Guest guest Posted December 3, 2004 Report Share Posted December 3, 2004 Dear srivaishNava perunthagaiyeer, my points are added at appropriate places as MGV:---- Sorry for this delay i was away at kolkata, officially. dhasan vasudevan m.g. PS: since the length is more i am replying in two parts. about Smt. jayasree's other points i will give my points later. jasn sn [jayasartn] Thursday, November 25, 2004 6:20 PM Re: Bow's story -10 JASN: Two questions have been raised in the Bow's story -10, to which I wish to attempt some answers, 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. JASN: 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? JASN: To find a convincing reply to the 1st 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. MGV: Smt.Jayasree has rightly said as "perceived so". JASN: 1. 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. MGV: -- Sargam 22 slokam 39 sundhara kandam says dhaanyamaalinee. mandhodharee says sargam 58 slokam 77 See sargam 58 slokam 76 - maithilE hanthum aarabdha: sthreebhi: haha krutham thadhaa SthreeNaam madhyaath samuthpathya thasya bhaaryaa dhuraathmana: 76 varaa mandhodharee naama thaya prathishEdhitha: here, hanumaan's describing what he has seen as raavaNan being consoled by dhaanya maalinee or mandhOdharee cannot be considered as a valid argument. For hanumaan already has demerits in estimating 'who is who' among ladies - for he mistook mandhodharee as seethaa while searching in raavaNan's antha:puram. That too, as he claims here sthreenaam madhyaath - when 'among a collection of ladies' he is bound to miscalculate who is who. So, in my opinion this point of smt jaisree does not hold water. ---MGV JASN: 2. 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. JASN: 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 to Devaratha, she merely says that varuna gave it to her father Janaka (who was the son of Devaratha.) MGV: -- Janaka is not the son of dhEvaraatha. See in baalakaandam sargam 79 slokam 6 to 13 the vamsam after dhEvaraatha is given. Dhevaraatha - bruhadhratha - mahaaveera -sudhruthi - dhrushtakethu - haya - maru - pratheendhaka - keerthiratha - dhevameeda - vibhudha - maheedhruk - keerthiraatha - mahaaroma - svarnaroma - hrasvaroma - janaka father of seethaa and kusadhvaja who is seethaa chiththappaa [uncle]. So it is a long chain in between dhevaraatha and janaka. -- MGV JASN: 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 Rudra gave this bow 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. MGV: -- Here again a point: the bow is coming from ancestors of janaka to janaka. Point 1. As said by janaka siva gave this to all gods just after he was pleased with the assured offer of the havis in the yagnaas after the dhaksha yagnam [wherein siva was not given]. So he gave the bow to all dhEvaas as per this slokam below. preethi yuktha: thu sarvEshaam dhadhou thEshaam mahaathmanaam | thath Ethath dhEvadhEvasya dhanoo rathnam mahaathmana: || 1-66-12 nyaasabhootham thadhaa nyastham asmaakam poorvajE vibhO | [meaning already given] Since the bow is already there with gods, mahaathmaa-s, which includes varuNan [can be inferred as he is one of the important persons among the conglomeration of dhEvaas]. From this we can say seethaa's giving that version in ayOdhyaa kaandam is correct. Point 2. Another version is as per parasuraama, that the bow was given to dhevaraatha which is also corroborated by janaka. For janakan claims due to continued fighting of the kings there was samvathsarE poorNE kshayam - means there, in his kingdom, prevailed draught conditions for the whole year. - re slokam 22 sargam 66 baalakaandam. So janaka did yagnam with munis as mentioned in slokam 23. As a result varunan gave rains and quiver with arrows, other dhevaas the chathuranga sena - re slokam 24. So we have to interpret that slokam of seethaa claiming 'varuNan gave' as rains and the 'ambaraththooNi' the quiver from where 'akshyaam asthram' can be had - inexhaustible supply of arrows. By considering these, there is no contradiction as such. But I would still welcome other points or references from elsewhere; [to elaborate this anasooya conversation and seethaa claiming varuNan gave bow]. --MGV JASN: 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. JASN: 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). MGV: -- This is ok. Also since soorpanakaa was the sufferer she has to be heard properly by her elder brother, whom she thinks mighty and can help her in achieving her goals [of punishing the human characters who defaced her]. At that stage he would definitely not like to exhibit he also suffered at the cause of same seethaa. JASN: 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. MGV: To a large extent, yes. JASN: When the chance came he didn't want to lose 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!! MGV: bhoothir vaa thvam varaarOhE rathir vaa svaira chaariNee || 3-46-17 Actually the addressing is 'varaarOhE', and the attribute of the addressee is a beautiful woman. This is one among the group of: varaarOhaa, mathtta kaasinee, uththamaa, vara varNinee - amara kosam - 2-4-436 [chapter 2]. Again this addressing is repeated vasoonaam vaa varaarOhE dhevathaa prathibhaasi mE | na iha gachChanthi gandharvaa na dhEvaa na cha kinnaraa: || 3-46-28 MGV: Rest we will continue in next post jasn sn [jayasartn] Thursday, November 25, 2004 6:20 PM oppiliappan; ; ramanuja Re: Bow's story -10 - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2004 Report Share Posted December 3, 2004 SRIMATHE RAMANUJAYA NAMAHA. Sri Vasudevan swamy has contradicted my earlier mail at two places and interestingly (perhaps from my point of view), those two explanations were given by the translators. They are as follows: --- "M.G.Vasudevan" <mgv wrote: > > JASN: 1. 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. > > MGV: -- Sargam 22 slokam 39 sundhara kandam says > dhaanyamaalinee. > mandhodharee says sargam 58 slokam 77 > > See sargam 58 slokam 76 - > maithilE hanthum aarabdha: sthreebhi: haha krutham > thadhaa > SthreeNaam madhyaath samuthpathya thasya bhaaryaa > dhuraathmana: 76 > varaa mandhodharee naama thaya prathishEdhitha: > > here, hanumaan's describing what he has seen as > raavaNan being consoled by dhaanya maalinee or > mandhOdharee cannot be considered as a valid > argument. For hanumaan already has demerits in > estimating 'who is who' among ladies - for he > mistook mandhodharee as seethaa while searching in > raavaNan's antha:puram. That too, as he claims here > sthreenaam madhyaath - when 'among a collection of > ladies' he is bound to miscalculate who is who. > > So, in my opinion this point of smt jaisree does not > hold water. ---MGV jasn:- Infact the sargam 22 wherein it is said that Dhanya malini pacified Ravana, is the version of the Kavi.It is as how valmiki narrates. Later in sargam 58, the narration is as how it is by Hanuman. There is a possibility that Hanuman made a 'mis calculation'. But in my opinion, if it is so, the Kavi would have mentioned that mistaking Dhanya malini for Mandodhari, Hanuman said so. Why I think in these lines is that for one who is the Pattamahishi, it is going out of her way to accompany her husband who is going to intimidate Sita. It certainly makes a difference to her personality if she had accompanied or not accompanied him. From her state of my mind and how she has viewed the abduction act of her husband from what she says on the death of Ravana, it is difficult to digest that she had accompanied Ravana to Ashoka vana on that night. But that she had, is due to her virtue to obey her husband's words and due to the fact that she could not initially believe that a man had killed him and that her doubts arose after Hanuman's visit to Sita (from her narration on Ravana's death). If she had not actually accompanied him and if Hanuman had made the mistaken understanding of the identity, Valmiki would have certainly made it known that she, as one with highest notions on the admissability of such an offence (abduction) did not accompany Ravana but Hanuman had no way of knowing that.(Mandodhari had come down from the pedastal in having accompanied him - a reason why the Kavi didnot think it fit to talk about it. If she had not accompanied him, somewhere the Kavi would have made it known that she, the virtuous who averred the abduction, said or did such and such a thing.)This perhaps was the reason why I found the information as I have given originally (that both of them had accompanied him though the mention had been made separately in two sargas) as a bracketed explanation in the Tamil translation of Sundhara khandam by Sri U.Ve. C.R. Srinivasa iyengar (1867-1936) published by The Little Flower Company in 1962. The entire translation was for the first time brought in print many years after his death, with the help of his son. Therefore the note on the two being present must have come from the original palm-leaf scripts and must have found mention as could have existed in pravachanas that came down through generations. Another point I wish to state is that Hanuman initially mistakes Mandodhari for Sita - based on rupam only. But thinking on Gunas, he convinces himself that it is not Sita. The rupam, the jewellery and other accessories of a pattamahishi used to be distinctly different from other wives. Hanuman could not have missed the differences. Another point I wish to state on this topic is that by harping on this we are actually going away from the original issue on Varuna's connection which Sri Vasudevan has clarified in this mail. Thanks to him. I brought in the above discrepancy to convince ourselves that whatever description and the difference we might perceive in Valmiki Ramayana need to be viewed as facts. Any difference is perhaps due to the Kavi's way of talking in crisp terms or to generate more interest in the reader. The second issue:- JASN wrote: When the chance came he didn't want to lose 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!! MGV: bhoothir vaa thvam varaarOhE rathir vaa svaira chaariNee || 3-46-17 Actually the addressing is 'varaarOhE', and the attribute of the addressee is a beautiful woman. This is one among the group of: varaarOhaa, mathtta kaasinee, uththamaa, vara varNinee - amara kosam - 2-4-436 [chapter 2]. Again this addressing is repeated vasoonaam vaa varaarOhE dhevathaa prathibhaasi mE | na iha gachChanthi gandharvaa na dhEvaa na cha kinnaraa: || 3-46-28 Jasn replies:- I dared to use this part , (I, with limited knowledge of Sanskrit) for substantiating further (that knowingly well that Sita would not budge, Ravana tried to intimidate her) only on reading the meaning as given by translator, Sri A.V. Narasimhachari in his 1926 edition of Ramayana. He has quoted a verse in grantha letters as pramana which says that the one whose body parts (samastha avayangaL) are hot in cold season and are cold (sukha sheethaLAm) in summer and who is extremely devoted to her husband (perhaps due to this her body temperature changes accordingly –this interpretation mine) is known as Vara varNini. Just preceding to this, Ravana tells Sita that like Urvashi, who initially refused Pururavas but later lamented for having refused him, she too would come to him voluntarily some day. So saying he addresses her as ‘VaravarNini in the next verse and tells her that Rama is no match for even his finger. Therefore fear not him and obtain me. In my opinion, the insertion of this name does not fit the context, unless otherwise Ravana is convinced that Sita can never be intimidated. This occurs in sarga 48 in Aranya khandam. >From www.valmikiramayana.net:- a.ngulyaa na samo raamo mama yuddhe sa maanuSaH | tava bhaagyen sa.mpraaptam bhajasva varavar.hNini || 3-48-19 19. anvaya/word-order: maanuSaH+saH+raamaH= [mere] human, he, that Rama; yuddhe= in war; mama+angulyaa+na+samaH= my, finger, not, equal to; varavarNini= oh, richly, colourful lady; tava+ bhaagyen + sampraaptam+bhajasva= by your, serendipity [good fortune,] chanced, you honour [me.] "He that Rama is merely a human, and in war he equals me not by my finger... oh, richly colourful lady, and I chanced here merely by your serendipity, thus you honour me [and my desire to possess you..." [Thus Ravana spoke to Seetha.] [3-48-19] Comment: 'Serendipity' is the faculty of making happy and unexpected discoveries by accident... coined by Horace Walpole [1754] after The Three Princes of Serendip [now Sri Lanka,] a fairy tale, so as a Lankan, let Ravana also say so. Ravana, the devotee is saying: yuddhe 'in war...' yasya angulyaaH samaH ko api na asti 'whose, finger, equalling, whoever, even, not, there...' yaH saH raamaH ' who, he, is Rama... or, Vishnu Himself...' maanuSaH 'humanly incarnate...' tam 'him, such a Rama...' mama bhaagyena 'by my, fortune...' sampraaptam 'let that Rama arrive [in Lanka...]' bhajasva 'him, that Rama, you hold him in honour...' "In battlefield none can match that Rama even by his little finger, for He is none other Vishnu, and such a Vishnu chanced here in the human incarnation as Rama, and let fortune betide me and let that Rama arrive in my Lanka, and you be instrumental to his arrival, then you may hold that Rama in high honour... for all this first you come with me..." Maheshvara Tiirtha. Jasn:- In the above version, VaravarNini is meant as ‘richly, colourful’. The meaning as given by Sri A.V. naradsimhachar has already been furnished by me. Note that the direct reading of ‘sampraaptam bhajasva varavarNini’ seems to fall in line with the explanation given by Sri A.V.Narasimhachari. I leave it to the pundits to clarify. PS: My mail attempting to answer the two questions was not meant to offend any one. That mail addresses the two questions raised in the bow’s story –10 and attempts to find answers. Regards, Jayasree saranathan Jazz up your holiday email with celebrity designs. Learn more. http://celebrity.mail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2004 Report Share Posted December 3, 2004 Dear srivaishNava perunthagaiyeer, my points are added at appropriate places as MGV:---- Sorry for this delay i was away at kolkata, officially. dhasan vasudevan m.g. PS: since the length is more i am replying in two parts. about Smt. jayasree's other points i will give my points later. jasn sn [jayasartn] Thursday, November 25, 2004 6:20 PM Re: Bow's story -10 JASN: Two questions have been raised in the Bow's story -10, to which I wish to attempt some answers, 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. JASN: 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? JASN: To find a convincing reply to the 1st 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. MGV: Smt.Jayasree has rightly said as "perceived so". JASN: 1. 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. MGV: -- Sargam 22 slokam 39 sundhara kandam says dhaanyamaalinee. mandhodharee says sargam 58 slokam 77 See sargam 58 slokam 76 - maithilE hanthum aarabdha: sthreebhi: haha krutham thadhaa SthreeNaam madhyaath samuthpathya thasya bhaaryaa dhuraathmana: 76 varaa mandhodharee naama thaya prathishEdhitha: here, hanumaan's describing what he has seen as raavaNan being consoled by dhaanya maalinee or mandhOdharee cannot be considered as a valid argument. For hanumaan already has demerits in estimating 'who is who' among ladies - for he mistook mandhodharee as seethaa while searching in raavaNan's antha:puram. That too, as he claims here sthreenaam madhyaath - when 'among a collection of ladies' he is bound to miscalculate who is who. So, in my opinion this point of smt jaisree does not hold water. ---MGV JASN: 2. 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. JASN: 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 to Devaratha, she merely says that varuna gave it to her father Janaka (who was the son of Devaratha.) MGV: -- Janaka is not the son of dhEvaraatha. See in baalakaandam sargam 79 slokam 6 to 13 the vamsam after dhEvaraatha is given. Dhevaraatha - bruhadhratha - mahaaveera -sudhruthi - dhrushtakethu - haya - maru - pratheendhaka - keerthiratha - dhevameeda - vibhudha - maheedhruk - keerthiraatha - mahaaroma - svarnaroma - hrasvaroma - janaka father of seethaa and kusadhvaja who is seethaa chiththappaa [uncle]. So it is a long chain in between dhevaraatha and janaka. -- MGV JASN: 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 Rudra gave this bow 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. MGV: -- Here again a point: the bow is coming from ancestors of janaka to janaka. Point 1. As said by janaka siva gave this to all gods just after he was pleased with the assured offer of the havis in the yagnaas after the dhaksha yagnam [wherein siva was not given]. So he gave the bow to all dhEvaas as per this slokam below. preethi yuktha: thu sarvEshaam dhadhou thEshaam mahaathmanaam | thath Ethath dhEvadhEvasya dhanoo rathnam mahaathmana: || 1-66-12 nyaasabhootham thadhaa nyastham asmaakam poorvajE vibhO | [meaning already given] Since the bow is already there with gods, mahaathmaa-s, which includes varuNan [can be inferred as he is one of the important persons among the conglomeration of dhEvaas]. From this we can say seethaa's giving that version in ayOdhyaa kaandam is correct. Point 2. Another version is as per parasuraama, that the bow was given to dhevaraatha which is also corroborated by janaka. For janakan claims due to continued fighting of the kings there was samvathsarE poorNE kshayam - means there, in his kingdom, prevailed draught conditions for the whole year. - re slokam 22 sargam 66 baalakaandam. So janaka did yagnam with munis as mentioned in slokam 23. As a result varunan gave rains and quiver with arrows, other dhevaas the chathuranga sena - re slokam 24. So we have to interpret that slokam of seethaa claiming 'varuNan gave' as rains and the 'ambaraththooNi' the quiver from where 'akshyaam asthram' can be had - inexhaustible supply of arrows. By considering these, there is no contradiction as such. But I would still welcome other points or references from elsewhere; [to elaborate this anasooya conversation and seethaa claiming varuNan gave bow]. --MGV JASN: 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. JASN: 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). MGV: -- This is ok. Also since soorpanakaa was the sufferer she has to be heard properly by her elder brother, whom she thinks mighty and can help her in achieving her goals [of punishing the human characters who defaced her]. At that stage he would definitely not like to exhibit he also suffered at the cause of same seethaa. JASN: 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. MGV: To a large extent, yes. JASN: When the chance came he didn't want to lose 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!! MGV: bhoothir vaa thvam varaarOhE rathir vaa svaira chaariNee || 3-46-17 Actually the addressing is 'varaarOhE', and the attribute of the addressee is a beautiful woman. This is one among the group of: varaarOhaa, mathtta kaasinee, uththamaa, vara varNinee - amara kosam - 2-4-436 [chapter 2]. Again this addressing is repeated vasoonaam vaa varaarOhE dhevathaa prathibhaasi mE | na iha gachChanthi gandharvaa na dhEvaa na cha kinnaraa: || 3-46-28 MGV: Rest we will continue in next post jasn sn [jayasartn] Thursday, November 25, 2004 6:20 PM oppiliappan; ; ramanuja Re: Bow's story -10 - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2004 Report Share Posted December 3, 2004 SRIMATHE RAMANUJAYA NAMAHA. Sri Vasudevan swamy has contradicted my earlier mail at two places and interestingly (perhaps from my point of view), those two explanations were given by the translators. They are as follows: --- "M.G.Vasudevan" <mgv wrote: > > JASN: 1. 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. > > MGV: -- Sargam 22 slokam 39 sundhara kandam says > dhaanyamaalinee. > mandhodharee says sargam 58 slokam 77 > > See sargam 58 slokam 76 - > maithilE hanthum aarabdha: sthreebhi: haha krutham > thadhaa > SthreeNaam madhyaath samuthpathya thasya bhaaryaa > dhuraathmana: 76 > varaa mandhodharee naama thaya prathishEdhitha: > > here, hanumaan's describing what he has seen as > raavaNan being consoled by dhaanya maalinee or > mandhOdharee cannot be considered as a valid > argument. For hanumaan already has demerits in > estimating 'who is who' among ladies - for he > mistook mandhodharee as seethaa while searching in > raavaNan's antha:puram. That too, as he claims here > sthreenaam madhyaath - when 'among a collection of > ladies' he is bound to miscalculate who is who. > > So, in my opinion this point of smt jaisree does not > hold water. ---MGV jasn:- Infact the sargam 22 wherein it is said that Dhanya malini pacified Ravana, is the version of the Kavi.It is as how valmiki narrates. Later in sargam 58, the narration is as how it is by Hanuman. There is a possibility that Hanuman made a 'mis calculation'. But in my opinion, if it is so, the Kavi would have mentioned that mistaking Dhanya malini for Mandodhari, Hanuman said so. Why I think in these lines is that for one who is the Pattamahishi, it is going out of her way to accompany her husband who is going to intimidate Sita. It certainly makes a difference to her personality if she had accompanied or not accompanied him. From her state of my mind and how she has viewed the abduction act of her husband from what she says on the death of Ravana, it is difficult to digest that she had accompanied Ravana to Ashoka vana on that night. But that she had, is due to her virtue to obey her husband's words and due to the fact that she could not initially believe that a man had killed him and that her doubts arose after Hanuman's visit to Sita (from her narration on Ravana's death). If she had not actually accompanied him and if Hanuman had made the mistaken understanding of the identity, Valmiki would have certainly made it known that she, as one with highest notions on the admissability of such an offence (abduction) did not accompany Ravana but Hanuman had no way of knowing that.(Mandodhari had come down from the pedastal in having accompanied him - a reason why the Kavi didnot think it fit to talk about it. If she had not accompanied him, somewhere the Kavi would have made it known that she, the virtuous who averred the abduction, said or did such and such a thing.)This perhaps was the reason why I found the information as I have given originally (that both of them had accompanied him though the mention had been made separately in two sargas) as a bracketed explanation in the Tamil translation of Sundhara khandam by Sri U.Ve. C.R. Srinivasa iyengar (1867-1936) published by The Little Flower Company in 1962. The entire translation was for the first time brought in print many years after his death, with the help of his son. Therefore the note on the two being present must have come from the original palm-leaf scripts and must have found mention as could have existed in pravachanas that came down through generations. Another point I wish to state is that Hanuman initially mistakes Mandodhari for Sita - based on rupam only. But thinking on Gunas, he convinces himself that it is not Sita. The rupam, the jewellery and other accessories of a pattamahishi used to be distinctly different from other wives. Hanuman could not have missed the differences. Another point I wish to state on this topic is that by harping on this we are actually going away from the original issue on Varuna's connection which Sri Vasudevan has clarified in this mail. Thanks to him. I brought in the above discrepancy to convince ourselves that whatever description and the difference we might perceive in Valmiki Ramayana need to be viewed as facts. Any difference is perhaps due to the Kavi's way of talking in crisp terms or to generate more interest in the reader. The second issue:- JASN wrote: When the chance came he didn't want to lose 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!! MGV: bhoothir vaa thvam varaarOhE rathir vaa svaira chaariNee || 3-46-17 Actually the addressing is 'varaarOhE', and the attribute of the addressee is a beautiful woman. This is one among the group of: varaarOhaa, mathtta kaasinee, uththamaa, vara varNinee - amara kosam - 2-4-436 [chapter 2]. Again this addressing is repeated vasoonaam vaa varaarOhE dhevathaa prathibhaasi mE | na iha gachChanthi gandharvaa na dhEvaa na cha kinnaraa: || 3-46-28 Jasn replies:- I dared to use this part , (I, with limited knowledge of Sanskrit) for substantiating further (that knowingly well that Sita would not budge, Ravana tried to intimidate her) only on reading the meaning as given by translator, Sri A.V. Narasimhachari in his 1926 edition of Ramayana. He has quoted a verse in grantha letters as pramana which says that the one whose body parts (samastha avayangaL) are hot in cold season and are cold (sukha sheethaLAm) in summer and who is extremely devoted to her husband (perhaps due to this her body temperature changes accordingly –this interpretation mine) is known as Vara varNini. Just preceding to this, Ravana tells Sita that like Urvashi, who initially refused Pururavas but later lamented for having refused him, she too would come to him voluntarily some day. So saying he addresses her as ‘VaravarNini in the next verse and tells her that Rama is no match for even his finger. Therefore fear not him and obtain me. In my opinion, the insertion of this name does not fit the context, unless otherwise Ravana is convinced that Sita can never be intimidated. This occurs in sarga 48 in Aranya khandam. >From www.valmikiramayana.net:- a.ngulyaa na samo raamo mama yuddhe sa maanuSaH | tava bhaagyen sa.mpraaptam bhajasva varavar.hNini || 3-48-19 19. anvaya/word-order: maanuSaH+saH+raamaH= [mere] human, he, that Rama; yuddhe= in war; mama+angulyaa+na+samaH= my, finger, not, equal to; varavarNini= oh, richly, colourful lady; tava+ bhaagyen + sampraaptam+bhajasva= by your, serendipity [good fortune,] chanced, you honour [me.] "He that Rama is merely a human, and in war he equals me not by my finger... oh, richly colourful lady, and I chanced here merely by your serendipity, thus you honour me [and my desire to possess you..." [Thus Ravana spoke to Seetha.] [3-48-19] Comment: 'Serendipity' is the faculty of making happy and unexpected discoveries by accident... coined by Horace Walpole [1754] after The Three Princes of Serendip [now Sri Lanka,] a fairy tale, so as a Lankan, let Ravana also say so. Ravana, the devotee is saying: yuddhe 'in war...' yasya angulyaaH samaH ko api na asti 'whose, finger, equalling, whoever, even, not, there...' yaH saH raamaH ' who, he, is Rama... or, Vishnu Himself...' maanuSaH 'humanly incarnate...' tam 'him, such a Rama...' mama bhaagyena 'by my, fortune...' sampraaptam 'let that Rama arrive [in Lanka...]' bhajasva 'him, that Rama, you hold him in honour...' "In battlefield none can match that Rama even by his little finger, for He is none other Vishnu, and such a Vishnu chanced here in the human incarnation as Rama, and let fortune betide me and let that Rama arrive in my Lanka, and you be instrumental to his arrival, then you may hold that Rama in high honour... for all this first you come with me..." Maheshvara Tiirtha. Jasn:- In the above version, VaravarNini is meant as ‘richly, colourful’. The meaning as given by Sri A.V. naradsimhachar has already been furnished by me. Note that the direct reading of ‘sampraaptam bhajasva varavarNini’ seems to fall in line with the explanation given by Sri A.V.Narasimhachari. I leave it to the pundits to clarify. PS: My mail attempting to answer the two questions was not meant to offend any one. That mail addresses the two questions raised in the bow’s story –10 and attempts to find answers. Regards, Jayasree saranathan Jazz up your holiday email with celebrity designs. Learn more. http://celebrity.mail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.