occasion he was keen on showing her how valiant he was

and he lost no occasion to abuse Rama that was no

match to him . Thus the seeds of doing harm to Rama

must have been sown at Janaka’s court itself. When the

chance came he didn’t want to lose the it - however

otherwise convinced he might be about the pathi-vradha

nature of Sita. Because when he told her that he was

going to take her, he addressed her ‘varavarNinI’ – (a

term used to exemplary women who are extremely devoted

to the husband) and ridiculed Rama that he was not a

match even to his finger!!

 

Our (2nd) question is why Sita didn’t stop the

abduction by some way – (implied) say by even becoming

heavy so that Ravana would have struggled as he did

when he tried to lift the shiva-dhanush. The reasons I

can think of is the one stated above (based on

kaala-desha-vartha maana) and the stated position of

Sita that she, as pathi-vradahai (shesha here) was not

supposed to act without being ordained by her lord.

Sita at this juncture (at Aranya) was not the same as

the 6 year old at Janaka’s palace and her dharma was

different now.

 

But the core reason was stated by Sita herself as she

was being lifted by Ravana. As she was screaming the

name of Rama, she wailed why he, as protector of

dharma, had not protected her as she was being taken

away in adharmic way – why he as one who punishes the

sinners had not yet punished Ravana. Then as if by

realisation, she continued that unless one had sinned,

how could he be punished. Ravana had done the

paapa-kaaryam only then (in the process of abduction)

and it would take some time for the counter-action

(for the paapa) to take place, just as how it takes

some time for the plant to give results.

 

This is to be read along with what Rama says as his

mission to the sages who visited him in Sarabhanga

ashram (aranya khandam) pleading him to protect them

from the raakshasas. Rama confides to them that he had

undertaken vana- vasam for a personal reason

(sondha-prayOjanam). If they (sages) ask if it is not

due to pitru-vaakhya paripaalanam, Rama says it is not

so. He uses it only as a pretext to be able to come

to the forest to destroy the asuras. He further states

that he has come there only on his own volition, to

fulfil his purpose.

 

When Rama does for a purpose, so also Sita does to

further His cause. The abduction is only a pretext to

make ravana commit an offence to rama so that Rama can

rise up against him. Sita could have as well stopped

Ravana from lifting her. But that she didn’t give a

minimum physical resistance nor even a fight when

ravana lifted her, gives a different story. Had she

resisted, Ravana would not have dared to even touch

her. Because such was the curse ravana had on his

life. Valmiki says this precisely when ravana lifted

her, that mindful of the curse on his life, he held by

her hair in his left hand and her thigh in his right

hand so that her body does not touch his. This shows

that sita could have easily made Ravana burst into

pieces, if she had resisted. But that was not the

purpose for which the entire story was enacted.

 

A further proof for why Rama needed a pretext to kill

ravana can be cited as follows. We may be permitted to

ask why Rama didn’t kill him instantly in the war. He

first cuts off his heads, which however grew

immediately. I am reminded here of the adage in Tamil

‘Dharmam thalai kaakkum’ . Ravana was protected by the

numerous good deeds and the penance he had done

earlier. Then how to stop them from coming to his

rescue? I find a clue to this in the abduction drama

that unfolded after jatayu’s exit. Jatayu had fallen

on the ground and Sita sits beside him wailing about

his demise and her bad luck. It is then Ravana lifts

her up by her hair to carry her. Seeing this Brahma

deva remarks, ‘kaaryam mudindhadhu” (the job is done)

and the otherwordly entities too rejoice over this.

Yes, valmiki uses the term rejoice here. Why should

they be rejoiced when Sita were to be treated like

this ? This perhaps forms the pretext or cause for

wiping out whatever dharma that Ravana had accumulated

that would safeguard him even when he is in dire

straits. There may be connection between this rejoice

over lifting her by her hair and Ravana getting back

his head in position in the war. This act perhaps was

instrumental in getting whatever dharma that was left

to safeguard his head was successively getting

depleted every time that Rama cut off a head and

finally leaving him out of bound for protection by

dharma in his account, so that the final asthra, the

Brahmasthra was able to finish his life.

 

(PS : The instances / narratives from Valmiki

ramayana quoted in this mail are drawn from the

transliteration of the same into Tamil done by Sri

A.V. Narasimhachari published by R. Venkateswarar &

co, in the year 1926.)

 

 

- jayasree saranathan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

SRIMATHE RAMANUJAYA NAMAHA.

 

Two questions have been raised in the Bow’s story –10,

to which I wish to attempt some answers and expect and

accept comments / corrections / concurrence from

fellow devotees. I gather some courage to venture into

this - though I am more on the side of being

disqualified for my little knowledge of Shastras and

puranas– purely out of conviction that the aim of our

shastras and sruti is not to reveal anything outright

but to make us to delve, think, probe, discuss and

deduce.

 

The questions are

(1) In her conversation with Anasuya, sita says that

the shiva-dhanush was obtained by her father Janaka

from Varuna in a maha-yajna. Is this not contrary to

the version found elsewhere, that it was given to the

Videha king, Devaratha? Then which version is right?

(2) If sita as a 6 year old girl could move the heavy

shiva-dhanush effortlessly, why could she not protect

herself when Ravana lifted her up?

To find a convincing reply to the first question, let

us remember that cross-references and interpretations

using similar versions expressed in the same source do

help in arriving at a better understanding. In my

limited knowledge, let me quote 2 instances of such

mix-up (perceived so) in Valmiki Ramayana and how

learned persons have resolved them.

 

One occurs in Sundara khandam when Hanauman was

witnessing Ravana’s outburst against Sita when she

refused to budge. His wife Dhanyamalini pacified him

and brought him back to his palace. Later when Hanuman

recounted this incident to fellow vanaras on his

return, he said that Mandodhari pacified Ravana. This

is not seen as a mix-up nor of something to doubt the

veracity of the incident that occurred, but as a

proof that Ravana’s patta-mahishi too was present when

he visited Sita. Both Mandodhari and Dhanyamalini (who

were accompanied with scores of other wives of Ravana)

seemed to have persuaded Ravana to retire to his

place. The mention of one at one sarga and the other

at another sarga, does not negate the presence of both

at the time of incidence.

 

Another incident is that of Rama telling Sita at the

end of the war (before agni-pravesa) to go to

Lakshmana or Bharatha. This is interpreted by

pandithas, not as being derogatory (not to mean any

anartham) but only as an advice to take refuge in

them for protection, like how a mother is protected by

her sons. Suffice it to say that for umpteen number of

times it has been said in Valmiki ramayana itself that

lakshmana is like her son.

 

Based on the interpretations such as these, let us

analyse the first question. That the dhanush was given

by Rudra to Devaratha is a fact considering that more

than one instance can be cited to substantiate this

(by cross-reference). At the same time let us not

ignore the fact that Sita does not say that Varuna

gave it Devaratha, she merely says that varuna gave it

to her father Janaka (who was the son of Devaratha.)

So something exists in-between, a reference to which

may exist in some other source. But by interpretation

(like how it is done in the 2 instances quoted above),

we may be permitted to say that it was true that this

bow was given by Rudra to Devaratha and it was also

true that Varuna gave this to Janaka. It is possible

that it had gone into the hands of janaka by means of

a yajna in which the Varuna-devatha formally transfers

the bow to Janaka. That is, Janaka comes into

possession of this bow (though by now a family

property) by means of some rituals in which the

devathas pray for the bow (this is what Sita says to

Anasuya) to be given to Janaka and Varuna undertakes

the act of giving it. Thus both the information about

the possession of the bow are to be treated as facts

told by Valmiki.

 

Taking up the second question, I wish to look into two

pieces of information drawn from Valmiki Ramayana

itself.

One is that Bhagavath-sankalpam takes place only

during certain kaala-dEsha- vartha maana. The

Vishnu-veeryam was present in the Shiva-dhanush only

at the time of samhaaram of Thripura asuras (refer

previous postings of bow’s story) and not later when

the war broke out between Vishnu and shiva. Likewise,

shiva placed His veeryam in the dhanush to make it

extremely heavy only when Ravana came to lift it up.

Even otherwise it was heavy ( by some standard) is

another point. Whether it was heavy when Sita as a

little girl moved it is yet another point to ponder.

 

The question that comes to my mind here is whether

Ravana recognised Sita, when Surpanaga told him of the

story of Rama and Sita and persuaded him to avenge

them for the humiliation she suffered. Ravana didn’t

betray any remembrance of the incident at Janaka’s

court nor any knowledge about Sita’s existence. He

listened to Surpanaka as though he was hearing about

her for the first time. The reasons are easy to

understand. It was by a kind of selective amnesia that

he would not have wanted to remember Sita’s

swayamvara, where he suffered a humiliation to his

valour (in having failed to lift the bow). That

perhaps was a strong reason mentally, to wish to take

her to show how valiant he was. Because at every

occasion he was keen on showing her how valiant he was

and he lost no occasion to abuse Rama that was no

match to him . Thus the seeds of doing harm to Rama

must have been sown at Janaka’s court itself. When the

chance came he didn’t want to lose the it - however

otherwise convinced he might be about the pathi-vradha

nature of Sita. Because when he told her that he was

going to take her, he addressed her ‘varavarNinI’ – (a

term used to exemplary women who are extremely devoted

to the husband) and ridiculed Rama that he was not a

match even to his finger!!

 

Our (2nd) question is why Sita didn’t stop the

abduction by some way – (implied) say by even becoming

heavy so that Ravana would have struggled as he did

when he tried to lift the shiva-dhanush. The reasons I

can think of is the one stated above (based on

kaala-desha-vartha maana) and the stated position of

Sita that she, as pathi-vradahai (shesha here) was not

supposed to act without being ordained by her lord.

Sita at this juncture (at Aranya) was not the same as

the 6 year old at Janaka’s palace and her dharma was

different now.

 

But the core reason was stated by Sita herself as she

was being lifted by Ravana. As she was screaming the

name of Rama, she wailed why he, as protector of

dharma, had not protected her as she was being taken

away in adharmic way – why he as one who punishes the

sinners had not yet punished Ravana. Then as if by

realisation, she continued that unless one had sinned,

how could he be punished. Ravana had done the

paapa-kaaryam only then (in the process of abduction)

and it would take some time for the counter-action

(for the paapa) to take place, just as how it takes

some time for the plant to give results.

 

This is to be read along with what Rama says as his

mission to the sages who visited him in Sarabhanga

ashram (aranya khandam) pleading him to protect them

from the raakshasas. Rama confides to them that he had

undertaken vana- vasam for a personal reason

(sondha-prayOjanam). If they (sages) ask if it is not

due to pitru-vaakhya paripaalanam, Rama says it is not

so. He uses it only as a pretext to be able to come

to the forest to destroy the asuras. He further states

that he has come there only on his own volition, to

fulfil his purpose.

 

When Rama does for a purpose, so also Sita does to

further His cause. The abduction is only a pretext to

make ravana commit an offence to rama so that Rama can

rise up against him. Sita could have as well stopped

Ravana from lifting her. But that she didn’t give a

minimum physical resistance nor even a fight when

ravana lifted her, gives a different story. Had she

resisted, Ravana would not have dared to even touch

her. Because such was the curse ravana had on his

life. Valmiki says this precisely when ravana lifted

her, that mindful of the curse on his life, he held by

her hair in his left hand and her thigh in his right

hand so that her body does not touch his. This shows

that sita could have easily made Ravana burst into

pieces, if she had resisted. But that was not the

purpose for which the entire story was enacted.

 

A further proof for why Rama needed a pretext to kill

ravana can be cited as follows. We may be permitted to

ask why Rama didn’t kill him instantly in the war. He

first cuts off his heads, which however grew

immediately. I am reminded here of the adage in Tamil

‘Dharmam thalai kaakkum’ . Ravana was protected by the

numerous good deeds and the penance he had done

earlier. Then how to stop them from coming to his

rescue? I find a clue to this in the abduction drama

that unfolded after jatayu’s exit. Jatayu had fallen

on the ground and Sita sits beside him wailing about

his demise and her bad luck. It is then Ravana lifts

her up by her hair to carry her. Seeing this Brahma

deva remarks, ‘kaaryam mudindhadhu” (the job is done)

and the otherwordly entities too rejoice over this.

Yes, valmiki uses the term rejoice here. Why should

they be rejoiced when Sita were to be treated like

this ? This perhaps forms the pretext or cause for

wiping out whatever dharma that Ravana had accumulated

that would safeguard him even when he is in dire

straits. There may be connection between this rejoice

over lifting her by her hair and Ravana getting back

his head in position in the war. This act perhaps was

instrumental in getting whatever dharma that was left

to safeguard his head was successively getting

depleted every time that Rama cut off a head and

finally leaving him out of bound for protection by

dharma in his account, so that the final asthra, the

Brahmasthra was able to finish his life.

 

(PS : The instances / narratives from Valmiki

ramayana quoted in this mail are drawn from the

transliteration of the same into Tamil done by Sri

A.V. Narasimhachari published by R. Venkateswarar &

co, in the year 1926.)

 

 

- jayasree saranathan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

SrI:

 

Respected sri Vasudevan swami,

 

Thank you for your mail.I look forward to your

comments. Meanwhile I thought I can share some more

views.

 

This is about Brahmasthram. On the one side we see

that the brahmasthram sent by Indrajit could only tie

up HAnuman (Sundhara khandam)and on the other, we find

that Rama delayed (?)the use of it till he got

tired(?) of cutting Ravana's head. He is said to have

weighed the options of what asthra to use and then

decided to shoot the Brahmasthra. Also we see

repeatedly that Rama always applies discretion as to

what asthras to use. A blade of grass became his

asthra to punish kaakaasura, but that he waited for a

while to decide on to use brahmasthra is a point to

ponder.

 

I deduce that in the case of Hanuman (irrespective of

the curse (or boon?)(or I consider the boons and

curses only to reinforce the already pending result)

he had that he would be bound by Brahmasthra for 1

muhoortha kaalam, the Brahmasthra was powerless

against him, in view of of his being protected by

Dhrama and exalted virtues. Applying the same

yardstick, the Brahmasthra, if used earlier on RAvana

would not have have vanquished him, with some dharma

still sticking to him and protecting him. Rama seemed

to have waited for the right moment to use it.

 

A corrollary can be found in Karna's demise. Again

Karna's use of Brahmasthra on Arjuna, would not have

resulted in the demise of Arjuna even if the Lord were

not to be physically present, by the logic that arjuna

was still shielded with dharma.This may also be the

reason why the asthra could not meet the target

(Arjuna)(Dharma in the form of Krishna protected him).

Because we get to hear that these asthras are

precision-driven not by physical aiming but by some

manthras.Once shot, the asthra would certainly find

its target. But that it could not in Arjuna's case

(though by the curse that karna had)may be primarily

to do with the strength of the target and the kind of

protection that the target enjoys.

 

i wish to see you take up a write-up on Brahmasthras

as found in the two epics for better understanding for

all of us.

 

regards,

jayasree saranathan

 

--- "M.G.Vasudevan" <mgv wrote:

 

> Dear madam

> thank you for your elaborate answer by way of

> exemplary points/ comments.

>

> i always enjoy reading and learning many points from

> your mails.

>

> let me wait for few more responses [if it is coming]

> and then give my reactions on your / further points.

>

> i found a very good direction is given now.

>

> thank you once again

>

> MGVasudevan

>

>

> jasn sn [jayasartn]

> Thursday, November 25, 2004 6:20 PM

> oppiliappan;

> ;

> ramanuja

> Re: Bow's story -10 -

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

The all-new My - What will yours do?